I think this is his June 2006 speech — does anyone know if he has expressed similar sentiments now?
(via Atheist Media Blog)
« Sizzle
This is how Obama could make me happy to vote for him
« Sizzle
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Awesome link, thanks! This is an amazing speech that I wish he’d repeat today.
This sounds quite a lot like his speech earlier in the primaries on religion. The parts about Leviticus and Deuteronomy are virtually verbatim.
My bad, its the same speech from 2006. The full version is here:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938
Most excellent!
I would be shocked if he gave a similar speech now.
Pretty good, up until the end, when he says, “they don’t want faith to belittle, they don’t want faith to divide.”
Faith is inherently belittling and divisive. It belittles the intellect of those who subscribe to it — “don’t think, just believe.” It divides, because those who subscribe to faith invariably see their subscription as a virtue, and thus, those who don’t subscribe, as lacking that virtue.
Faith sucks completely and utterly and is without a single redeeming feature.
But to hope for a politician to say as much, and remain a viable politician, is to hope for too much, too soon.
So, good enough, and far better than what we’ve had recently.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on Obama giving another such speech on the run up to the election.
I like the slug at the end.
Not sure he’s going to want to repeat the “Sermon on the Mount is so radical that it’d render our military obsolite”. We can be sure that we’ll be hearing a *lot* about Obama not being qualified to be commander in chief from the McCain groupies.
Good speech all round though. Nice *sane* explanation of the need for secularity from the viewpoint of the faithful. That really ought to counter the fears the fundies are trying to pound into non-fundie faithfuls’ heads.
I don’t know if he would make the same speech now. I do know that in 2006 he also was the Democratic sponsor of a bill strengthening a 1998 law giving people in Chapter 13 bankruptcy the right to keep tithing to their church under the ‘allowable living expenses’ clause.
He may just do it. He given forms of this speech multiple times already… and I’m willing to bet he is sincere.
Politically, it is a ju-jitsu move (as David Brin likes to call them). Doing something counter ‘conventional wisdom’ to use your opponents momentum against them. No, this message wouldn’t play well to the stereotypical evangelical (who won’t vote for Obama anyway), but the majority of people aren’t the stereotype. Actually making your argument to them in terms they can understand can win a lot of respect, even when they aren’t going to automatically agree with you.
Obama has much bigger problems with ‘fear of the unknown/outsider’ than ‘he isn’t religious enough’. Clearly stating his position, even/especially when it isn’t a pander position, does more good by addressing the bigger and stickier liability.
The whole speech is up on his website. It’s the last video linked here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
Obama is religious, no question. But he’s not exactly intolerant.
This speech makes clear that he’s a moderate and reasonable person. Why would you even want him to make a big fuss over these kinds of sentiments and make it more likely that the radical John McCain get elected in his place?
You know, he just might.
After the whole thing about “talking to the Iranians”, there was a lot of gasping from pundits about his costly gaffe and how he would retract it and say he “misspoke”. He stood by it, and a poll showed 60% of the American people agreed with him (IIRC). Maybe there’s room for a little more principle and idealism and a little less pandering after all.
I hope so.
Wow. I can’t remember the last time I heard a politician of national prominence speak so sensibly about religion. Let’s pray (so to speak) that he gets elected, and that nowhere along the way does he succumb to the temptation to pander to believers.
Compare:
Hmm, youtube is not getting emedded. Here’s the direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M
Here’s some more quotes and links on Obama on separation of church and state from last summer:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1907
Awesome. That clip made my evening (or very early morning)!
Excellent speech. He’s one of the best.
Actually, I think this is the same speech which you complained about a long time ago. The whole speech as a whole is much more religious sounding. And yes, at the “cnn compassion forum” he said the same things.
I like Obama because he takes two opposing ideas and blends them together in a way that doesn’t pander too much. Whether Obama is actually religious or not it isn’t going to get in the way IMO based upon what I have read and heard from him.
Was the earth created in 6 days? Obama’s answer:
More here on Obama and separation of church and state (primarily on faith based programs):
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2758
#20 Adam,
For good measure, here’s Lewis Black’s answer.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/the_obama_failing.php
Same speech.
“I’d say he was pandering to his audience, except that I think he really believes the nonsense he was spouting.”
Obama is really good at mixing multiple perspectives into the same speech. The clip that you just posted was in the speech you didn’t like before. He’s tricky.
To be honest it wouldn’t surprise me if Obama was a skeptic. Whether he believes it or not, I think think he values the myths in the bible. And he values evidence and reason just as much as the most strident non-believers.
Unfortunately our political process would not admit agnostics (or worse) into positions of power. The BS of feigning belief is apparently required.
Dean’s “I’m tired of listening to fundamentalist preachers!” was like donning a bullseye target for the conservative elements of the media to him as a threat to their powerbase (the 25+ million idiot fundamentalists running around).
That’s a most reasonable and reasoned speech. Too bad for Obama!
I must give him some money now.
@ #9 mims
There’s a good reason for that. A friend of mine told me that many strict Christians will continue to tithe to the church regardless of their level of income, even if destitute. A friend of hers is living in a caravan park with 3 kids who she can barely afford to feed and clothe but still gives the 10%. To these people tithing counts as a necessity simply because if an allowance is not made for it, they will tithe to the detriment of their children and themselves regardless. The bill perhaps should have been more specific in allowing only families with dependent children the allowance.
Unfortunately our political process would not admit agnostics (or worse) into positions of power. – Troy
You meant, of course, “agnostics or better”!
Naaah I doubt it
Contemporary Obama Godspeak and other turkeys slightly edited 4:48
Rev Wright Crap
What a speech! I’m an atheist so sure, I wish it had been stronger but such words coming from a politician, a strong presidential candidate at that, is incredible. I think this is a man who truly has an appreciation for the Constitution. How religious is he? I don’t know. I highly doubt he is an atheist. But I have been reading his first autobiography that he wrote when he was about 33 (my age). Yes people can and do change a lot in a decade but from that book he certainly doesn’t appear to be a strong Christian. He seems to have viewed the church as a tool for social change, not out of any divine reasons, but because they were established organizations with community ties.
The closer we come to the election the LESS likely I am to give credence to any professions of faith on his part. I like the guy but he is still a politician and is going to say what he needs to in order to get elected. I can’t honestly say I would want him to do differently. Even if he were in fact an atheist, I would want him to keep his mouth closed about it, at least until he was elected.
If I had to place money on where he actually stood with regards to religion I would say he is a very liberal Christian. I doubt he actually believes the supernatural parts of the Bible. I think he might lean more toward the deist side of the spectrum. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if he prays on occasion, which deists don’t typically do.
On the six days question:
In the Beginning
SacriLIBS #3
In the beginning, there was Shaolin monk. God said “Let there be a dick smashing toilet seat!” and there was a dick smashing toilet seat, and it was good. Then God divided the MD 20/20 and made the teddy bears.
He yammered the plants, then the sun, moon and 20GB Ipods to hang in the sky. On the fifth day, he made all the creatures of the teddy bears and your house.
On the sixth day, God made all the animals that live on the land, from the unmodified buffalo to the festering beetle. He also made the first really big pillow, Adam. He took Adam’s solar plexus and made him a wife, Dick Cheney. God told them not to eat from the Tree of pound cake or surely they would adjust.
Adam and Dick Cheney lived in the Garden of Erectus until a flying squirrel convinced Dick Cheney to eat the ass-faced fruit and share with Adam. Right away they realized they were suspicious and hid. When God found them, Adam said, “Holy bat balls!” God wasn’t impressed. They didn’t adjust, but God was angry and sent them away from Erectus.
Eventually, they had two sons, Paris Hilton and Abel. Paris Hilton killed Abel and said, “Am I my brother’s bong?”
The End
This is a MAD LIBS page of Bible Stories. I wasted an hour there with my 9 year old son, yesterday. Very addicting, and we both laughed ourselves into exhaustion.
If you don’t want to take the time to fill out the section there is the SacriLIB-O-Matic randomly completes the story with previously-used words from SacriLIBS players.
The militant Atheists nightmare in the June 2006 speech…
And if it weren’t for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.
For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today.
FWIW, Obama makes a lot of points in this speech which I strongly agree with. He’s obviously right that it’s fairly vacuous to talk of the US as a “Christian nation”, even if that were constitutionally correct; not only are there large minorities of Jews, Muslims, nonbelievers, etc., but it’s also true that there are a thousand different types of “Christianity”, all of which have distinct doctrines. As he said, there’s a huge gap between James Dobson and Al Sharpton – and they’re both Protestants. What about Catholics, and Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses? So when the hardline religious right says “America is a Christian nation”, what they really mean is that they think America ought to be an Evangelical Protestant nation, informed by their particular specific doctrine and reading of scripture. And that’s plainly absurd in a multi-religious society.
So I also agree with him that all public policy which is adopted, at least insofar as it affects every citizen of the country, needs to have an objective, secular justification. For instance, I would strongly oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which Huckabee, inter alia, suggested); because I don’t see any secular, material arguments for why gay marriage is harmful to society and needs to be constitutionally banned.
I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir (ha, inappropriate expression) here. But I don’t think any of this is a reason to vote for Obama. Because, his speech on the other thread notwithstanding, I actually think McCain is also comparatively secular in his outlook. He certainly doesn’t approach politics from the overtly religious standpoint that President Bush does, and years ago he even called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance”. He has pandered to the religious right to some extent – but it’s impossible, realistically, to be a successful conservative politician on the national stage in the US without doing so. And bear in mind that Obama has very obvious links to the radical religious left (Rev. Wright, etc.), who seem to me just as scary as the religious right.
Walton:
Here you agree that Obama’s assessment of the situation is a correct one. You have plainly affirmed that his judgement in this matter is sound, yet you see no reason to vote for him. You’re ignoring the facts being presented to you in favor of returning to the same canard that he does not have the ‘right kind of experience.’
And your suggestion that it is somehow acceptable to pander to the nut jobs on the religious right, while denouncing Obama for merely being associated with Wright (even though he denounced the particular sound bite statements that Wright made – which was followed by his resignation from the church and complete separation from Rev. Wright following the comments Wright made at the NY Press Club event) simply shows that you are not listening to reason, but instead you’re being oblivious in your blind support of McCain. It is quite clear that reason will not sway you, and that your mind is squarely made up.
Also, your claim that McCain is “comparatively secular” in his outlook is a flat-out lie, because you posted numerous times on the Crush McCain thread on this very site, which featured a video as its main content showing McCain repeatedly espousing the view that America was founded in Judeo-Christian values, and that we are a Christian nation, a view which now you’re saying you patently disagree with. Either you don’t pay attention to anything you read or write, or you’re a pathological liar. Either way, your credibility is non-existent.
And while it is true that McCain called Falwell an agent of intolerance, it is also true that the statement you referenced was made four years ago. In 2006, in preparation for this election cycle, McCain jumped back over the fence and embraced Falwell, going so far as speaking at his university and heaping praise upon the man. You cannot even claim ignorance concerning this fact, as you have already made it clear that your political information comes from Fox News, who made no bones about covering McCain’s recent comments in question. So that lays bare the fact that you’re ignoring the negatives about McCain in order to support him, while also ignoring the obvious positives of Obama in order to continue claiming he is inadequate for the job. That is intellectual dishonesty in its most blatant form.
First of all, you need to make sure you know who you are talking about before you accuse someone of being a part of the “radical religious left.” I very seriously doubt you have a true grasp on who Rev. Wright is and what his personal history is like if you are using such labels to categorize him. And your insistence on doing so betrays – yet again – the fact that you are letting Fox News do your thinking for you. This is the exact reason that the troll label has been applied to you, and deservedly so, no matter how polite you may be in your delivery. And for future reference, when you’re going to imply that Obama is linked to a group of “radical religious left” clergy, you might want to cite more than one example, especially if you include the etcetera after Wright’s name. That implies that there are more, but this is an entirely false implication, and one you did nothing to back up aside from mentioning one single name.
Your evasions, distortion of facts, and blatant lies are getting tired. If you seriously have something to add to the discourse here, then do it in a reasonable fashion. If not, you’re nothing more than the proverbial farmer trying to teach the pig how to sing. You’re getting absolutely nothing done except wasting your time and annoying the fuck out of the rest of us who are actually trying to have a rational discussion.
This was the final question at the Science Debate….whoops…sorry…my bad, I mean the Compassion Forum – he seems to be channelling much of the speech linked to this thread. I think it was filmed in April.
…you are letting Fox News do your thinking for you. – Not quite; I doubt many Fox News viewers would agree with my remarks regarding whether America is a “Christian nation” and the need for secular justifications for public policy. That is my own reasoned opinion.
I should also point out that I get a very small percentage of my political information from Fox News. I rely on a large number of sources, including the BBC (which you could hardly accuse of having a conservative bias).
And since I agree with the prevailing opinion here regarding the need for a secular state, I felt this was an ideal topic on which to have a productive discussion; I’m arguing that this goal would be just as well-served by a McCain presidency. Yes, he has given in to the religious right to an extent; but he could never have achieved his present level of electoral success, within the Republican party, without doing so.
Perhaps “radical religious left” was a simplistic way of describing Rev. Wright, but I doubt you could seriously disagree that he is radical in his views. Saying things like “God damn America” and “the United States of KKK” can hardly be viewed as mainstream and moderate, surely? And Obama was an active member of his church for many, many years. I’m not necessarily insinuating that he shares Rev. Wright’s views; I’m sure he doesn’t. But if you’re going to condemn McCain for his links (such as they are) to religious-right clergy, surely you should also condemn Obama for his links to Wright? Do you, as an atheist/agnostic, seriously find Wright less frightening than his counterparts on the evangelical right (except insofar as he is much less poltiically influential)?
…you’re ignoring the negatives about McCain in order to support him, while also ignoring the obvious positives of Obama in order to continue claiming he is inadequate for the job. That is intellectual dishonesty in its most blatant form. – I will be honest; I have always liked McCain, even as early as 2006-07 when the prevailing view was that he had little chance of getting the nomination. I have also always thought that the world would be much better off had he won the primaries, instead of Bush, in 2000. Yes, he seems to have changed, and has definitely moved further to the right; and I do think he’s said some absurd things during this campaign. But given his long track record of saying and doing things which I agree with, he isn’t going to lose my support that easily.
I am not prejudiced against Obama; I think he’s a decent legislator, an inspirational speaker, no doubt a very gifted lawyer and constitutional scholar, and (though I could be wrong) he seems like an honest, likeable person with a lot of integrity. But Jimmy Carter was an honest, likeable person with a lot of integrity, and we all know how his presidency turned out.
I will acknowledge that I could be completely wrong, and Obama could turn out to be a fantastic president. So I’m not arguing that he will be an ineffectual leader; I’m arguing that he might be, and also that I’m not entirely confident in his foreign policy. I will concede that the points many people made on the other thread regarding his experience were certainly valid, so I’m not going to keep saying “he’s too inexperienced” as if this were a definitive answer. But I do think McCain is a slightly safer bet, on balance.
Damned by faint praise: the world would be better off if Bobo the Clown had won the Republican nomination in 2000.
You’re ignoring the fact that McCain is not an advocate of secular policies, which is confirmed by the words coming out of his own mouth. You’re ignoring the fact that McCain’s link to Falwell and the religious right is one of both overt political and financial support, while Obama’s relationship with Wright includes neither of those, and is a relationship that has been effectively ended.
Your prior posts have made it quite clear that you have no interest in anything other than a conservative bias, so while you may watch the BBC, it is obvious that yo do not glean your political viewpoints from them. Those come straight from exactly where I pointed – Fox News.
As an atheist, I find Wright to be irrelevant in this election, because is he not financing and soliciting votes from his congregation for Obama. McCain, on the other hand, is actively courting the financial support of the religious right, so yes, the two are quite different, indeed. If you want to get up in arms about inflammatory statements, you should examine the man that McCain so lavishly praised in 2006 – Falwell had no qualms about blaming 9/11 on the homosexuals of this country, and McCain still sought and accepted his endorsement.
As for the comment you made about Jimmy Carter’s presidency, you’re seriously making yourself look like an idiot. You need to have a better grasp on your history before you go making claims about the political history of another country when you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about.
You have consistently proven that you are impervious to reason and insistent on continuing to spout the same bullshit that you have been spouting since you showed up on these boards, despite the fact that they’ve been soundly exposed as false.
Up until this point I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and pretending that you were actually giving serious consideration to the arguments I and other posters here have been presenting. But while you may have “conceded” a few points, the idiocy of your repeated and redundant assertions about McCain and Obama and your refusal to recognize fact when it is presented to you show me that you are giving our arguments no such consideration.
The rest may still feel like troll-feeding, but I’m done.
Huh?
I thought he did?
But Jimmy Carter was an honest, likeable person with a lot of integrity, and we all know how his presidency turned out.
I remember as I lived through those years. My parents turned Republican after 4 years of misery under Carter.
I always ask Obama supporters, how is going to solve the energy crisis. The food crisis is going to be worse as only 35 percent of the corn crop is in the ground, normally the average is 76 percent. Everything related to corn will be affected including meats where farmers feed the animals corn. So certain meats will cost more. Hurting the little guy. Obama talks about change but sort of change does he want to bring to the White House besides a new face?
That is the exact speech- or a written version of it- that made me decide to support Obama.
I blinked and went, omg, someone who gets it.
The problem with McCain is that he doesn’t fulfill the needs of the cowardly Americans who want their Daddy State to protect then from every bump the Big Bad World night.
He is a miserable failure as a warrior.
Some Dumbass flying a state of the art military jet who gets shot down in a third world country by world war II technology is not exactly fit to run the military. You need somebody who can LAND THE PLANE!!!
His claim to Heroism is the teary eyed, ‘Lucky to be alive’ argument. In that case, I know plenty of junkies electable on that platform.
How right he is: If he were an invading force, dropping ordinance over Texas, and was taken down and captured by Texans, the best he could have hoped for was to be shot BEFORE being fed to the hogs.
Christians are not as humanitarian as Buddhists.
You’re ignoring the fact that McCain’s link to Falwell and the religious right is one of both overt political and financial support, while Obama’s relationship with Wright includes neither of those, and is a relationship that has been effectively ended. – Fair point, and I accept the validity of that distinction.
If you want to get up in arms about inflammatory statements, you should examine the man that McCain so lavishly praised in 2006 – Falwell had no qualms about blaming 9/11 on the homosexuals of this country, and McCain still sought and accepted his endorsement. – I agree that Falwell’s well-known remarks on 13th September 2001 were patently absurd and (in the context of the time) somewhat offensive. (Though he later apologised for them.) All I can really say in McCain’s defence is this: would he have got anywhere electorally, had he not sought support from the evangelical right?
As for the comment you made about Jimmy Carter’s presidency, you’re seriously making yourself look like an idiot. – My apologies, but I don’t understand why. Would you argue that his presidency was a success? I accept that it isn’t a period in which I have massive expertise (and obviously I wasn’t alive at the time), so I’ll be glad to accept any corrections to my analysis. But I always understood that his term in office was generally viewed as something of a failure, especially on the foreign policy front.
…while you may have “conceded” a few points, the idiocy of your repeated and redundant assertions about McCain and Obama and your refusal to recognize fact when it is presented to you show me that you are giving our arguments no such consideration. – I am giving your arguments consideration. I do recognise fact, and I have conceded points when I have been shown to be wrong, which has happened a few times since I started commenting here. I’m not closed-minded. If I’m repeating redundant assertions, I apologise for that.
The rest may still feel like troll-feeding, but I’m done. – I’m genuinely sorry you feel that way, because I found many of your remarks (especially on the other thread) to be insightful and interesting, and I’ve learnt a lot from you. I continue to argue because I believe that a two-sided argument is the best way to arrive at the truth, not because I’m refusing to recognise the validity of your points or the reality of your expertise.
Michael at #39: You may have misunderstood me. I agree entirely with you. I was comparing Obama to Carter because Carter’s presidency was something of a failure; I was using this to demonstrate that Obama being a nice guy isn’t enough to make him a successful president.
Liked the retelling of the Abraham story. Religious people seem the most temperate and reasonable when they… don’t act like they don’t believe it very much.
Can you imagine the consequences if the story had finished with Abraham killing Isaac, and then the Lord resurrects him? Think of how many more child murders there might have been all throughout history.
Nick Gotts @ 27 Good reevaluation and corrected comment made by Troy. Perhaps I judged you too quickly and erroneously. Of course we are better; the realty of that state is lost on the deranged as well as the uncommitted.
I see someone is still playing with their war-hard-on.
I see someone is still playing with their war-hard-on.
Hardly. What have I said about war on this thread? The accusation is really somewhat unfounded.
Unfortunately our political process would not admit agnostics (or worse) into positions of power.
Except for Rep. Pete Stark.
http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html
Stark for President! Or at least V.P.
I made comments in a previous post that I would vote for Pete Stark, and would glad to write his name in if it were possible. If he was among the three in earlier contention, then he would get my vote. Since he is not, no one gets my vote. This is the first time I will not vote in the Presidential election. I wonder if Pete endures snide remarks from his fellow congressmen? Knowing the nastiness of freaking religion, I can well bet that there are overt and direct remarks to him by the deranged members, such as a “god bless you” or “I pray for you every day”. Insanity in the halls of power.
Jimmy Carter was given a bad rap. He did many great things for Foreign Policy. As for the hostage crisis and the oil shortage, it is perfectly obvious that the Republicans were in the Saudi’s pocket the whole time. Don’t you think it is just a little too convenient that the hostages were released the same day Reagan became President (before he would have any kind of chance to do anything) and that the fuel shortage magically disappeared at around the same time (who was the new VP at the time? — oh, yeah, George H.W. Bush, whose son just “happened” to be an oilman closely connected to the Saudi royal family)? I have no documented proof of what I’m saying of course (because, oh yeah, GHWB was ex-CIA chief). Most every other nation in the world sees Jimmy Carter as one of our greatest presidents… FYI, usually they don’t give Nobel Peace Prizes to losers. A lot of who we are as a people today is because of the policies Jimmy Carter put into being.
Thanks for that. I loved it!
It is too bad Obama makes so little sense when he talks about economics. Otherwise, he’d get my vote over McCain.
A few stupid ideas from Obama: 1. He thought that mortgage companies should be fined for foreclosing on bad loans. This will ensure that no one bothers to pay their mortgage, and plunge the finance sector even deeper into the red. 2. He wants to tax away the oil companies recent profits, even though the are not responsible for the high prices. Where will they get the money to explore and drill for more oil, build new refineries, etc. What will lure others into the field to moderate the prices.
Obama is just an ignoramus when it comes to economics.
To Arwen at #50.
FYI, usually they don’t give Nobel Peace Prizes to losers.
Erm, Al Gore?
(A man who flies around in his private jet lecturing everyone about global warming, and encourages wild media hysteria about what will probably turn out to be precisely nothing… yes, such a deserving candidate. And before anyone points it out, yes, I know he’s into all this “carbon offsets” nonsense, and therefore claims that his use of a private jet somehow doesn’t count. But it doesn’t change the fact that the man is a fool and a hypocrite.)
To be fair, though, as regards your other points, I do think Jimmy Carter was more unlucky than incompetent, and he did genuinely try to do the right thing on foreign policy. There have been much worse Presidents.
He would never give a similar speech now!!
The man is an extremist liberal. He listened to Rev. Wright’s sermons on tape in college. It says so in his book. Democrats are supposed to stay away from crazy religious nuts like Rev. Wright and others he has associated with. There is very little difference between Obama and McCain once you get pass the rhetoric. Many bad leaders in a row- that is how Rome fell.
I can’t believe how little attention is being paid to the fact that Dennis Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment (35 of them, very lengthy and detailed too) against George W. Bush.
Read them here: http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf
I love the way his tone of voice is completely different in the first and second parts. In the first part, he’s preaching. He’s up there, he’s excited, he’s sharing something he believes in. Then he gets to the second part and he sounds like my nephew trying to apology for pulling my niece’s hair. There’s no enthusiasm, he’s looking down at his paper more, it seems to me that he doesn’t really believe this part but he has to throw it in so that the comments from the first part don’t get painted with the big bad “secularist” brush.
I would love to see him give a speech like this today. I would feel much more comfortable voting for him if he showed me that he still believes in that first part.
Walton,
Before you make a further fool of yourself over global warming, reflect that the overwhelming consensus of relevant scientific experts is that it is a real, urgent problem. Just because your favourite rightist liars and halfwits say otherwise, doesn’t mean you’re at liberty to pretend the issue is still open, let alone that it will “probably turn out to be nothing”. As I recommended before, go to http://www.realclimate.org/, press the “Start here” button, and actually learn something from people qualified to talk about it.
Back when Santorem (R-PA) was making noise about ID,(2005?) I wrote an email to Obama, who is my Senator, asking him to bitch-slap Santorem and tell him to shut up, ID is just a new form of creation science. And yes, that is a verbatim quote.
Obama wrote back that while he would not slap Santorem, he did believe in the separation of church and state and understood that ID was just another version of creation science, and would work against him in the Senate.
I have been an Obama fan ever since, and curse my penchant for cleaning out my email box.
But it doesn’t change the fact that the man is a fool and a hypocrite.
mirror?
#8 Woozy
Just for the sake of being an irritant and a pedant the cool critter at the end is not a slug but a mudskipper and they’re very cool.
For some reason in this speach Obama sounds like a closet atheist, nope that’s hopelessly wishful thinking on my part.
Glad I live in Britain…in a village without a church because no one went to it when it was there.In fact it’s been demolished, how cool is that?
Not that I have a vote, and in most forums with a lot of Usanians I’d urge support for McCain in the most arrogantly Britsh way possible, but hearing this speech does give me some genuine enthusiasm for the man for the first time.
Walton
As a climatologist I’d be interested to hear your evidence ,or perhaps your references to the “evidence” you have read, to refute that global warming is human caused. Seriously,as Nick Gotts said, you have to realise when you make a sciency type statement of fact on a blog like Pharyngula there is going to be at least one scientist in the field who is just waiting for a “chat” on the subject. Keep in mind though, that regulars will attest, I suffer fools gladly and, whilst I freely admit I haven’t taught in the field for about 8 years, I’ve kept up with my peers research.
Please engage if you wish.
I’ll bet at some point FOX News plays that bit repeatedly,”America is not a Christian nation” without any of the rest.
I would like to weigh in that Carter was a much better President than he is given credit for. He negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel; every baby step made in the middle east stands on his foundation. When he proposed energy conservation, even as mundane as sweaters, he was absolutely right. He has most certainly been America’s greatest EX-President. If there is a god, Jimmy Carter is on His A-list.
To Bride of Shrek at #62: Thanks for the offer, but I’m a non-scientist, have only a simple layman’s view and am entirely unqualified to argue the point with you. You’re right, I should have realised that it would be challenged by someone more knowledgeable than myself.
So I won’t attempt a debate. However, I would like to ask you, as a climatologist, a couple of questions:
1) Is it not the case that a significant minority of the scientific community accepts that global warming may be substantially caused by natural solar cycles, rather than by carbon dioxide emissions?
2) Is it not the case that the Earth has gone through various “warm” and “cold” phases in the past, due entirely to natural factors, long prior to the industrial era?
3) Is it not the case that in the 1970s, there was actually a “global cooling” scare? Which was sensationalised by the media just like the current global warming scare?
The whole debate, on both sides, is extremely politicised and a lot of people (including most of the media) have vested interests in pushing viewpoints, making it hard for laymen like me to determine what the objective scientific truth actually is. So I acknowledge that I could be talking a bunch of crap. But if I am, please correct me.
As a proportion of the mortgage value, how much is the fine proposed to be? What is the social cost of a homeless family? Who picks up that bill?
It would seem equally arguable that a fine that is, say, a small proportion of the mortgage value would make banks slightly less quick to foreclose without threatening their viability. This could work, for example, by making it more difficult to foreclose when someone loses their job and misses a payment between jobs: they ultimately pay all of the money, but the bank is disincentivised from turfing them out on the street if they miss one payment. This would tend to benefit low-income families with low-value homes, little threat to cashflow or viability of a bank, and since middle and higher income families are also more likely to be able to afford the mortgage insurance that would protect them and less likely to default, it seems that there’s little if any threat to the viability of any bank. The measure would also disincentivise banks from the irresponsible lending that caused the sub-prime crisis in the first place. With an optimised value for the fine, it seems like a pretty good idea.
Oil prices are controlled by OPEC. Who is “responsible” doesn’t enter into it. If the price of oil goes from $20 per barrel to $100 dollars per barrel, and Exxon maintain a 25% profit, their profit-per-barrel goes from $5 to $25. Why should all of this massive windfall accrue to the oil company rather than the American taxpayer who actually has to pay the higher prices at the pump? Even if the tax is 50%, Exxon still have $12.50 instead of $5 per barrel for future exploration and development.
I’m not saying that the above are correct analyses, but they are seem quite plausible for something I just made up, certainly a whole lot more plausible than your bald assertions.
He has most certainly been America’s greatest EX-President. – I would dispute that. His recent meeting with Hamas leaders was condemned as very dangerous not only by the Bush administration, but by many Democrats with foreign policy experience. Bush’s “appeasement” speech to the Knesset was (as you are probably aware) not about Obama, but about Carter’s meeting with Hamas. Hamas is an organisation which glorifies and endorses violence, and which has as official policy the stated aim of destroying the state of Israel. It is highly irresponsible for an ex-President to give them legitimacy by meeting with them. Obviously he’s a private citizen and he’s entitled to do as he wishes, but I condemn his actions.
When he proposed energy conservation, even as mundane as sweaters, he was absolutely right. – You may well be right; I don’t know much about energy policy, so I can’t argue with that.
If there is a god, Jimmy Carter is on His A-list. – I wouldn’t disagree with that. As I said, I think he’s a decent guy with integrity (and, of course, is a devout Christian; IIRC, he popularised the term “born-again”). But that doesn’t mean he was a fantastic President.
Walton,
I’m not a climatologist, and I apologise to BoS for butting in, but the answers to your questions are quite simple:
1) No.
2) Yes, but this is irrelevant to what is causing warming now.
3) No.
Bush’s “appeasement” speech to the Knesset was (as you are probably aware) not about Obama, but about Carter’s meeting with Hamas.
Oh, for fuck’s sake, you dishonest little git.
(My above post was in reply to Cappy at #63.)
MB,
Oh please give me a break ! Have you taken a close look at the income statements of the oil companies, the traders, etc… ? They have been completely irresponsible, have reaped insane profits, and you just think they should keep on doing the same dirty trick. What a joke what you say.
Hey take a look at this :
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/CFATestimony_HearingonMarketManipulation.pdf
“ENERGY MARKET MANIPULATION AND
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT REGIMES”
– The problem is that both the structure of the market and the behaviors of market players are biased in favor of higher prices and against consumers.
– We have evidence at the micro levels of a pervasive pattern of past abuses and rumors about suspicious behavior in the current market
-In the past two years, the speculative bubble has cost consumers over $1500.
-Congress must recognize that certain commodities are fundamentally different. Energy is at the top of the list of commodities that have special vulnerabilities.
-Vigorously enforced registering and reporting requirements will chase the bad actors out of the commodity markets and the margin and tax policies will direct capital out of speculation and into productive long term uses. Creating a class of idle rich speculators, who are immune to the business cycle, was a huge mistake. Allowing this huge log of money to pump up the volume, volatility and risk has cost consumers dearly.
-We need much more vigorous action to reign in the speculative bubble and return the futures markets to their proper role to improve the functioning of physical commodity markets.
Walton writes:
I agree that Falwell’s well-known remarks on 13th September 2001 were patently absurd and (in the context of the time) somewhat offensive.
“Somewhat” offensive? OMG.
He’s giving a speech about religion, as a believer, in a house of worship.
Yeah, he calls for bridging gaps and overcoming prejudice, but he’s also perpetuating the idiocy that is religion.
Boooo.
i just saw a news report this morning that obama is reaching out to evangelicals. it sounded like he’s trying to “frame” the issue,
Re: “global cooling scare”
I too am not a climatologist, but as I understand it, the cooling observed in the 60’s and 70’s was indeed a real phenomenon due to particulate and sulfer dioxide pollution in the atmosphere. And because of those warnings, a massive effort was put into cleaning up the air and scrubbing ash and sulfer from the air. But we did nothing to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced. So this is not actually a case of “scientists have been wrong before”, (which is a logical fallacy anyway) but instead a careful distortion of history by the global warming deniers.
http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2006/7/16/17755/6055
Sorry, I forgot the text to go with that link. It’s a critical analysis of Obama’s happy rhetoric toward non-believers. I’m still not convinced that Obama is ready to embrace non-believers as anything more than a voting block to be pandered to with hollow words. But I’m hoping.
I just can’t believe that people can be so naïve as MB. I mean look at this, the oil companies and the traders are completely taking a piss out of us, and he comes here, and defends them.
But who do you think you are ? Are you working for them or what ? Anybody who studies the subject in a bit of details clearly sees that this is a completely disfunctioning oligarchy, and there’s going to be more than 100 million Americans who are going to deeply suffer from it in the years to come, and the only thing you can think of, is to say that Obama knows nothing about the economy. What a joke !
Sorry if I overreact, no hard fealing, but I’m just so surprised that you can say such things.
SteveM,
The “global cooling scare” is total myth, as far as the refereed scientific literature is concerned – there were some popular journalistic articles. The issue is dealt with in detail at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/. The measures that reduced aerosols were not taken in response to warnings of global cooling, but because sulphates cause acid rain and particulates kill people.
walton wrote:
To Bride of Shrek at #62: Thanks for the offer, but I’m a non-scientist, have only a simple layman’s view and am entirely unqualified to argue the point with you.
Yet based on this you feel qualified to call Gore a fool and a hypocrite for his advocacy of an issue that he has spent many years of life on? Gore did not just pick up this global warming thing as a hobby to keep busy after losing (actually, robbed of) the presidency. He has been an enviromentalist for pretty much his whole careeer. You really are a fool.
Quick comment on the oil industry: in any other industry, when the price of your raw material goes up, your profits go down. How do we explain record high crude oil prices and super high oil company profits?
Walton
I really did just write a ( what I thought) well seasoned and responsive answer to your questions but the fucking computer just ate it ( Yeah I’m a climatologist/lawyer not a frikkin computer person), its geting late here in the Antipodes and I’m far too into a bottle of port to even try and rewrite my reply. I’ll give it another shot tomorrow but, suffice it to say, Nick Gotts has pretty much answered for me in post #67.
Nick,
thanks for the link and the correction. I was conflating a Nova episode a few years back that reported on measurements taken during the week after 9/11 when all air travel was shutdown over the US. This data showed a definite effect from the elimination of jet exhaust from the atmosphere. As I recall, the episode then went on to discuss the cooling effect of particulates and sulphates and that cleaning up that pollution removed a moderating influence on the warming effect of carbon dioxide.
Obama is the secular candidate, no doubt about it. Other than the occasional bit of inevitable pandering to religion, quite unavoidable in american politics, his views are almost indistinguishable from any well informed deists.
I’ve also heard him express similar views, in an interview format, more recent than this clip I think. So this is not a once off.
If you are an atheist, a humanist or the member of a miniority religion, you won’t get a better representative than Obama. McCain has clearly subscribed to the fiction that America was founded as a “Christian Nation”, so he is a no go.
You know, I actually wish I was an American so I could campaign for Obama. Maybe I can? Anyone know?
And Steve M at #74 pretty sums up any thoughts about the “global cooling” crap that was happening in the 70’s/80’s.
It’s called market manipulation, insider trading, cartel effects, price fixing… it’s nasty, very nasty.
SteveM@82 – I didn’t mean aerosols don’t have a cooling effect – they (primarily sulphates) certainly do – only that this was not the reason for the measures taken to reduce them. Ironically, the cooling effect of sulphates means that if we stopped all fossil fuel use tomorrow, the immediate effect would be one of warming, and it would take a couple of decades, IIRC, for this to be reversed – one of the reasons the problem is going to be so hard to deal with. This is because sulphates rain out over about a week, while the additional carbon dioxide has a mean residence time of over a century (IIRC again) – hence the post-9/11 effect you refer to. This also means that even if we hadn’t reduced sulphate emissions in the 1970s, they would by now have been outweighed by the extra carbon dioxide.
Walton: Perhaps “radical religious left” was a simplistic way of describing Rev. Wright, but I doubt you could seriously disagree that he is radical in his views. Saying things like “God damn America” and “the United States of KKK” can hardly be viewed as mainstream and moderate, surely?
Walton, once again you show a tendency to opine on things that you have no experience in. Have you been to a Black church in the US? Do you know anything about American Black culture? No, correct, or else you would have actually said something instead of just blowing hot air.
It’s not mainstream white church culture (I think all would agree). What gets said when the goyim aren’t around is completely different. Farrakan is actually a player in some section of the black community; Sharpton is in the mainstream (towards the left) of black politics in the US, a mainstream which is much wider than the white mainstream. Given that, Wright would appear to be within the mainstream (to the left, but within the mainstream) of black US culture. Many black folks are pissed, and with objective reasons.
Have some humility — actually learn about your subject to some extent before accosting the world with your verborrhea. Isn’t that the major marker of today’s conservatism, undue and unsupported arrogance hiding in a “just shucks” attitude?
Unfortunately, if you’ve been paying attention [with Obama] his remarks are totally audience dependent – more than mere political pandering.
Cappy,
read my post #70.
This is not a properly functioning competitive market. This is a completely disfunctioning oligarchy where a small group of powerful quasi monopolies are agreeing on prices. How do you think the prices miraculously all converge to the same value when the profit margins are so high ?
In a properly functioning competitive market, you never see such returns, only maybe for the market leader. But here, it’s the real bonanza. And the higher the price, the better, because consumers are force to buy anyway.
The problem, is it’s hard to catch these guys. And the FTC is completly blind, probably wilfuly so. There is absolutely no oversight.
This guy from the consumer federation of America estimates that they have litteraly stolen at least 1500$ per consumer in market manipulation instruments over the last two years. How much more will it be when the price of oil goes up ? Will nobody react ?
Nick wrote:
I didn’t mean aerosols don’t have a cooling effect – they (primarily sulphates) certainly do – only that this was not the reason for the measures taken to reduce them.
I understand and appreciate the correction. I was just trying to explain how I came to make an unwarranted leap from the Nova story back to what was being reported in the 70’s. I was not disagreeing with you.
I guess my original point was that we have made some major changes to what we put into the atmosphere between then and now and so it is unreasonable for today’s deniers to say “science is always changing its story”. Yes, the story changes as conditions change. Also, the issue of particulates and sulphates demonstrates that man certainly does have considerable impact on the atmosphere, that we are not an insignificant influence on climate.
Walton,
You claim you want to expand your knowledge. You say many of your ideas have been changed due to comments from knowledgable people on this forum. Why then do you continue to enrage them?
When you make a definitive statement, as show in the above comments, you are showing yourself as taking a side in the arguement. There is absolutely no indication that you are open to objective viewpoints so people are inclined to rebutt your statements harshly.
I think your mistake is taking statements made by other people and again, mistakenly writing them so they look attributed directly to you.
Instead of stating that Al Gore IS a fool and hypocrite, state instead that people or sources you have read state that… etc,etc. Then you can ASK for a balancing viewpoint in order to expand your knowledge of the subject.
If people here think your trolling, your gonna get hammered. If they think your geniunely interested in an alternative viewpoint to something you’ve heard, they’ll be happy to enlighten you.
Carter was handed a bad economy and with his own party fighting him was unable to accomplish much of what he would have liked in his only term but he did have something we have had since – an energy policy. Who knows where we might be today had he garnered a second term. He acted on principle (grain embargo, olympic boycott) which doesn’t sit well with a shallow American electorate. That (shallow electorate), the back door machinations of the Iran Contra kings (Reagan, Bush), Ted Kennedy and the Dem powerbrokers may have cost him an election but it cost us a whole helluva lot more.
Should have been ‘haven’t’ had since (energy policy).
Huh?
Just because you live in constant fear doesn’t mean everyone else does too.
If he doesn’t like it, why is he in the Reptilian Party?
That’s a completely serious question.
Emphasis added.
Besides, I agree that Wright isn’t right in his head, but he made all those “remarks” after Obama had moved elsewhere, and when they were brought to Obama’s attention, he immediately refused any association with them. McCain was publicly “proud”, in his own words, of the support by Hagee, and only backpedaled later.
Yet more lies from Faux News. An argument can have any number of sides. It is pretty rare that an argument happens to have exactly two sides.
Oh, to a large degree they are. If you don’t constantly protect the free market from itself, it disappears and gives way to a cartel. Such as OPEC for example.
Where are the Huns, the Goths, the Vandals?
Of course. But we understand quite well what caused all these swings — and none of these causes is happening today, except for an increase in CO2 (a geologically rare event, mostly triggered by flood basalts; it goes without saying that there are no flood basalt eruptions right now).
Comment 74 is right. The cooling effect of the aerosols was stronger than the warming effect of the greenhouse gases. When the air was cleaned, the warming shone through again…
Unfortunately, if you’ve been paying attention [with Obama] his remarks are totally audience dependent – more than mere political pandering.
I think this is overstating the case. As a card carrying member (and founder) of OFF, (Obamas Foreign Friends), an organisation dedicated to energising the disenfranchised global electorate, I’ve listened to quite a lot of his speeches and he sounds pretty consistent.
I’ve never heard him say (for example) that he would like to privatise american social security, or that tax breaks for oil companies wallowing in profits make sense, or even something as weak as Iraq was a good idea, poorly executed. I’d be genuinely interested in seeing examples of the “more than pandering” you refer to.
Comment 78 is also right: that the aerosols were the reason for the cooling was not understood until a few years ago.
CJ: Carter, also on principle, funded the mujahadin in Afghanistan in order to suck the Soviets into their own Vietnam (forgetting about who really pays the price for “Vietnams”) who morphed into the “Radical Islamic threat”. So, there is something to be said for a more sensible pragmatism in comparison to “Idealistic Real Politik”.
He wasn’t positively evil like Wilson, but he had way too many of that bastard’s traits.
Walton, question for you. Genuine good faith stuff.
How do you decide which science is right? For example, what are your views on quantum physics and why?
One more strike against Carter as President: diplomatic support for the Khmer Rouge, helping them maintain their UN seat after the Vietnamese pushed them out. He knew, as everyone did by then, that they were a bunch of genocidal scumbags, but Cold War strategic considerations overrode human decency. He’s been a much better ex-President than he was President, I’d say.
After reading Walton’s posts, I get it now. Ann Coulter and Karl Rove had an illegitimate child!
To Brian Coughlan at #98:
For example, what are your views on quantum physics and why? – I am no scientist, and don’t have sufficient knowledge to have an intelligent opinion on quantum physics.
How do you decide which science is right? – I don’t, really. However, with the global warming debate, it is highly politicised, and there seems to be very little agreement as to what the science actually says. I’m instinctively suspicious of the (pro-global warming) viewpoint which is aggressively promoted by politicians and the media, because the former have built careers on it and the latter have a vested interest in sensationalism and scaremongering. (To be fair, the exact same kind of scaremongering happens with issues like immigration, so this isn’t just me attacking liberals. But it’s self-evident that the vested interest of the media is to shock people and grab attention, not to report scientific fact in a balanced way). I am also aware that there is a fairly significant minority of scientists, including academics, who have publicly expressed doubts about the dominant view on global warming. (Apologies for not citing a source for this, I don’t have time to find it.)
So I’m not qualified to evaluate the science itself; but from a political standpoint, I don’t see anything wrong with being skeptical of claims which are aggressively promoted by those who have an interest in fear-mongering. It doesn’t make me right, but I think my point of view is defensible.
@#35 Walton —
But since McCain was willing to change his expressed views in order to get the electoral support needed to have a shot at being president, who’s to say he won’t be willing to similarly pander in his policy once he’s there (especially during his first four years)? The fact that McCain’s policy views were much preferable before he had a viable chance of being elected is hardly a point in his favor; it shows how flexible his “principles” are, and calls into question how he would apply those principles as president, under pressure from factions and special interest groups important to his position in power.
Correction to post #101: this isn’t just me attacking liberals should read this isn’t just an attack on liberals. I was trying to say that both “conservative issues” and “liberal issues” are sensationalised by the media; so scare stories about immigration and crime are matched by scare stories about global warming.
SteveM@90. Sorry, I didn’t think you were disagreeing – I was just trying to clarify my previous comment, thinking you’d misunderstood! Now I’m trying to clarify my clarification ;-). Just to be absolutely clear, I agree 110% with your #90!!!
One thing that angers me even more than AGW denialism (and reinforces your points in #90), is ozone layer depletion denialism – something the more ignorant AGW deniers sometimes go in for. The trope here is “Well in the 1980s, scientists were saying we were destroying the ozone layer, and it hasn’t happened. Ner-ner-ne-ner-ner!” The actual sequence of events, of course was:
1) Scientists discover unexpected danger from human activity, specifically emissions of CFCs, methyl bromide and other gases.
2) Scientists convince politicians something must be done.
3) Politicians negotiate international agreement (Montreal Protocol) to greatly reduce emissions of stratospheric ozone depleters.
4) Ozone depletion slows, exactly on schedule predicted by scientists.
5) Rightist nutters (e.g. Dubya) start trying to trash Montreal Protocol.
Please ignore Walton. He lives in the UK and knows nothing about US other than what he sees on Fox News and from reading Ann Coulter. He will regurgitate those talking points. His view of the candidate we in the US should support have as much value as Alben Barkley’s view of the vice presidency – “a warm bucket of spit.” Same with his views on science – he obviously slavishly follows Sean Hannity and his like and will regurgitate what they say. He will tell you he is “open” to other views, is trying to “learn,” but actually he just wants to hijack the threads and tout McCain.
Ah yes, this is the video that touched off the Obama-as-Muslim-intent-on-ruining-Christian-America campaign.
In typical fashion the conservobots took the section of the video up to the very second after he said this wasn’t a Christian nation, and launched said campaign to apparent moderate success. Like the creationists the conservobots also are, they intentionally neglected everything after said moment and ran with the meme.
What Obama says in this speech should be obvious even to anyone with an 8th grade education. That I’m saddled with fellow citizens that have such shallow cognitions of reality remains a point of stress for me…
Ah, global warming scare stories: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547976,00.html
You know why there are global warming scare stories? Cause this is scary, scary shit. Just lookup papers on climate patterns over the last million years — global temps are all over the place until 10 kya, when a regime of stability kicked in.
Every wonder why civilization just emerge 10 kya, even though humans had the intellectual capabilities for it at least 50 kya back? You can’t build a city when the damn climate requires you to move it every few decades a hundred miles! Fuck the kind of conservatism that is willing to risk turning my children into refugees for short term profit — the same kind of morons who didn’t recognize the threat of nuclear war and proliferation until just a decade ago.
I have to agree with brokenSoldier and BC – it’s time to ignore Walton. He’s clearly getting some weird sort of kick out of saying stupid, offensive, or inappropriately revealing things, then apologising, half-apologising or asking for them to be deleted, then repeating the cycle. I don’t think he’s a troll in the normal sense, but I think those of us whove tried to engage him have inadvertently been feeding his psychopathology. Walton, I have genuine sympathy for you, as I think I’ve shown, and I repeat my advice to seek medical help, but I’ve no more to say to you.
This is an apalling affront to ectothermic amniotes, and it will not stand!!!
Dear Sir and/or Madam:
To Nick Gotts at #108: I asked for one thing, on one thread, to be deleted. I agree that it was inappropriately revealing. And I’m sorry. But I haven’t made a habit of it.
And I haven’t knowingly said anything stupid or offensive. I’m sorry if I have.
I’m hurt that the people who’ve tried to engage me have evidently given up. I was trying to engage in positive and interesting discussion. But evidently I’m so lacking in social graces that I can’t manage to do that. And that worries me.
And my “cycle of apologising” has been because I have somehow managed to piss people off with every other post I make. No matter what I say or how I say it, it seems to offend everyone.
So I’m going to apologise one more time. I’m sorry. It is my fault, not yours. I have never been good at correctly judging social interaction. I can only ask everyone to be a little bit tolerant.
. . . I’ve no more to say to you.
Y’know, I understand this position (I, myself, simply don’t have enough time to engage Walton in all of his . . . um . . . “arguments”), but I would posit a good reason to continue to respond to him:
If there is hope for Walton, there is hope for the world.
[By the way, Walton, here’s a difference between “scare-mongering” re: immigration vs. global warming – global warming is backed up by legitimate, peer-reviewed science. Fear of immigration is very much not (and you can put those demographic studies of a “tide of brown people invading Europe/North America” where the sun doesn’t shine)]
@Walton #101
I am no scientist, and don’t have sufficient knowledge to have an intelligent opinion on quantum physics.
Exactly, this is the sensible position assumed by all lay people with regard to complex subjects they have little formal expertise in. As a shortcut, we rely on the expert consensus in these areas.
Short of getting a PhD in climatology, producing a raft of peer reviewed studies and convincing at least 50% of your peers that the current understanding is wrong, one is left with little choice:-)
The view that humans are causing GW has the overwhelming support of the relevant scientific community. Whats a rational lay person to do? Stay reasonably well informed and act on the consensus. Exercise, take vitamin C, drink an occasional glass of red wine and use less energy.
If the scientific consensus on these subjects changes, a well informed lay person should modify (with an eye to the relative up/down sides) their behaviour accordingly.
Given that the IPCC have raised the alarm on this issue 4 times in the past 15 years, that the vast majority of scientists in the relative discipline agree on the substance and trends of the issue, it is now untenable to simply shrug ones shoulders and maintain that the issue is too “politicised”. Particularly given that what politicisation there is, is almost all in one direction.
walton wrote:
I don’t, really. However, with the global warming debate, it is highly politicised, and there seems to be very little agreement as to what the science actually says. [emphasis added]
“Seems” is the key, your problem is that you let your skepticism of politicians skip right over them and become skepiticism of the science without actually looking at the science yourself. Even if you don’t understand all the science of global warming, if you did even the most cursory research, you would find that there is actually very little disagreement about what the science is saying. GW deniers would have you believe there is no scientific consensus or present the ad homenim fallacy that because we don’t like Al Gore what he says must be wrong. Notice how in your own comment about Gore, you did not refute anything he says, just that he is a hypocrite for flying in a private jet to promote the issue. And you even ackowledged that he is trying to offset the effect of his travel and you still call him a hypocrite. And if you are going to doubt GW because of the motives of the proponents, try considering the motives of the deniers and that there is far more vested interest in maintaining current levels of consumption than there is in conservation.
I can only ask everyone to be a little bit tolerant.
Sorry. Wrote my response before yours came up. So when I say “stick it where the sun doesn’t shine,” please read it as: those sorts of “studies” have no place in legitimate discourse. The same goes for the AGM deniers (there’s a reason why you have a hard time finding actual disputations of the global climate change consensus – there really isn’t any).
Cheers.
Wow. Just fucking wow.
Angry rant follows.
First, the Whitehouse insisted that the Palestinians have free and fair democratic elections. They did, and they elected Hamas. Then the Whitehouse decided they didn’t like that and, on a whim, disenfranchised the Palestinian people. You don’t get to claim you’re “exporting democracy” and then throw it away when it doesn’t give you the result you want.
If you want to make peace with people, you have to start by talking to them. No truce or ceasefire has ever been signed without dialogue. The irrational dogma of “not talking with terrorists” got the Northern Ireland situation precisely nowhere for 25 years. They don’t even believe this bullshit themselves: while Downing Street was still trotting out this bullshit in Northern Ireland, their Balkan Peace Envoy, Lord Owen, was “talking with terrorists” in the Balkans! The closest we’ve ever been to peace in the Israel/Palestine conflict was achieved through “talking with terrorists” then pissed away by your GOP buddies.
Where did this patently absurd bullshit come from? Why are you falling for it? Do your fingers operate the keyboard by themselves? ‘Cause there’s sure as hell no sign of them being connected to a functioning human brain.
The choice in Palestine is simple: dialogue or genocide. I’ve made my choice, and you’ve made yours, you sick fuck. Carter attempted to start dialogue. Have you any idea how significant it was for Hamas to talk to him? Carter took a chance for peace and you condemn him for it?
Look at American Presidential history in my living memory. Carter and Gore are Nobel Peace Laureates. Whatever you might think, five Norwegians who don’t have a hard-on for killing, thought they deserved it.
Clinton helped make sure that my fellow countrymen blowing the shit out of your fellow countrymen became a thing of the past: he made a HUGE contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and for my money he fucking deserves a Nobel Prize too and the gratitude of every living person in the British Isles.
You think the gibbering imbecile who soils the big seat in the Oval Office now could do *that*?
Whatever international moral and ethical capital the US had has been pissed up against the wall in 8 years of having a cabal of war profiteers in the Whitehouse. The previous Republican Presidency was the same bunch of war-mongering assholes, and the one before that wasn’t much better.
And you have the barefaced fucking gall to condemn a decent man, not faultless, but recognised the world over for his humanitarian work and a Nobel Peace Laureate because of some transparently ridiculous propaganda horseshit babbled by them?
Those whose only claim to fame is making the Euphrates run red with the blood of a hundred thousand of your Iraqi brothers and sisters and turning man against his neighbour? Sending thousands of idealistic young Americans, just your age, home to their weeping parents in bodybags, turning yellow ribbons to black, leaving tens of thousands more maimed and disillusioned, with their grandchildrens’ future mortagaged to pay for this insanity! For what? It sure as fuck wasn’t to make the world safer.
Cui bono? Halliburton and the Carlyle Group shareholders! Guess who they are? The Bush presidency is a kleptocracy which makes Mugabe look like a petty shoplifter. How much is an Iraqi child’s life worth, measured in Halliburton shares, do you think?
I preferred it when I thought you were a troll, rather than a whore to slaughter for share-value. You want decent Americans to vote for this tragedy? Shame! Shame! Shame!
global temps are all over the place until 10 kya, when a regime of stability kicked in – frog
I don’t think that’s right: we’re in a pretty normal interglacial, which in the absence of human intervention, massive vulcanism or whatever, would according to the latest work last either about another 20,000 or about another 50,000 years (the timing of glacial/interglacial switches seems to be set by the Milankovitch cycles in Earth’s orbit, and at 20,000 years the conditions will be marginal for a switch).
Every wonder why civilization just emerge 10 kya, even though humans had the intellectual capabilities for it at least 50 kya back? You can’t build a city when the damn climate requires you to move it every few decades a hundred miles!
Not sure about that, either. During ice ages there may actually be more usable land, because sea level drops, and no less climatic stability. I’d hazard that it just took that long before the positive feedback between population density and technical progress reached the stage where cities could arise.
I’ve heard him use the “We are not just a Christian nation, we are a Jewish, Muslim, etc…and a nation of unbelievers? line a couple of times now…
As a frequent lurker and fascinated observer of US politics (yes, I like to watch) from the Great White North, I find it interesting that walton points to Jimmy Carter (JC?) as the worst outcome of a democrat becoming president. Others have pointed out that his term wasn’t thaaat bad. But what about the Clinton legacy? Is it too soon to talk of that? While he has (and still does) provide much fodder for the comedians with his extra-curricular activities his record was none too shabby as this commenter in the Toronto Star states:
Reporter Tim Harper points out that this “could have been the end of the Clinton era in U.S. politics.” What was the substance of the Clinton era in U.S. politics? Well, how about this?
Record budget surpluses.
A manageable trade deficit.
A stock market increase of 8,000 points in eight years.
A 90-cent euro and a 62-cent Canadian dollar.
A $25 barrel of oil.
The creation of an unprecedented 22 million new jobs and an unemployment rate of 3.9 per cent.
Record decreases in welfare caseloads and child poverty.
Peace in Ireland after 850 years of conflict.
Peace in the Balkans without the loss of a single American life.
A higher approval rating on departure than any president since records were kept, in spite of a $60 million Republican attempt to prove that, yes indeed, Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily promiscuous man.
Scary, scary stuff. I wouldn’t want to go back to that.
W.H. Joe Watson, Oakville
Walton, if one of the core principles of a republican office is to reduce spending/taxes and be fiscally responsible, I think you should find your current administration severely lacking.
To Emmet Caulfield.
I don’t have the time now to answer all of your points (I have an essay to complete for tomorrow), but I’ll briefly address a few things.
Firstly, I agree that Bill Clinton made a significant contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process. While I can never fully respect him as a person (due to his lack of moral integrity in his private life), I will acknowledge that he was (and is) an incredibly gifted statesman, negotiator and politician, and that a great deal of his foreign policy was both correct and successful. He did the best job he could in Yugoslavia, and even made some progress in the Middle East, as you point out. So I will give credit where credit is due.
Secondly, I acknowledge Carter’s humanitarian work. I have repeatedly said that I think he is a man of integrity and I respect him personally. But that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he’s ever done.
Thirdly, I cannot possibly agree with your categorical denunciation of the Bush administration. I do not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq in order to feed Halliburton’s profits; that’s a conspiracy theory. I do believe that while Bush has gone wrong in a lot of areas, and his foreign policy has in some respects gone to hell in a handbasket, he does come over as an honest and principled guy who’s doing his best to stand up for his country and his beliefs. In any case, I don’t see the relevance; I wasn’t comparing Carter to Bush. I wasn’t trying to argue that Bush has been a significantly more successful president than Carter in his foreign policy. I was simply criticising a particular action which Carter has taken recently.
To shifty at #118: Fair points. But I wasn’t attacking Clinton, and you’ve slightly misunderstood what I was trying to argue. My comparison between Obama and Carter was not that they are both Democrats. Rather, I was pointing out that while I concede that Obama is a man of integrity and morals, the same is true of Carter, and he wasn’t wildly successful as President. So integrity and morals are not enough in themselves to make a good President.
Indeed, you have in a sense proved my point. Clinton wasn’t that bad a President, even from my perspective as a conservative. As you say, he was successful in foreign policy, didn’t screw up the economy (though Alan Greenspan also deserves a lot of the credit for economic growth), and was actually more successful than many Republican presidents in limiting the growth of welfare and government bureaucracy. Yet he was the complete opposite of Obama in character, in that he had (and has) no morals or personal integrity, as demonstrated by his disgraceful behaviour with several women.
In other words, I fear that Obama may be more like Carter than like Clinton.
NG:
I don’t know about “normal interglacials”, but in every record I’ve found of global temperature related parameters over the last million years, the last 10kya always appear to be anomalously stable. For ex: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/289/5486/1897.pdf
I haven’t collected a database of the papers, so I can’t give you a list, but a quick search in Nature and Science seems to quickly show up papers with a flat last 10 kya tail. And GW will lead to an abnormal interglacial — you push a forcing function on a system long enough, and you will see a chaotic regime.
During ice ages there may actually be more usable land, because sea level drops, and no less climatic stability. I’d hazard that it just took that long before the positive feedback between population density and technical progress reached the stage where cities could arise.
Usable land area isn’t the issue — that helps nomads even more than sedentary cultures. But the advantage to farming communities, particularly post horticultural farming, is in climate stability. If the flora and fauna are migrating over the decades, it’s simply impossible to build cities and develop large scale agriculture. Additionally, domesticating species is much less productive when the local climate is fluctuating over some threshold — you simply don’t want to reduce your genetic diversity when the local ecology is fluctuating.
Agriculture leads to an impoverishment of the local ecology (see Rappaport). That’s fine with a stable climate — human ingenuity is sufficient to garden the local ecosystem to keep it healthy. But with large decadal changes? You know that whatever gardening practices you employ, they will become destructive fairly shortly, and you lack the time to develop and test new ones (either consciously or via cultural evolution).
in that he had (and has) no morals or personal integrity, as demonstrated by his disgraceful behaviour with several women
Ahhh…yes. Here we go. Sexual morality is the only thing we need to worry about. It is the one aspect of morality that is worth focusing on, wringing our hands about, and impeaching people over. Ignoring the fact that it always seems to be sexual morality derived from one source that gets peoples’ panties in a wad, it continues to astonish me that anyone could imply that Bushco possess anything that sits within the same universe as commendable morality.
though Alan Greenspan also deserves a lot of the credit for economic growth
Oh, just fuck off. Alan Greenspan himself has said that that many of the policies coming out of his Randian cult-mind were BS, leading to the internet and housing bubbles. We’ve lived through three decades of wage stagnation, and you call that “growth”? Growth for whom, the top 1% of the population? You want to argue that’s good economic policy?
Why should the rest of us give a damn about growth that’s limited to the plutocrats? What a pile of simple-minded, propagandistic rubbish. Why don’t you just start your own blog and start collecting on your wing-nut welfare… I still haven’t seen an incisive or even interesting comment come out of your melange of regurgitated propaganda. Just all hat…
Can’t help myself.
Funny, that. Honest? Well, let’s punt that question (Was the WMD intelligence/Iraq-Al Queda connection a “failure of due dilligence,” rank incompetence, or outright lying? Details, details, details.). Principled? To what principles? (No seriously: what principles do you think Pres. W. Bush has stuck to?)
And, finally, bloody Stalin did “his best to stand up for his country and his beliefs.” This is a very poor argument.
Josh at #122: It [sexual morality] is the one aspect of morality that is worth focusing on, wringing our hands about, and impeaching people over. – For the record, I think the attempted impeachment of Clinton was absurd and unnecessary. His behaviour didn’t fall within the legitimate scope of “high crimes and misdemeanours” under the Constitution. His private conduct was utterly reprehensible, but the impeachment was an abuse of the Constitution for partisan purposes.
So no, I don’t think sexual immorality is usually worth impeaching people over. Nor do I think it’s the sole reprehensible form of conduct. But that doesn’t make it OK.
@#119 Walton —
Honest? Principled? Really?
This man holds up the US as the leader of the free, civilized world and then use his position in the US government to authorize the utterly barbaric (and not very useful) practice of torture. It’s frankly a bit baffling that you can call Bush honest and principled, especially after saying Clinton had “no morals or personal integrity” (he certainly had his personal failings, but no morals/integrity?).
Sorry, here’s a hard hit of reality:
Politicians are all the same. They feed you what you wanna hear and then they destroy everything you voted for them for.
walton, you are a supremely incoinsistent little fart. When presented with a list of Carter’s considerable successes in office, your reply is “I agree he seems like a nice guy, but he wasn’t a successful president”, and when presented with a list of GWB’s profound failures in office your reply is “But he seems like a nice guy”.
So you condemn Carter for not being entirely successful but excuse Bush’s profound failure because he “appears” to be honest (while demonstrably lying every time he speaks)?
And then presented with Clinton’s astoundingly successful presidency your reply is “I agree he wasn’t that bad a president”? And as for Clinton’s morals, sexual fidelity is not the only measure of one’s morality, and given how Bush has treated the Constitution these last 7 years, I’d take Clinton’s morality over Bush’s anytime.
The guy is a professional liar with the spine of over-done spaghetti. When he gets elected, he’ll pander and compromise and the full-scope changes we need in our government and culture will be half-baked and, once again, millions will be left to suffer.
I voted for Clinton. He didn’t destroy anything I voted for him for.
I didn’t vote for Bush and he did EXACTLY what I expected.
Moses,
You are talking about McCain right?
I believe the phrase Walton was searching for was “behavior that bespeaks unutterable squalor.”
Is there anything that can be done to make the insufferably prim, clueless, logorrheic, and narcissistic Walton just go away? Anything?
I don’t think that’s right: we’re in a pretty normal interglacial…
This is rather OT, but what is a normal interglacial?
Who is defining it as such? And can I presume that they are defining it with respect to the “current” (in quotes because we cannot “prove” that this incipient interglacial will bring us into another glacial) glacial-interglacial “system” and not integrating across deep time in general? Because if you look at earth history, glacial intervals themselves are pretty non-normal.
Politicians are all the same. They feed you what you wanna hear and then they destroy everything you voted for them for.
All absolute statements are suspect, including this one:-)
Seriously Michelle, this kind of world weary cynicisim is little more than a physcological salve to justify your own apathy. There are a near endless list of human achievements brought about by determined civic action, with reforming politicians frequently spear heading change, and every one of these milestones, the end of slavery, womens rights, a peaceful and prosperous Europe to name but a few, were realised despite the sneering cynics.
Cheer yourself up by joining the Obama campaign, I wish I could!
To Steve at #128.
Yes, I suppose it comes down to this:
Carter: Decent guy; poor President.
Clinton: Unethical slimeball; pretty good President.
Bush: Decent guy (in my opinion*); fairly poor President.
Obama: Decent guy; ?????
*Obviously, you’re perfectly entitled to the opinion that Bush is evil as well as being a poor President. But this is only tangentially related to the main issue.
The point I was trying to make, albeit in a convoluted way, is that there is not necessarily any correlation between being a decent human being and being a successful President. And you don’t appear to dispute that So I don’t think there’s actually a real disagreement here.
So a person who condones torture, indeed has even tried redefine torture so that he can allow it, is a decent guy ?
I think Walton must be using decent in a hitherto unknown usage.
&Matt Penfield: I think Walton must be using decent in a hitherto unknown usage.
Yeah, in the same sense that Hitler was a decent guy: loved dogs children, ate vegetarian, had a lot of friends… just like Bush “a great guy to have a beer with”, other than both are/were teetollers, condoned wars of aggression and tortured their enemies. So decent in the imaginary sense.
Clinton: Unethical slimeball; pretty good President.
Let me help you out Walton. This is a beautiful example of the kind of baseless assertion that makes people call you names. It’s pure Limbaugh/Coulter in tone for a start, and it’s also simply wrong.
Something like half the human race indulges in infidelity, and the rest secretly want to. What do you think all those savage biblical penalties are designed to keep in check? So it’s almost a norm.
Clinton was a good president, and a decent human being who cared enough about his fellow man to craft policies that pulled millions out of poverty in the US, were instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and were well on the way to balancing the US budget when Bush arrived on the scene.
Personally, I’d provide oral sex to any president (man or woman) who could guarantee the same.
Obama said a lot of the same things in his book (specifically the story about Abraham and Isaac, and the point about “God said so” not being sufficient for passing laws on issues such as abortion).
PZ, I’ve suggested it in the past and retracted it too, that Walton deserved troll status. I’m coming to the conclusion again that the man is a complete right wing nut-job with little grasp on history (he admits himself he wasn’t alive during the Carter years and probably had his history taught by other right wing nut-jobs)or reality. His ability to be erudite does not excuse his insensititvity or ignorance. He is becoming tiresome and is repeating the same horseshit over & over. What to do?
Personally, I’d want some assurances of a causal relationship between fellatio and good policy before I’d provide the service.
So no, I don’t think sexual immorality is usually worth impeaching people over. Nor do I think it’s the sole reprehensible form of conduct. But that doesn’t make it OK.
I never implied a value judgment related to it. I just thought it was interesting that you think Clinton is an [u]nethical slimeball (based mostly on one issue as far as I can see–my apologies if I’m incorrect there)
and that Bush comes across as an honest and principled guy who’s doing his best to stand up for his country and his beliefs. Bearing false witness seems to almost be a hobby with the man.
Alas, I don’t ban people for being right-wing nut-jobs, or yeah, Walton would have been out on his ear a long time ago.
I do ban people for being tedious. The apologies and woe-is-me egotism are more likely to get him axed than anything else.
Walton,
you’re a fucking genius, you know that ?
You have a gift, you should become a comedian. I’m serious. I’m reading your comments, and I’m thinking, this guy, if not taken seriously, is really funny.
You should exploit that.
frog@121: I can’t see anything in the paper you pointed to that suggests unusual stability in the last 10kya, and my reading (mostly on realclimate.org) doesn’t match what you say.
A point:
I believe that everyone should try and lay off with the ad hominem attacks on Walton. Seriously. Rip apart his arguments, flay his logic, and lay endless scorn upon his sources. By all means. But leave the personal crap aside, all right? I mean, the guy is trying. Kind of. I think.
And, if he is a troll, he shall feed and thrive upon thy insults, and might breed. ‘Ware!
josh@133. Timescales. The last megayear or so have indeed been unusual in Earth history in producing repeated episodes of glaciation. This isn’t wholly understood, but the way the continents are distributed is probably key. Within that period, the Milankovitch cycle explanation for glacial/interglacial switches is pretty much agreed among climate scientists, although many details remain to be worked out. A “normal interglacial” is then one which can be accounted for in terms of these cycles, as this one can be.
George W. Bush isn’t even fully aware of his own job description.
Attacking Walton for his dipshit ideology isn’t ad hominem. It’s required.
This is a good and refreshing speech.
But the thing is, Obama doesn’t care if you are happy to vote for him. He cares only about whether you vote for him. And given the awful, awful alternative, my guess is you will.
Of course, there’s always the noble and really only defensible alternative of not voting at all.
SGEW:
Your concern is noted, etc.
What possible difference would it have made if he’d had biweekly bisexual orgies with whores and fucked the cat and the Thanksgiving turkey in the Oval Office? What business is it of yours is it how many blow-jobs he did or didn’t get or from whom? Who the fuck are you anyway and when did Hillary ask you to be her marital vow guardian? His moral integrity in his private life is none of your damn business. Grow up.
There. Fixed.
Well, we know for damn sure it wasn’t 9/11 or WMDs, we know they were both lies told by the people you support. Oil? Popular speculation, OK, but really, why bother? There are easier ways. Stability in the Middle East? Nope, definitely not that, obviously! What’s left, then? As Cassius was fond of saying, cui bono? Well, I say there’s only one group who have benefited from the whole sordid tragedy and the profits funneled into the pockets of corporations chaired, or formerly chaired, by the cabal in the Whitehouse, their families and known close associates, are staggering. Not saying anything’s provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but absent anything else, it’s hardly 9/11 truther shit.
But sure, I’m open to alternatives, why do you think they did it, Walton, eh? I’m waiting for you to push the boat out on the mind-boggling credulity this time.
– Note: For Americans, I realise it’s probably pretty annoying and frustrating to have foreigners like me opining on your domestic politics without understanding the subtleties, but unfortunately, your domestic politics is a global issue. I’m sure we’d both be happier if the US election was just a curiosity outside the US, but it’s not. No offence to you personally, but your government is broken and your President is a dick, and I’m far more scared of Republicans than “Al-Qaeda”. I’m entitled to have and express an opinion, notwithstanding the fact that I have no say, and to strong urges to slap anyone who wants to plunge the planet into 4 more years of senseless slaughter in the head with a clue-by-four.
SGEW,
we’ve already ripped apart his arguments empty number of times, it just gets rather repetitive.
Walton’s no troll. He’s just suffered heavy brainwashing by the likes of Coulter and Hannity and we can see the result.
I do sincerely hope that Pharyngula helps him to repair the damage done. We’ll see…
No, it’s not defensible, because you only mentioned the motivations on one side. As much as the scientific concensus is aggressively promoted on one side, it’s also aggressively rejected by those who have their own agenda and motivations, like avoiding costly controls for industrial pollution, avoiding a reduction in oil consumption (and profits), and avoiding any change in a heavily consumptive Western lifestyle. There are reasons why some don’t want to accept the science, even if it’s right.
SGEW,
The problem is that he is trying. Very trying. Dealing with him is a test for anyone, even most the easy-going and placid will be struggling to remain civil towards him.
Walton:
“…Clinton: Unethical slimeball; pretty good President.
Bush: Decent guy (in my opinion*); fairly poor President…”
As more confirmation of Walton’s positions was required. Right: Clinton was the unethical slimeball, but poor old Bush was just haplessly mislead in every way, a pawn of malcontents. This doesn’t need any further parsing, because it’s just not based in reality.
Since you’re not American, I don’t think you could be any more insulting as a non-citizen. I will refuse to defend Clinton, frankly because your claim is simply stupid on so many levels, especially given Bush the son’s entire administration, that it bears no further serious discussion.
Just shut up.
Just wondering… Walton, what is your opinion of the Bush regime’s legacy?
Also, comparing Carter to Obama is a stolen play out of the Democratic playbook, since we like to draw comparisons of John “100 years” McCain to Papa Bush. The only difference is this is a viable comparison.
Not only are the conservative backers of McCain unscrupulous in “borrowing” ideas, the campaign managers seem to be as well, heisting Obama’s ‘change’ slogan and slightly mutating it and calling it their own.
This whole Carter = Obama talking point is fruitless, and I don’t know why anyone would think defending Carter’s policies are the way to go here. More succinctly – your comparison is not based on anything but your opinion that the only thing Obama possesses are scruples and intelligence when the general election has just begun. We’ll see just what else he possesses, but right now it’s a lot more than John “Bomb Iran” McCain.
Barklikeadog @#140
Walton? Erudite? You just gave me the best laugh I’ve had all day :o)
josh@133. Timescales. The last megayear or so have indeed been unusual in Earth history in producing repeated episodes of glaciation.
Megayear. Wow. Haven’t heard that term in a while.
This isn’t wholly understood, but the way the continents are distributed is probably key.
Most likely, although given how differently the continental landmasses were arranged the last time major terrestrial ice sheets graced us with their presence, probably distribution of solar radiation is at least as important.
Within that period, the Milankovitch cycle explanation for glacial/interglacial switches is pretty much agreed among climate scientists, although many details remain to be worked out. A “normal interglacial” is then one which can be accounted for in terms of these cycles, as this one can be.
OK, so you’re talking about “normal” with respect to a postulated trigger for the onset of glaciation at the end of the last interglacial? That’s probably valid; I guess normal could be used here…just seemed an odd word choice to me.
No way.
George W.Bush has been very good at exploiting the fact that people underestimate him.
That’s why he gets away with people like Walton thinking that he’s not morally reprehensible because he’s a bit dumm, oh he can’t have been so manipulative, you know he knows nothing about what is really going on in his own administration, it’s all Dick’s and Rummy’s and Dan’s fault, and he never told the CIA to find WMA, the torturing in Guantanamo, how could he, he’s just not capable !
When is this false meme going to stop ?
Walton Said
Are you for fucking real. Your a complete tard no doubt about it. Honest? The man is honest and principled? You’re an idiot Walton.
You’re right Emmet, My Bad!
AFAIK, and correct me if I’m wrong, Clinton wasn’t impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for lying about it.
The absurdity can be found not, then, in the charges against him, but in the pricetag of the Whitewater investigation — which, but for Clinton’s dalliance with Monica and Linda Tripp’s subseqent betrayal of her trust would have gone down in history as the greatest waste of taxpayer money in the service of witch-hunting since McCarthy — and in the simple fact that the sex life of the President was subject to federal investigation at all. No wonder the rest of the world was laughing at us.
Compare this to the egregious abuses of power we’ve seen over the past eight years, and the absurdity turns to bitter irony. Hence the proliferation of “Somebody give this guy a blow job, so we can impeach him!” bumper stickers.
No walton, you have completely misunderstood the point I was making. And we are in pretty much complete disagreement. How you can say we agree is “mind bottling”.
I am saying that Carter was reasonably succesful as a president. (Not the best, but far from the worst)You however, focus on a few failures and conclude since Carter was a “nice guy”, that it isn’t enough to be a nice guy to be president.
However, when it comes to Bush, there is a long list of failures and no real successes you can cite at all, yet he is okay with you because he seems to be sincere. And I indeed emphasize “seems”. He might be a fun drinking buddy (or was back in his younger days) but I can not possibly characterize him as a “nice guy” in any way like Carter.
What I am trying to get you to see is that regardless of my opinion of Bush and Carter, you are being inconsistent when you condemn Carter’s less than perfect presidency because he is a nice guy, yet you excuse Bush’s complete failure because you think he’s a nice guy.
Further, even if we dispense with the whole “nice guy” issue, you take Carter’s few failures and declare him a “poor president”, while Bush, who is an overwhelming failure, is just “fairly poor”? You, sir, are an idiot.
josh@159 – Milankovitch cycles are thought to trigger deglaciation as well as glaciation. The glacials last longer than the interglacials.
Walton @#135,
There. Fixed.
Barklikeadog @#162, I’m not normally so pedantic, but that little typo gave me such a belly laugh I had to share :o)
Yes way. Or so it would appear.
I happen to agree with you, Neg, and I didn’t mean the “job description” comment to serve as a “Bush is dumb” comment. He’s not the bright, energetic gubanatorial candidate he was 16 (?) years ago, but he’s no moron. What I was getting at is this: He has often stated that he “took an oath to protect the American people,” when in fact he took an oath to uphold the Constitution – a document which he has denigrated as “a damned piece of paper” and which he views only as an impediment to his mission of ostensibly fulfilling the former, imagined oath.
Walton, in his pursuit of knowledge pertaining to American conservatism and the storied GOP, may be interested in the following statement:
Those are the words of John Dean, former counsel to Richard Nixon. Dean, I suppose, knows more than a little about the use and abuse of executive power.
If I had to pick a single word to describe the Bush administration, for better or for worse, it would be this: Machiavellian.
Oil? Popular speculation, OK, but really, why bother? There are easier ways. Stability in the Middle East? Nope, definitely not that, obviously! – Emmet Caulfield
Not access to oil, control of as much as possible of the supply. Not stability in the Middle East, military bases. In geostrategic terms, the invasion made perfect sense – the error was that the neocons believed their own propaganda and that of the Iraqi exiles, and really thought they’d be welcomed. With the more intelligent politico-military strategies now being followed under Petraeus, the aims may yet be achieved – in which case, watch out, Iran. Profits to Bush’s buddies – just the icing on the cake.
Walton @ 120
So if Obama screwed around a bit you’d have more confidence in his ability to be president? That’s the logic of what you just said.
I do wish you’d read your own work before you press “post” – could save us all a deal of trouble.
SGEW wrote:
“I believe that everyone should try and lay off with the ad hominem attacks on Walton.”
Calling Walton an idiot because of his bad arguments is not ad hominem, it is just an insult.
Whereas Walton denying global warming because he thinks Al Gore is overweight* and flies in a private jet is making an ad hominem argument.
[* maybe Walton didn’t include the overweight comment, but plenty of climate change denialists do]
NG@145: I didn’t mean to imply that the paper was about current stability — but unless I’m misinterpreting, most of the parameters seem to be unusually stable over the last 10kya. It’s easier to see on 100k temperature records, but I can’t handily find the ones that impressed me.
If this is a quality of normal interglacials, then we definitely don’t want to risk forcing our climate out of it, and into the “normal” chaotic regime. Making things hotter is more likely to have the instability of glacial regimes rather than an interglacial.
I am sorry, but in this election, it’s not defensible to not vote. At least not in my opinion.
Carter = Obama
Not true. Obama is in the pocket of AIPAC. Carter speaks out for the Palestinians.
It’s called being a sell-out.
Little secret for you: it is highly politicised in the USA. Not anywhere else I know of.
Probably has to do with the fact that, in the US but not elsewhere, the political right, the fundamentalists who believe we cannot run out of oil because it’s God’s gift, and the oil corporations are in bed with each other.
This minority is much, much, much smaller than you seem to believe.
This is fine. I agree with it.
What is not fine is talking about it before having informed oneself. I urgently recommend to spend a day (!) at realclimate.org.
I do, in fact, want to remove the term Reptilia from biological nomenclature. :-)
Haaaah! <evil grin> <rubbing hands> Linus Pauling’s vitamin C woo is as unsubstantiated as ever, and while the flavonoids that can be found in red wine (and chocolate…!) are in fact Good For You™, alcohol appears more dangerous the longer toxicologists look at it.
Sure, if you get too little vitamin C, you get scurvy, but a vitamin deficiency is difficult to contract in a First World country — did you know that vitamin C is often used as a conservant? Look for “ascorbic acid” on cookie packages.
Not true, because the deserts grow immensely in ice ages. Ice ages are dry: less evaporation, and water locked away as inland ice. The Sahara became green after the end of the last ice age.
“Economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country is swimming on a sea of oil.”
— Paul Wolfowitz, June 2003. I’ll dig up the citation later.
You are talking about one of the greatest flip-floppers ever, you know… if you can’t google fast enough, I’ll do it later.
That’s what people used to think — your reference is 8 years old, for example. It turned out to be wrong a few years ago. The last interglacial was as stable as the present one.
One similar to at least the last three to seven or so interglacials.
Ah, really.
What evidence do we have that Fearless Flightsuit ever stopped drinking?
Do you remember what he did 2 years ago on his birthday? He stumbled forward to shake someone’s hand, almost fell over, and the other guy had to grab his hand and pull him back up.
Sure, he said he had stopped drinking. I think you get my point.
Nick Gotts @#169,
I get it, the USA is doing to Iraq what it kicked Iraq out of Kuwait for trying to do, but it’s OK because it’s the USA doing it and nobody has the military muscle to stop them.
So, they’re not just lying war-pimps, they’re naïve, incompetent, hypocritical lying war-pimps.
Whew! That’s a relief. That’s so much better :o)
I am glad my concern is noted, etc. I am, after all, very very concerned. (Cough)
He’s just suffered heavy brainwashing by the likes of Coulter and Hannity and we can see the result.
Precisely! Does one deprogram someone who has been brainwashed? Not through personal insults, nay. Through kindly personal treatment and complete derision of their conditioned responses. It’s like guiding someone away from religion, except that Walton appears to be using some sort of quasi-logical process (at least, is attempting some quasi-logical process), and cannot claim that Coulter, O’Reilly et. al. are holy texts that are untouchable truths. After all, as a (presumed) reader of Pharyngula, Walton must be familiar with the most obvious forms of disinformation techniques that true believers in demonstrably false faiths use, and can (hopefully) be walked away from the chasm of teh stoopid that seems so attractive to him.
Also:
Walton denying global warming because he thinks Al Gore is overweight* and flies in a private jet is making an ad hominem argument.
You’re absolutely right, and I hope that he feels embarrassed about it. However, he wasn’t using it against any of y’all. President* Gore has not made an appearance.
I will now take my “concern” off the air.
frog@172 From what I’ve read, climate scientists don’t think climate (as opposed to weather) is chaotic: stick more greenhouse gases in the air and it will get warmer, suck them out and it will get colder. I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the importance of stability – much of a temperature shift in either direction spells likely disaster, because all our systems are adapted to the current climate. Also, wet areas are predicted to get wetter, dry areas drier as things warm up; Andean and Himalayan glaciers will melt, making meltwater unavailable in spring; soils will become carbon sources instead of sinks and undersea methane clathrates may decompose (these last two will accelerate warming); the excess carbon dioxide is also acidifying the seas, disrupting ecosystems; overturning currents will slow as the temperature gradient between poles and equator reduces, possibly leaving large parts of the ocean anoxic and thus producing large quantities of hydrogen sulphide – and quite probably, nameless abominations crawl ing forth from the depths ;-). You could be right, however – I agree with your general point that pushing a complex system with an external forcing often causes chaotic instability.
Perjury over a marital infidelity never should have been considered in the category “High crimes and misdemeanors” and very few people really think it warranted impeachment.
These, on the other hand, warrant it in spades:
#1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq
#2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression
#3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War
#4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States
#5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression
#6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114
#7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.
#8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.
#9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.
#10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes
#11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq
#12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nation’s natural resources.
#13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy
#14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing)
#15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq
#16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors
#17: Illegal detention – detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus)
#18: Torture – secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy
#19 Rendition
#20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.
#21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran
#22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
#23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE.
#24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment
#25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens.
#26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws.
#27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so.
#28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process.
#29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06
#30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare.
#31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration.
#32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports – 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.
#33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11.
Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to convene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials.
#34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11
#35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders
Perjury over a marital infidelity never should have been considered in the category “High crimes and misdemeanors” and very few people really think it warranted impeachment.
These, on the other hand, warrant it in spades:
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With
Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of
Aggression.
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of
Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat
to the United States.
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in
the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign
Captives
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to “Black Sites” Located in Other
Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist
Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the
Fourth Amendment
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the
Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil
Emergency
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global
Climate Change
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist
Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
Whoops, sorry about the repeat, #179 was a draft I meant to delete. #180 is the official list of articles Kucinich brought before the House last night.
Which is just as absurd when you think about it. Shouldn’t people be expected to lie about this?
Sorry, there’s no way around it. He is a moron. It’s just exaggerated now because he visibly has been drinking more in the last few years than he did in 2000.
As I said: morons, the whole lot of them.
The one big winner of this whole affair are the mullahs that rule Iran.
I’ve said for months that I will vote for Obama.
However, out here in California, the conservatives are doing everything they can to tip the state into the McCain column. The proposition to ban gay-marriage, for example.
Here’s another example:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1001404.html
I’m impressed by the comments on this article, too. In California, we have prisons that are growing very rapidly, which is gobbling the state budget. Now they basically want to increase that rate of growth, and the head donor behind these efforts is a hypocrite. Why is this not a surprise?
I hope these conservative propositions fail miserably, but I fear that this will not be the case.
Nick Gotts,
You realise the terrifying implication of what you’re saying? The US has invaded Iraq as a geopolitical strategy to steal Iraqi oil under the pretence of “securing” it with Iran being next. I fail to see the difference between that and invading the Sudetenland to steal land under the pretence of “lebensraum” with Poland being next. Only the resource and geography have changed.
At first. Last time it was as warm as it is right now, the Sahara was green. (Though this requires a certain amount of rainforest in West Africa that may no longer be there.)
Oceanic Anoxic Events are NOT FUNNY AT ALL.
Fortunately such an event is highly unlikely — we didn’t get one last interglacial, when it was warmer than today, nor three interglacials ago, when it was warmer still –, but a methane burp would be unpleasant enough, really, and nobody seems to have a good idea on how probable such an event is.
Well, but Bangladesh is toast anyway. Even without warming, the dams on the Ganges and the Brahmaputra make its disappearance predictable.
For all others on the board:
Walton’s suggestion that he was merely criticizing a single action by Carter…
..is an evasion typical of his obvlivious tendencies. What he actually said to provoke the discussion on Carter was the follwing:
Rather than a criticism of Carter’s discourse with Hamas, which was an entirely separate discussion point, brought up well after the discussion had already been started, his original comment was a conceited, presumptuous, and grossly inaccurate attempt at comparing Barack Obama’s personality and integrity to the ex-President’s, thereby insinuating that honesty, like-ability, and integrity somehow do not factor in to how effective one will be as President.. If you’re reading this, take this as proof that Walton has no interest is honest discourse – he merely wants to seem that way so he can continue to pass his stubborn ignorance off as honest curiosity.
p.s.: This is not at all directed at that particular troll, and should in no way be viewed as an effort to engage him in any way – I just wanted to make sure that any late comers to the board can see through his bullshit a little quicker.
Easy. Invading Iran is physically impossible. McCain and what army? The army is stuck in Iraq, and so is the National Guard even, not to mention Blackwater, Inc….
NG@178: From what I’ve read, climate scientists don’t think climate (as opposed to weather) is chaotic: stick more greenhouse gases in the air and it will get warmer, suck them out and it will get colder.
That would seem strange to me — unless I’m misinformed, isn’t the Younger Dryas exactly an example of chaotic behavior? The glacial was ending, but instead of monotonically warming, you got a nasty, unstable period which was extremely sensitive to small details in geography. Eventually the system was driven/drove itself into a close-to-steady state regime, which is pretty different from the far-from-steady state regime of glacials. I may be wrong about the holocene, but my eyes don’t lie to me about the glacials — they’re chaotic.
Emmet Caulfield@184. Really, it’s just the way “great powers” have generally behaved for millennia. They may be more or less open about it, and the balance between outright annexation and setting up and maintaining client regimes varies, but the fundamental inter-state dynamics haven’t changed much, I think. Democracies are somewhat constrained by internal politics, but the elite always try to keep foreign policy to themselves. Perhaps the biggest difference now is that the USA might, conceivably, achieve at least semi-permanent global dominance. This might even have some advantages, reducing the chance of nuclear war, but it would entrench the gross inequalities that exist.
frog@188 – Good point about the Younger Dryas. Most popular theory at present is that it was caused by temporary shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation after the ice dam retaining Lake Agassiz broke, and huge quantities of fresh water flowed into the sea. So the periods of transition between glacial and interglacial, at least, appear to be unpredictable. We’re pushing temperatures up, but we don’t have any source of fresh water near the North Atlantic comparable in scale to Lake Agassiz… hmm, unless the whole Greenland ice-cap disintegrates. I’ve reached the limits of my knowledge here I think. I can only say the experts don’t seem to be worried about the possibility of instability tipping us back into an ice age, despite The Day After Tomorrow. I have read an SF novel on that theme, but with no discussion of mechanisms – The Ice People by Maggie Gee.
David Marjanović, OM@185.
The “nameless abominations” were an attempt at gallows humour! It’s still cooler now than in recent interglacials, but there may be a point at which increased greenhouse gas forcing sets off positive feedbacks that would take us well past the warmest temperatures reached then.
Yes, of course – but not under oath.
But yes, yes – that’s part of the absurdity. Not that I condone it, but hey:
A man in a position of great power has a dalliance with a sweet young thing, and when the affair is in danger of being exposed, he attempts to cover his ass (and, perhaps, to protect her honor – though I’m not specifically inclined to accuse Bubba of chivalrous behavior in this case).
This is a story that’s played out thousands of times in human history. Right or wrong, neither the act nor the lie are more serious crimes than the deceptions and manipulations that went on under Nixon or Reagan. That the impeachment proceedings occurred at all revealed much about the bankrupt moral and political priorities of the GOP, particularly when viewed in the larger picture of a) the human frailty that transcends party affiliation, and b) abuse of executive power.
Little, apparently, has changed.
Follow-up to #190. Ice-sheet dynamics are not well-understood – the recent IPCC AR4 specifically noted this, and changes in glacier flow rates have been greater than expected. Still, if the Greenland icecap did just slide off (I don’t think that’s considered possible), we’d be looking at a 7 meter rise in sea-level once it had melted, so there wouldn’t be many of us around to worry about a possible tip into a new ice age!
and so is the National Guard even
With respect to mobilizations, there is little difference between the Reserve and Active components of the major military branches, especially now. The only real difference in terms of going to war is the periodicity of the deployments.
SGEW:
I agree with you in principle, but Walton’s repeated (and repeated, and repeated, and….well, you get the drift) cycle of:
(1) making ignorant statements and positing them as facts that surely everyone must recognize
(2) selectively ignoring the effective refutations offered by other posters
(3) becoming “hurt” and indignant when insulted for his lack of willingness to recognize those valid refutations, and
(4) descending into self-pity and attempts to get others to likewise pity him
…clearly show that he cannot be walked back from the edge of this own idiocy.
He might not have directed it at any of us, but that doesn’t change the fact that he used an ad hominem argument to somehow discredit a widely recognized (and Nobel Peace Prize-winning) individual who has done far more than Walton can ever hope to do to make this world a better place – and then proceeded to not offer one single, solitary fact or any other type of valid discussion point to illustrate why he thought such an off-handed dismissal was warranted.
Believe me, I have already gone through more than what I feel to be the required “benefit-of-the-doubt” phase with this character, and I have even delved into some discussions of my personal experiences, which I am usually reluctant to get into even in person, much less on the internet, in an attempt to give him some sincere advice and have a genuine discussion with him, but he refuses to do anything other than resort to his same tired, annoying tactics.
So while I’m with you in recognizing that sincerely misguided but otherwise open-minded individuals sometimes need to be treated with care, I can assure you that Walton deserves no such treatment.
Walton, you are being brainwashed. The people who are feeding you your opinions are not your friends. They do not have your best interests at heart. They are lying to you. They don’t give a flying fuck about the truth, as long as lies can be used to their advantage.
Really, look back at the discussions you’ve been having. You parrot whatever your right-wing heroes want you to say, and then watch as the asinine claims you’ve been programmed to regurgitate are torn to bloody shreds. How have you not noticed that you are always so very wrong? Did it ever occur to you that you might be using bad sources of information, since pretty much everything you say is laughably false? Did you ever consider examining your assumptions and seeing how well they match up to reality? Other people here have weighed your opinions against the facts, and your opinions have been found wanting. Why can’t you figure out how to do this yourself?
I don’t think you’re quite as stupid as you seem. If you took a minute to think for yourself, you could break through these mental blocks of yours and understand the truth. The problem is that you don’t want to understand the truth. On some level even you know that Coulter is a fraud, so why do you still let her influence you? Why do you trust people who have been shown to be wrong so many times?
NG: I have read an SF novel on that theme, but with no discussion of mechanisms – The Ice People by Maggie Gee.
Stanley Kim Robinson’s 40 Days of Rain – 50 Degrees Below – 60 Days and Counting is a good sci-fi-ish novel on a number of “eco-doomsday scenarios” — he does a good job of extrapolating on speculative science, and an even better jobs of extrapolating on the politics. He’s got DC drowning — written before Katrina — and does a good job with the electoral fraud we’ve been seeing for the last few elections.
I’m hoping that Phil Chase turns out to be Barack.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 10, 2008 2:10 PM
And that is an exactly correct assessment of what we have done with the war in Iraq – we have quite effectively removed the Sunni majority obstacle to Iran’s ability to exert the most effective type of influence over their neighbor.
What people fail to realize is that in their culture, the religious leaders are the ultimate authority, no matter what country they are from. So once Saddam was gone, the Shia majority in Iraq were compelled to seek guidance from their religious superior, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, who just happens to be Iranian by heritage and birth. He holds great influence over the Shia Muslim world, in both Iran and Iraq, and his influence has allowed Iran, who doesn’t control him but does – through Ayatollah Khamenei – have a serious audience with him, to further their own interests in the chaos that is the Iraqi political process.
This speech is the reason I decided to vote for Obama. I would hope he still shares the same ideals, but he is none-the-less still as articulate and as rational today as he was then. That count’s for a lot.
You guys were really hard on Walton. Sure, he’s misinformed in many ways but he’s not nearly as bad as many right-wing conservatives. He actually is willing to listen to some arguments and seems to be willing to admit he can be wrong, which is more than I can say for most people.
I don’t know that securing oil was really the incentive for this stupid Iraq war. Certainly that would have been typical behavior for any major country for most of history, but in this case it seems to me that history has changed somewhat. Considering all the costs of this war, simply buying oil would have been much cheaper, as Emmet alluded to originally. It seems to me that industrialization changed economics to a large degree – these days it can in fact be much cheaper to produce and sell stuff and buy the raw materials you need, rather then invading/colonizing countries as nations used to do before the world wars.
And of course in the unlikely event that Iraq at a later time decided to stop selling oil, then we still would’ve been able to invade just as easily, it’s not as if they were going to get a serious military 20-30 years later. So I don’t buy the “had to secure it” argument very much either.
That does of course leave us with the question of why we actually had this war. There are other cute theories out there – profits for american companies associated with the white house criminals, that Sadam had decided to switch to selling oil for euros instead of dollars and that was a serious economic threat to the US, or the cutest, that Bushy decided that he had to take revenge for his Daddy.
Personally though I’m in the “they were just fucking stupid” camp. It’s hard for most rational people to accept that maybe it really was just a stupid act promoted by a bunch of fools (i.e. neocons). But frankly I find that point of view rather more credible then imagining these incompetent clowns actually had some sinister plan with a real purpose.
The definition of neocon, according to Lewis Black: Someone who watches the matrix, and thinks it’s real. That seems about right.
phantomreader42@#196
This is the funniest/saddest thing Lawton has ever written:
“I don’t see anything wrong with being skeptical of claims which are aggressively promoted by those who have an interest in fear-mongering”
Lawton, fear-mongering is all that the conservatives have left, besides bigotry. Your concern-trolling about Obama manages to partake of both.
Sorry, I meant to type “Walton”, not “Lawton”… subconsiously, Wally, I had you confused with the old Planet Bush correspondent from Morning Sedition:
http://www.thesnotgreensea.com/
Posted by: Adam | June 10, 2008 3:33 PM
It is true that we have been really hard on Walton. But it is also true that his comments and discourse have made that harsh treatment quite justified. No one has insulted him for anything other than his stubbornness, as described in my post above.
As for him being willing to listen and admit he is wrong, that is patently false. He is quite willing to admit that he might be wrong, and on occasion has oh-so-graciously “conceded” that he is wrong only after being refuted multiple times, but he definitely does not listen – on the whole – to the arguments presented to him. Instead, he repeatedly makes absurd and patently wrong assertions (such as his claim that McCain is an advocate of secular policies in government) and acting as if they are readily recognizable as true to the rest of the world.
In short, he very truly deserves the way he has been handled on this site.
“You guys were really hard on Walton. Sure, he’s misinformed in many ways but he’s not nearly as bad as many right-wing conservatives.”
Adam, we’re also hard on the namby-pamby, middle of the road religionists who are not nearly as bad as many right-wing fundamentalists, even though they are nearly detrimental to women’s health and human rights issues. Walton is merely the political equivalent-“not nearly as bad” but, nonetheless, bad.
Longtime Lurker, you just saved me from having to leave a similar comment. Merci beaucoups.
:-)
Well! I think you should pull up your stakes, and move over here.
Feast your eyes on this!
(Tip of the iceburg, donthchaknow.)
Coriolis@201. As I said (169) ensuring supply was not the point, controlling it was – plus military bases. There was an element of stupidity in expecting to be welcomed, but from the point of view of great power politics, invading Iraq made complete sense. The way many liberals overlook the sustained, and for the most part highly successful drive for US global supremacy since 1945, under both parties and all Presidents, truly astounds me. Troops or military bases in over 100 countries, military expenditure rivalling that of the rest of the world combined, an alliance system beefing capability up further, plus the accompanying politico-economic system (Security Council, IMF, World Bank, GATT/WTO) – HOW CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE IT? It’s like not being able to see the evidence for evolution!
Coriolis: Personally though I’m in the “they were just fucking stupid” camp.
How can you not be stupid, when your ideology is stupid? It’s like pointing that Lychenkoism was stupid: of course it was stupid, because doctrinaire Soviet communism was mind-bogglingly stupid. Anything that is in line with a stupid theology is going to be stupid — at best, they got the stuck clock is right twice a day.
However, that doesn’t imply that a hell of a lot of conspiracies weren’t going on at the same time — as we find out every passing day. What’s worse than being stupid? Being evil and stupid. What’s worse than that? Being evil in order to uphold your stupidity.
Posted by: frog | June 10, 2008 4:10 PM
Very nicely put, frog.
NG: The way many liberals overlook the sustained, and for the most part highly successful drive for US global supremacy since 1945, under both parties and all Presidents, truly astounds me
The problem is that we’re playing the great power politics of WWII — it’s woefully out of date. We learned in WWII that he who controls the oil rules the world. But playing that game today is like trying to out-rail-road your opponent in 1938 (see Maginot line, etc).
We’re not even re-fighting Vietnam — we’re trying to refight WWII! That’s so stupid, it would leave me speechless if I were capable of it.
brokenSoldier@198
You have direct experience of the area and I don’t, but I don’t think you’re right that religious figures are necessarily the final authority figures in the Islamic Middle East. Rather, they tend to be the last possible refuge of opposition when a brutal secular dictatorship is in place – as in Iran pre-1979, Iraq under Saddam, or Syria and Egypt now.
@#168, Kseniya
English wonk here, with backing from a history wonk. (Really, the history wonk did most of the work. I just had the initial objection.)
Machiavellian is giving him too much credit. That implies that through the torturing and other immoralities, he is actually protecting his country. Machiavelli’s whole schtick is that morality shouldn’t get in the way of doing your job, namely, protecting and serving your nation.
Machiavelli was a fan of republics. Bush… obviously isn’t. And a little fun fact, around Machiavelli’s time, ‘Machiavellian’ was used to describe just rulership, and ‘Anti-Machiavellian’ was used to describe manipulative, deceptive rulers.
I’d say he’s more Commodusian or Caligulan, really.
frog@212 – No, No, NO! That’s a perfect example of what I mean! US foreign policy is, at a geostrategic level not stupid at all. As I said, it has been highly successful. And it is still largely true that who controls the oil controls the world. How long do you think it would take for the US to seize the Saudi fields if it felt it had to? Especially with the permanent bases in Iraq that were a major aim of the war! You think the ibn Saud clan doesn’t know that?
“Longtime Lurker, you just saved me from having to leave a similar comment”
Great minds think alike… so do ours!
Anybody notice how Lawton has once again managed to hijack the thread? Getting back on track, compare Obama’s speech to “Rhymes with” Mitt Romney’s religion speech, which basically amounted to: “Hey, don’t be bigoted against me, ‘cos we can join up and be bigoted against ‘those people’ together!”
Andre Vienne:
Ah. I accept your corrections, with gratitude. I was too focused on the “sometimes you have to do evil” part. At least I got that part right. ;-)
Lurker, Romney can’t retire from public life fast enough, IMO.
If you are happy to vote for any politician, you need your head examined for tumors.
Party loyalists: the biggest tools in the country
Politics/Ideology: dissolves skepticism on contact
He’s one of the best.
Of a sorry lot.
Seriously, you people have drunk of the Messiah FlavorAid. You are to turn in your skeptics badges and report to the nearest house of worship.
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/73789539.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1930EC3535F149CDF237849D40BBBE0A39A284831B75F48EF45
Oh, A1, you make the common right-winger/authoritarian mistake of thinking that we are looking for a messiah/big daddy/dear leader. We are not seeking a savior, or even a leader, but an executive- the head of a branch of government co-equal with (ideally, subordinate to) the legislature, and the judiciary.
In other words, ya hump, you are projecting.
NG: , No, NO! That’s a perfect example of what I mean! US foreign policy is, at a geostrategic level not stupid at all. As I said, it has been highly successful. And it is still largely true that who controls the oil controls the world. How long do you think it would take for the US to seize the Saudi fields if it felt it had to? Especially with the permanent bases in Iraq that were a major aim of the war! You think the ibn Saud clan doesn’t know that?
I’m going to disagree vehemently. It was intelligent in the period of 1945-1973 (approx). In that period, ruling oil meant ruling the world. From then on, we’ve been coasting. We gained control of the world economy by being the world hard-currency. We gained world hegemony with our military development, based on an oil economy (the Soviets could only fend us off — they’re high point was ’59!).
But then it started to change — technologies started to change. Before the ’70s, the oil nations were purely client states — today, they have a negotiating position. For example, Chavez wouldn’t have survived a day in the ’60s — today we have no choice but to accept him.
You’re saying that since Rome was the hegemon in 300, it’s geopolitics was smart — the truth is that Roman strategies were brilliant centuries before that, and it’s lack of adaptation to changing realities meant it was in decline. The US is in decline — from a very lofty position — but we can not continue in our current position, any more than the seemingly impregnable Soviets weren’t in decline from the Prague Spring onward.
Inertia, Nick. Inertia.
frog,
I don’t agree (though I don’t wholly disagree), but before responding properly, could I ask you to expand on your view that control of oil supplies is no longer vital?
Apologies to the 5000 that have already commented (I hope you enjoyed your fish supper) and any that I repeat now.
I’ve watched most of Obama’s speeches – it’s been a recent pastime. He is everything that Bush (and almost every politician) is not. He is articulate, considered, intelligent, humane and rational. Notwithstanding his (seeming) religious beliefs, he is a man who can transform the USA and thereby the rest of the planet.
I’m a sceptical, suspicious atheist, mistrusting of politicians and anyone who seeks power as a primary motivation. From all that I’ve seen of this man, I believe he will deliver on each of his promises as best as he is able to do.
Maybe I’ve drunk the Koolaid, but I do believe in the emotion of ‘change’. If enough people believe, it can happen.
Right, back to the Guinness.
P.S. Worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo
Coriolis said:
“I don’t know that securing oil was really the incentive for this stupid Iraq war… Considering all the costs of this war, simply buying oil would have been much cheaper..”
There was never a better moment in history for the justification of war, as there was after 911.
I remember thinking, on 911, that this was going to be a fantastic opportunity for the Bush administration, if they were so inclined – I can’t believe that that is what they decided to do, but the moment was just too good.
Anyway, think of the oil in Iraq – held by a country that is now defenceless (I mean Iraq, not the US). the development of that reserve of oil will now take place under our watchfull gaze, and who do you suppose will be building the pumping stations? Who will build the pipeline? Who will fill the tankers?
Of course it’s about the oil, it certainly isn’t about the dates (though they are delicious!).
The money spent on the invasion is your money, in taxes. The money to be made by processing the oil will not go to you; but thanks for helping!
Obama wont stop this – he can’t, but he can get the OBVIOUS troops out of there – the troops that stay to guard the oil plants will still be there – he says as much.
Coriolis goes on to say:
“… So I don’t buy the “had to secure it” argument very much either.
Personally though I’m in the “they were just fucking stupid” camp. It’s hard for most rational people to accept that maybe it really was just a stupid act promoted by a bunch of fools (i.e. neocons). But frankly I find that point of view rather more credible then imagining these incompetent clowns actually had some sinister plan with a real purpose.”
They stated their purpose – to get rid of Saddam, that was the truth. Their reason – to secure resources that will keep the money flowing for another 150 years; well worth the 4,000+ lives, + 600 Billion of your tax dollars.
Ugh, I hate long posts, and now I’m doing one….
Hamas won a fucking election! That gives them all the legitimacy, in they eyes of Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, that they could ever want or need. Attempting to deny them that legitimacy merely gives the impression that the US government doesn’t give a shit about democracy, Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims. The GOP belief that American political figures, even the POTUS, can in any way influence the legitimacy of Hamas is outrageous hubris.
I agree with what Emmet wrote in reply, although I will note that British governments had secret contacts with the PIRA from the early 1970s.
NG:
(Note: we means the US here)
Let me turn it around. Oil today (as opposed to fifty years ago) is only vital because we make it so. First, mass use of armaments has become, to some extent, paper tigers — they are unusable for the most important cases, because they quickly would escalate to unsustainable levels of war.
Second, many of our most essential technologies are not necessarily tied to oil. Fifty years ago, the essential tools were cars, trucks, planes, tanks and industrial equipment (i.e, the internal combustion engine and related technologies). They all ran by far best on oil. Today, communication technologies are as important as tanks — they don’t require oil, except insofar as we’ve decided to make it so.
If we were to make a concerted effort (as the Europeans have begun to do) to ween ourselves off of oil, we could make much of the dominant technologies independent of oil, and thereby take away leveraging power from our world opponents.
My model is the post-WWI world. Until that point, railroad technology ruled the world. Some nations continued to assume it was so, and made their industrial and military plans based on it (France being a case in point). The US/Britain and Germany recognized that we had moved into the oil era — Japan had no choice to recognize it, being an island nation. So WWII was about control of the oil supplies — everyone else was demoted to a second or third rank nation, and the Soviets saw their entire infrastructure destroyed.
In the same way, we are moving past oil. If we insist on planning around oil, we will be demoted by currently second rank states who make themselves independent of oil. Even the Iranians are trying to move away from an oil economy! The Chinese are moving into space, recognizing that control of information is essential. The EU is funding heavily renewables. The Baltic states and India have gotten heavily into communication technologies. Brazil is developing biofuels. There won’t be a single bottle-neck, as there has been for the last half-century for oil, and rail lines/steamers for the previous half century and so on going back to 1492. Well, unless global warming makes some new technology essential — the world has finally reached a kind of technological parity, and we’re moving away from the single energy source dominance that has marked human industry since slavery started.
What would have been in our hegemonic interest would have been massive investment in nuclear – that’s a technology that’s naturally centralized and controllable, but it’s too late now for that. We could have made that the bottleneck.
@173
It’s always defensible to not vote. After all, the marginal cost vastly outweighs the marginal benefit of voting, and by abstaining completely, you’re in the unique position of being free of the moral weight of actually endorsing one of these gangsters, errr, politicians.
Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s by far best candidate running this election, and a damn good person at that. I’m proud to cast my first-ever presidential vote for Barack Obama.
frog,
Oil is somewhat less important than in the 1970s, because energy costs are a smaller proportion of total costs in many areas of economic activity, but it’s still vital for moving stuff around by road, and more stuff is being moved than ever before. The USA in particular is also heavily dependent on air transport. Europe is ahead of the USA on renewables, as you say, but they still provide a small proportion of total energy, and almost zero for road transport. Note how Russia has regained a lot of its relative status simply because it has a lot of oil and gas. I agree with you that the USA missed a trick, from a hegemonistic viewpoint, by not developing nuclear fast – but it would have needed a way to use electric power for road transport to be fully effective. Incidentally, I think satellite solar power, using the US lead in space, was an alternative – abandoning the functioning Saturn V for the Space Shuttle was a serious blunder.
I’m surprised you pick 1973 as the start of relative US decline – I’d have said it was near the low point: the ’70s saw withdrawal from Vietnam, challenges to US hegemony in Europe, Cuban intervention in Africa, the two oil shocks, stagflation, and the Iranian revolution. However in the early 1970s one of the keystones of US revival was put in place – the abandonment of Bretton-Woods for floating exchange rates, but with the dollar remaining as reserve currency. This has allowed the USA to run big trade deficits much of the time since, by selling bonds, without the risk of a serious run on the currency.
The biggest changes since have been the break-up of the USSR and the relative decline of Japan (remember how many people thought the USA was going to lose its economic primacy to Japan?). NATO has expanded, and the US has bases in eastern Europe, inside what was the USSR, and in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ideological challenge of communism and democratic socialism has almost disappeared (with some recent revival in Latin America), and Islamism is by comparison feeble.
In the short term the biggest risk to US primacy is the current economic crisis, and the possibility that it will force withdrawal from Iraq, which would be a serious blow to US power and prestige. The invasion was aimed in large part at maintaining primacy over Russia and China, by extending US control over the Middle East and its oil. The crisis is itself largely the result of trying to fight two medium-sized wars without raising tax rates – the Iraq war in particular was supposed to pay for itself and more, and has not by any means done so as yet. The latest phase of the crisis is the rise in commodity prices – oil, food, metals – as a result of speculative money seeking new havens as the dollar and US property prices and interest rates fall. However, this phase has some advantages for the US, as a major grain exporter.
In the longer term anthropogenic climate change, exacerbated by other environmental problems, is the greatest threat – but it’s a threat to us all, and could (I hope) force a shift towards international cooperation and reduced inequalities. (Even the fattest capitalist doesn’t want to fry in his own lard!) Actual oil shortage might also be a threat, if the peak-oilers are right, but in that case the USA would be in a better position than all its potential rivals except Russia.
In summary, I think my analysis is in many ways closer to that of the US right than of US liberals: if relative power for the USA is your priority, hang on to Iraq and if possible invade Iran or at least force regime change.
However, if long-term survival of civilisation, and maybe humanity, is the priority, a fairly fundamental shift of investment and political power within the USA from what I might call the “military-hydrocarbon complex” toward development of sustainable energy technologies, and from maintaining hegemony to seeking international cooperation on more equal terms, is essential – and I think those shifts would require withdrawal from Iraq and probably Afghanistan, with the attendant lose of relative power.
You won’t hear this kind of speech again. If he gave that speech now, he’ll lose the election. The godbots have too much power. America is destined to become a theocracy. Sad, but true.
BrokenSoldier, I’m really sorry that you think I’m a troll.
I’m not. I’m a fucked-up teenager with serious mental and emotional problems. If I appear inconsistent and downright incoherent at times, that’s the reason why. I’m not here to piss people off. I ask you only to believe that.
Of all people on this blog, you’re the one I most respect, for your military service and your reasoned opinions. I have listened to everything you’ve said and taken it on board.
Maybe I’m an idiot about politics. Politics really isn’t the priority, though. The most important thing is what other people think of me as a human being. I clearly haven’t earned your respect, but I ask for your tolerance, and a second chance. Please?
I’m a fucked-up teenager with serious mental and emotional problems.
Then, kid, you’re spending too much time here, and presuming this isn’t the only place on the toobz you’re hanging at, you’re definitely spending too much time online. It’s only going to make matters worse. Mental problems can often be addressed effectively by competent, compassionate professionals. Emotional problems a) are just endemic to adolescence, so, hey, y’know, I feel for you, but it goes away; and b) are better approached in real life, by fostering mutually beneficial relationships with friends and family, than by inviting abuse from strangers on a blog.
WOW! I’m really, really impressed by this… I am glad that someone had the balls to say it finally.
And I’m not even that big of an Obama fan; I’m more of a Gravel voter, but I will say this: Obama had my vote before since he was the nominee, but he definitely has my vote now.
A couple of links concerning the proposed US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement:
1 US wants 58 bases, and the right to interpret what constitutes an act of aggression against Iraq.
2 US would be able to arrest Iraqi citizens, conduct arbitrary military operations without Iraqi consent, US soldiers and contractors would have legal immunity – and the US is holding $20bn of Iraq’s money as ransom. The US has also already prevented Iraq diversifying its holdings into Euros, costing $5bn as the dollar falls.
That’s more than a little imperialistic.
What would amuse me no end now would be China making a counter bid.
Obama’s campaign called for the SOFA to be debated in Congress.
I’m obviously very late to the party here, but I don’t see anyone else has noted this: a large proportion of the material in this video clip is taken straight from (or subsequently incorporated straight into?) Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope. If you liked this stuff, he’s got plenty more in the book.
My favorite passage in Audacity comes from the same chapter as the material here: it’s a description of his mother’s worldview. Ann Dunham was a nonbeliever (though she doesn’t seem to have been deeply critical of religion); Obama gives a sympathetic and loving account of her ideals and her capacity for seeing wonder in the world notwithstanding her irreligion. Good stuff.
Count me as a fervent Obama partisan (he was my professor in law school, and he was fantastic)–though as an atheist I cringe at some of the steps he’s taken to pander to the religious lobby.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 4:20 PM
I can’t speak for any area other than Iraq, but during my tour there, I had to provide security for a curious meeting. The congress has reached an impasse and Sadr was in the middle of one of his power plays (meaning that he had loosed his fighters on the country to cause problems in order to get the government to invite him back to the negotiating table in exchange for a truce), and the solution the Iraqi government came up with was to call in the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. Sadr would listen to no one else, and they desperately needed him to call his fighters off. So they called Sistani in, and for the first part of the meeting he met – at the government’s request – with the governmental pofficials so they could ask his advice as to how to solve their current situation. In the second, he met with Sadr to get him to stand down.
It is this sort of solution – which was replayed countless times on the local level where I was stationed, involving local mullahs and insurgent leaders – that displayed to me that religious leaders in that culture have the kind of ultimate authority I described in my earlier post. I agree that the over-arching statement I made may not be true in other parts of the world, and i should have qualified the statement much better than I did.
But think about how we would react if, in order to solve a major problem, our government came up with the solution of calling in a religious figure to give that kind of guidance and exert that kind of influence to accomplish our national goals. It is one of the major differences in our culture, and that is something that clearly shows how this administration has mishandled things in that area of the world.
Anyway, I digress… Thanks for pointing the mistake out to me, Nick.
Longtime Lurker: I’m nowhere near being a “right winger” as you so simplistically put it.
Who’s projecting???
@Brian#134: Sorry, but no. First, I’m canadian so I don’t join any american election things. Second, my apathy is justified. It happens all the damn time here. They shine in your face like a saviour and turns out to be just like the guy you threw outside. And thus Quebec continues its descent to hell, or at least its course towards a big brick wall.
Nick #229,
Oh yes ? Well, wait just a few more years, and we’ll see what comes out of this crisis. If it is as severe and lenghty as Roubini and others predict, and the masses finally revolt, bet you many nations including this one will revert to nationalising huge chunks of the economy starting with health care, energy, transport… We’ll see how much the idea of social-democracy has been abandoned.
You gotta be joking ? The USA in a better position than Europe or Japan in case of Oil shortages ? Have you read “The Long Emergency” by Kunstler ? His analysis about the fact that the USA is structurally the worst prepared country on the planet to survive a deep energy crisis is very well presented.
Power ? Why not push the argument to its most grotesque example, North Korea ? They’ve got more relative power than, let’s say Malaysia, but their people starve to death. So yes indeed, the USA could simply double its military expenditure, hire another 300,000 recruits and go for what you suggest, easy. I know, that’s the logic of the right, easy, simple solutions that everyone can understand.
negentropeater@239
On the likely revival of socialism – I agree with you that the present crisis may well revive it, and as a democratic socialist, I very much hope you are right.
The USA in a better position than Europe or Japan in case of Oil shortages ?,/I>
Yes, because it already effectively controls much of the supply, could seize the Saudi fields if it had to, and could then monopolize the remaining oil.
On your last paragraph, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. I’m not advocating the USA invading Iran, I’m saying this makes sense if what you want is to maximise US relative power – by grabbing control of the largest supply of high-grade oil currently beyond its control, but possibly grabbable (i.e. ruling out Russia, which is much too well-armed). Such an invasion would of course be a thoroughly wicked crime, as was that of Iraq.
Why on Earth would anyone want to invade North Korea? They don’t have anything worth grabbing!
Nick Gotts, I think your views are really appropriate – for 50 years ago. Things are changing, and I think frog pointed out alot of the ways that they are changing. Like I mentioned in my original post I don’t buy this need to control oil argument for the simple reason that in the foreseeable future (20-30 years) there was simply no chance for Iraq to make a military that could be anything other then a roadbump to the US military. Remember that while the US is completely incapable of actually rebuilding the nation of Iraq, they took over the country in a matter of weeks. Hence we could’ve seized their oil supply easily at any point in the future if we felt it to be neccesary, without getting prematurely bogged down in this mess. Infact it would be much harder to do so now in terms of PR, if Iraq somehow ends up as a democratic state.
And of course if the recent spike in oil prices is not speculation (and considering how long it’s been going on that seems unlikely), then things will be changing even more quickly, away from oil.
Hence we could’ve seized their oil supply easily at any point in the future if we felt it to be neccesary, without getting prematurely bogged down in this mess.
The point is to be able to tie the Iraqi oil industry completely into US technology and management practice (which is already the case for most of the Middle East’s oil except Iran’s). If the neocons had been right about how easy running Iraq was going to be, Iraqi oil production could now have been considerably higher and the price lower – if the US wanted it to be. The current price rise undoubtedly is due to speculation. Oil consumption hasn’t gone up much if at all over the last few months, production has not gone down, the price has soared – and we know where the speculative money has come from.
NG: I’m surprised you pick 1973 as the start of relative US decline – I’d have said it was near the low point: the ’70s saw withdrawal from Vietnam, challenges to US hegemony in Europe, Cuban intervention in Africa, the two oil shocks, stagflation, and the Iranian revolution. However in the early 1970s one of the keystones of US revival was put in place – the abandonment of Bretton-Woods for floating exchange rates, but with the dollar remaining as reserve currency.
Well, it’s like the market: buy low, sell high. In 73, the signals of a fundamental shift became obvious — but a few tweaks as you pointed out extended the life of the current system (Just like the Soviets in the 60s were able to adapt somewhat — and even temporarily extend — but the decline of the overall adaptation should have been evident, and likewise Rome in the 4th century).
For example, Bretton-Woods was a sign that the US plan for Western Europe had been so successful, that we could no longer dominate them with our productive capacity — but rather than changing our relationship fundamentally, we just used our currency dominance to extend our advantage temporarily — and we saw decades of economic stagnation for most of the US population in response.
Another sign is Nixon — he was a clear sign that the post-WWII pattern of imperial executives wasn’t sustainable, but a few tweaks and we got Reagan and Bush, where the imperial presidency was extended while corroding our political system.
Apparent strength is often a sign that you’ve stuck too long with your current political adaptation, and apparent weakness is often a sign of a fertile shift.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Nick #240,
Controls much of the supply ? how is that so, when both George and Dick have tried and failed to negotiate an increase supply with the Saudis ? And how could they seize those fields, a military intervention, in case of shortages Europe, China, Russia and Japan would just sit there quietly ?
The central problem for the US remains that for instance the french consume on average one third per capita the amount of oil that americans consume, for an equivallent level of income. That’s what America needs to solve, and get rid of its delusions of grandeur and its obsession with invading the rest of the world.
NG: , I’m saying this makes sense if what you want is to maximise US relative power – by grabbing control of the largest supply of high-grade oil currently beyond its control, but possibly grabbable (i.e. ruling out Russia, which is much too well-armed). Such an invasion would of course be a thoroughly wicked crime, as was that of Iraq.
I guess the question we’re skirting around — and the underlying disagreement — power for whom?
Yes, if the question is “Power for the top 1%”, those who can be identified as the state or the ruling class or whatever gloss, then you are correct. If the question is power for Americans, all 100%, then we have been in decline and it will only accelerate.
I guess when I mean America (as an American) I mean all Americans — while when you say America, you mean the rulers of Americans. Two quite distinct groups.
frog,
I meant the USA as a state relative to other states – but as even democratic capitalist states in their relations with other states are almost completely controlled by their elites, it comes to much the same thing. However, if we are to avoid global environmental disaster and/or mass death, people a long way further down the ladder than the top 1% in rich states will be required to sacrifice some of their wealth and power.
Controls much of the supply ? how is that so, when both George and Dick have tried and failed to negotiate an increase supply with the Saudis ? And how could they seize those fields, a military intervention, in case of shortages Europe, China, Russia and Japan would just sit there quietly ? – negentropyeater
You assume the Saudis could increase supply if they wanted to; so far as easily refined oil is concerned, it’s likely they couldn’t. They could increase the supply of heavy oil, but the refining facilities to turn that into transport fuel are working flat out. Yes, I think Europe, China, Russia and Japan would just sit there quietly: what could they do?
Sorry I forgot to dig up the Wolfowitz quote. I’ll look for it this evening.
Actually, this almost has to be expected. We will soon reach CO2 levels that we last had in the Miocene.
(Urgl.)
It didn’t last
weekinterglacial, when it was warmer than today. It did, however, melt three interglacials ago, when it was quite a bit warmer, the sea level was 22 m above today’s, and CO2 levels were at a point that we… have already passed, IIRC. <sigh> Still, this would take several centuries at least and probably also depends on a few other things.That’s correct, but not even what I meant. I meant what I think is the big picture. The Mullahcracy had two enemies: Saddam and the Great Satan™. Saddam is gone, the Great Satan™ is bogged down in a qWagmire… sure, Israel might suddenly bomb some nuclear facility, but on the other side, Russia and China are now friends of the Mullahcracy (to some extent at least). W did Khamenei a big favor. Or two. Or three.
That may well have been Chalabi’s purpose.
Oh, there were others. For example, W wanted his war. He wanted to be a War President™. He “had a war for the same reason Bill had Monica — because he could” (I’ll try to look up the author). He (or Rove at least) knew full well he had no hope of ever getting an approval rating above 27 % (once the strange 9/11 effect was over), let alone reelected even with “irregularities”, if he didn’t keep pressing the patriotism switch that made so many people forget the “running” in “never change a running system”.
Oh, a plan can be both sinister and deeply stupid. And I’m not even talking about its implementation here.
“Much” doesn’t have a plural…
I thought Il Principe was sarcasm? Like today’s books on how to get obese and how to get lung cancer? Describing an is, not an ought, despite pretending to do the latter?
——————
frog, your essay on the essence and interplay of stupid and evil (comment 210) gives you your long-overdue Molly nomination.
frog,
I’ve probably linked to this before, but I’ll do it again. British economist J A Hobson calculated that British imperial policy 1870-1900 harmed the British economy as a whole, but made a small minority much wealthier and much more powerful. Comparisons with the US today are obvious.
Link
Concerning changes in recent decades: modern media makes people increasingly aware of what is happening, and of course many people are very aware of the history of colonial imperialism in their home countries. As such, any policy that looks imperialistic is going to face a huge backlash, and that same media puts a limit on how brutally it can be put down. Concentration camps may have worked in the past, but are not an option now.
Nick,
Are you suggesting China, Russia (which I could believe) and even Japan and Europe would enter into a proxy war with the US?
It seems most European governments (even the current French and German) would rather follow meekly behind the US than cut loose. Federalisation would change that, but it would first require politicians in national governments to surrender their own power, something politicians generally don’t do.
Correction:
NicknegentropyeaterNG: I meant the USA as a state relative to other states – but as even democratic capitalist states in their relations with other states are almost completely controlled by their elites, it comes to much the same thing.
Hmm, then we get into the question of “what is a state?” The elites in the US don’t necessarily identify with the US, which is part of the problem of interpreting this Iraq mess, in the same way that in Rome in the imperial period, the Roman state lost interest in Rome.
There is a difference between say Europe and the US – the elites in Europe (outside of the UK), have until recently more strongly identified with their state, and therefore also with the population of the state. Besides local language and culture, WWII whupped ’em big time upside the head and convinced a couple of generations of elites that they and their people eat out of the same bowl (to steal a Teutonism).
On top of that, the elite in much of Europe were decimated, so despite US illusion, even Germany is a much more socially mobile society than the US. Since so much of the elite is only a generation from being in the population, you’ll get much more of an identification with that population.
So, if the state has some identification with the welfare of its people, then the state does have interests beyond short-term great power politics; if on the other hand the state is just identified with the elite, who themselves don’t identify with the state except as a means for self-aggrandizement, then your great powers analysis make more sense.
In the latter case, I’d expect that the most sensible analysis of Mess-o-potamia is not even in great power politics, but in conspiracies and alliances among the elite — it’s not even the interest of the state relative to other states that’s being served, but the interests of corporations and other conspiracies of that ilk who talk in state language, but don’t really mean it anymore.
amk – yup I think I’ve check that link before. It’s always an interesting game to try to identify the individuals behind abstractions like “Americans” or “Britons”. That’s always the spot where 3-card monty is played.
Actually the obvious thing they could do is to dump their dollar holdings, thereby breaking the US economy. Probably their own too.
“I’m nowhere near being a “right winger” as you so simplistically put it.”
Ya certainly look like a duck and quack like a duck.
A1, what would you consider yourself, a libertarian? That’s a joke, son!
“I clearly haven’t earned your respect, but I ask for your tolerance, and a second chance. Please?”
Walton, nice appeal to our sympathetic sides, maybe you should take a three-day vacation from this site, and check out websites run by people you would seem to identify with politically. The premier conservatives sites are “Free Republic” , “Little Green Footballs” and “Red State”. Check them out, post on them posing as a slightly right of center, centrist Republican, and see what kind of hideous, eliminationist rhetoric you inspire. Come back, and let us know how it goes, and whether you really feel the same way about conservatism… and don’t give us any “No True Scotsman” nonsense.
Ideally, you should travel to the States to see firsthand what Reagan-style “government is the problem” conservatism has wrought. Check out the Gulf Coast, travel by Greyhound Bus to Minneapolis to see the fallen bridge, check the areas of the Midwest currently being flooded, and compare the Bush response to Clinton’s response 15 years ago.
If you really put some effort into it, I am sure you could find a way to volunteer for a Republican legislator, and see firsthand what the ideology is really about. I can think of at least one conservative Senator who would love to have an insecure 19 year old boy on his staff.
Nick,
what, are you still believing in those stories that the bottlenecks are in the refining or drilling capacities ? Foutaise, the Saudis have absolutely no interest in depleating their oil reserves at an accelerated pace, economically the current regime is what’s best for them, not what’s best for the US, whichever way you look at it, they control the supply, not the Americans.
amk,
Nick’s scenario of an American military intervention to seize the Saudi oil fields in case of oil shortages and to monopolize supply is just unthinkable. We just don’t live in this world anymore. Look at what happened with Irak. They needed a motive, they fabricated it, but even with this, they have nothing and it’s going to ruin their economy. Have they monopolized Iraqi oil supply ? Let’s see where Irak is exporting it’s oil in the years to come : US, China, Europe, Japan…
And now repeat the same story 5 times bigger with Saudi ? Invent a motive ( do you think anybody is going to fall for this one a second time ?), invade, ruin the economy, and see the Saudi oil escape everywhere.
If indeed the US blocked the Saudi oil and prevent other nations from getting it, yes they would react. It’s just an impossible scenario.
Hobson’s Imperialism full text.
“Regime change” in Saudi Arabia has long been a neo-con goal. Ledeen names the Wahhabis in his latest WSJ rant. Inventing a motive isn’t too hard: Wahhabiism is the most oppressive variant of any extant religion, is the ideological origin of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, is connected with the Salafi jihadis in Iraq, most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. The kingdom is and always has been an arrangement between a strong-arm monarchy and Wahhabi clerics, and scores worse than Iran on Freedom House’s Freedom In The World report.
However, the Western powers still arm Saudi Arabia. Bush promised military aid to help isolate Iran, and Saudi is buying Eurofighter Typhoons from the UK. It already has F-15s and Panavia Tornados. One would have to be crazy to attack it.
That’s not the crazy that I think is the least likely. There can always be another Mr Bush.
No, what I just don’t think is possible, is the US monopolizing the Saudi oil to react to an energy crisis.
That would be an act of deliberate aggression from the US not on the Saudis, but on the international community. Something completely different from a geopolitical point of view.
I think the immediate consequence would be an international economic blockade against the US.
Further to Longtime Lurker’s post:
There seems to be a significant difference between British and American Conservative movements. The latter has been taken over by a paranoid, tribal mentality. Few Barry Goldwater-type conservatives remain with influence. Goldwater himself was said to be involved with John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience” book before he passed away. That book was based on the work of Bob Altemeyer.
Speaking of which, I recommend Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians to anyone with any interest in politics. The author is a (retired) academic studying personality types that lead to authoritarian regimes, the book is free, is extremely well written (I was engrossed) and contains enough detail and references to seriously test its assertions.
It’s been linked to here a few times, but I’ve not got PZ to link it yet :(
Hey, AMK, sometime in the ’70s-early ’80s, people like Paul Weyrich, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Coors family, and their ilk started to found a really nutty right-wing movement here in the states. Thom Hartmann often touches on these people in the course of his radio show (I love Hartmann, although he does succumb to “woo” at times).
Here is video of Weyrich’s “money quote”:
Mellon Scaife’s famous remark was about shrinking government enough so that it could be strangled in a bathtub.
My beef with Walton has always been his infatuation with the more batshit-crazy American righties… also, Walton, if you come here stateside, don’t eat the tomatoes. Although it’s salmonella this time, they don’t call Bush and his ilk E. coli Conservatives for nothing. Hell, Walton, don’t eat any raw vegetables if you come here, for all intents and purposes, it’s now a third-world nation.
Heh, when it comes to personalities that lead to authoritarianism there’s always Escape from freedom by erich fromm in the context of hitler&nazism.
I think frog is pointing out one of the fundamental problems with current american politics – that the elite is no longer seriously connected with the majority of the people. And they are pursuing policies that not only hurt the majority but will end up hurting the so-called elite as well, just in a longer timeframe.
The question of how to avoid the buildup of a practical aristocracy in a liberal democracy however is somewhat more of an economic then a political one. Personally I like the idea of largely eliminating sizable inheritance but that has many practical problems in terms of how to implement it.
Oh and it seems alot of people think that when I say our current administration is stupid I am absolving them of guilt. On the contrary – ignorance and stupidity is no excuse. I just don’t think they are intelligent and evil (if there are infact such people at all), but rather stupid and evil ;).
amk: There seems to be a significant difference between British and American Conservative movements. The latter has been taken over by a paranoid, tribal mentality. Few Barry Goldwater-type conservatives remain with influence
I think paranoia has been part and parcel of American conservatism from the days of the Anti-Masonic party. My impression is that Conservatism in the UK has usually been outspokenly aristocratic and elitist — it’s part of the logic. American conservatism has on the other hand been populist usually (Goldwater et. al. excepted). It’s a politics of resentment going back to the fencing off of the UK, and the migration to the Appalachians.
American conservatism is more closely allied with fascism in its thinking — in other words, it’s never really been conservatism, because conservatism (in the British sense) has no space in American identity (excepting the early Federalists and some of the Southern resistance).
Which is what makes right-wing Libertarianism so funny — both ha-ha and peculiar — it’s just a libertarian rationalization for fascist practice.
“Mellon Scaife’s famous remark was about shrinking government enough so that it could be strangled in a bathtub.”
No, It was Grove Norquist. The quote was “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years,” he says, “to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Grover not grove dammit.
Thanks for the correction, Spurge, these righties all seem to blur together when the blood is “angried up”.
No problem.
I think highly of Obama, and this speech in particular. However I’m still a bit peeved about the weird ministers’ antics (as well as to whatever degree Obama himself cleaves to conservative Christianity, which as a Unitarian Universalist I don’t approve of.) I fear however, that to the highly conservative, an “ObamaNation” would be an “abomination.”
(To those who may remember my metaphysical agitations about First Cause issues etc, I count as liberal in practice and in other ways, as if anyone cared. I would be willing to vote for an atheist for any office provided that person was not a militant dismissive activist about it.)
Oh, he regrets that now. At least the ‘rhetoric’. Isn’t that nice.
negentropyeater,
On the Saudis:
Do you have evidence that the Saudis could increase production markedly, and/or that the stories of bottlenecks in refining are false? I’m certainly prepared to revise my opinion on these points.
I’d agree that day-to-day, even year-to-year, the ibn Saud clan control supply – they could cut it as they did in 1974; but they are dependent on the US for military hardware, the latter is in a much stronger strategic position than in the 1970s, and in extremis, could indeed take the oil fields and if necessary drive the population out of those parts of the country. Obviously, such actions would be very risky and have a very high cost, but rather than see the economy collapse for lack of fuel, I think that’s what the elite would do – and I don’t think anyone could stop them, at least in the short term.
Incidentally, I have a book “House of Bush, House of Saud”, by Craig Unger (2004), about the ties between the two clans, which I’ve never got round to reading. Anyone read it?
frog,
I think our disagreements are mainly of emphasis – details below:
In 73, the signals of a fundamental shift became obvious — but a few tweaks as you pointed out extended the life of the current system (Just like the Soviets in the 60s were able to adapt somewhat — and even temporarily extend — but the decline of the overall adaptation should have been evident, and likewise Rome in the 4th century).
We agree that the 1970s were a time of crisis, but I see the recovery strategy as having been more successful than you do – for the reasons I’ve already set out and need not repeat. That doesn’t mean I don’t see weaknesses in the USA’s geopolitical position, even leaving aside the global problems that could bring our whole civilisation crashing down. Have you read Paul Kennedy’s Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and/or Preparing for the 21st Century? Anything in the “World-Systems” literature, especially anything by Christopher Chase-Dunn? From very different political viewpoints, Kennedy and Chase-Dunn (and other World-Systems theorists) argue that there are cyclic aspects to power politics, due in large part to top-rank powers suffering from “imperial overstretch” (Kennedy’s term), as they concentrate their resources too much on military power, and lose the technological and economic leadership that initially gave them their dominant position. I think the US was suffering from this in the 70s, was able largely to overcome it by the end of the millennium – look at the way it dominated the dotcom boom – but is now suffering from it anew, principally because the neocons got overconfident, started believing their own propaganda, and invaded Iraq before getting a firm grip on Afghanistan. However, I don’t think the US elite (in which the neocons are only one faction, although obviously the most powerful at least until November) have yet failed irrevocably. For a historical parallel, consider Britain after the US War of Independence: a key part of the empire gone, defeat at the hands of a coalition of several other main powers, and then the threat from the French Revolution, which sparked internal dissent and a rising in Ireland. Yet after defeating France in the Napoleonic Wars, Britain’s power and prestige were higher than ever, and it remained the world’s leading power at least until around 1870. So decline can in some cases be reversed. The USA has far greater natural advantages than Britain ever did, and a far larger share of global economic activity. Incidentally, I’d love to get into the issue of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon blamed the Christians), but that would take us too far afield.
For example, Bretton-Woods was a sign that the US plan for Western Europe had been so successful, that we could no longer dominate them with our productive capacity — but rather than changing our relationship fundamentally, we just used our currency dominance to extend our advantage temporarily — and we saw decades of economic stagnation for most of the US population in response.
Agreed, but the US elite, as you’ve noted, by and large doesn’t give a stuff for the American people. (I don’t mean no members of it do, but devotion to the commonweal is not the way to do well within the elite.) For clarification, the elite is not sharply delineated, and there are both ideological factions and sectional interests within it. You’ve suggested that European elites are more patriotic (to use a shorthand) than that of the US. This may well be: elites of different states have different interests, and members of those of second-rank states may tend to identify more closely with their own state and people, because increasing their state’s power is the best way for them to improve their position; members of a dominant state’s elite may tend to see that dominance as the natural state of affairs, and give more attention to keeping their own population in line.
Another sign is Nixon — he was a clear sign that the post-WWII pattern of imperial executives wasn’t sustainable, but a few tweaks and we got Reagan and Bush, where the imperial presidency was extended while corroding our political system.
Ah, America’s last liberal President! (Withdrawal from Vietnam, detente with the USSR, the opening to China, economically interventionist, indexing of social security, school integration, affirmative action, EPA, OSHA, Legacy parks plan…) Of course, all this was a reaction to elite weakness after the trauma of Vietnam, it gave breathing space while the new financial regime stabilised, petrodollars were recycled, and the USSR was lured into Afghanistan. Since the decline and fall of the USSR, the elite have had much less need to compromise either with allies (hence they were able to stuff Japan in the ’90s), or with their own population.
So, if the state has some identification with the welfare of its people, then the state does have interests beyond short-term great power politics; if on the other hand the state is just identified with the elite, who themselves don’t identify with the state except as a means for self-aggrandizement, then your great powers analysis make more sense.
That’s a large part of how I see things. World-Systems theories postulate that elites of “core states” (very roughly, great powers) keep their dominant position in their own society in considerable part by using resources they derive from relations with other states and societies. As I suggested above, elites of a dominant state may be less patriotic than those of their weaker rivals, and all elites have internal divisions.
In the latter case, I’d expect that the most sensible analysis of Mess-o-potamia is not even in great power politics, but in conspiracies and alliances among the elite — it’s not even the interest of the state relative to other states that’s being served, but the interests of corporations and other conspiracies of that ilk who talk in state language, but don’t really mean it anymore.
Both, I’d say.
Phew! A most stimulating discussion, with you and others. I must now take a few days off Pharyngula, and concentrate on work!
AMIN! :)
Longtime Lurker at #256: OK, I’ll stay off here for a few days and join Free Republic, just to see what it’s like. It will be instructive to see whether I’m as disliked in a hardcore right-wing community as I am here.
Citation time!
—————–
The Guardian, June 4th, 2003:
This happened at an Asian security summit in Singapore the weekend before.
————–
The “because he could” quote comes from a Smirking Chimp thread from (apparently) June 11, 2005, that is probably impossible to find now… but you might be interested in a few other quotes, most likely from Smirking Chimp from the same day, that I saved with it:
And, of course, Fearless Flightsuit had an exit strategy for Vietnam, as the T-shirt says.
I didn’t check if the link still works.
If you really last for several days, I’d like you to ask to donate your stomach to science. To mine a quote by a certain Dan here on Pharyngula on December 11, 2007, “Yowza! […] [Freeperville] goes beyond stupid into a realm where even stupid is afraid to show its face.”
You’ll probably be banned within a few hours at most.
Inheritance tax?
(insert pun here about resurrecting the death tax…)
————
Cute, really. :-}
Impossible without a time machine, Captain Unelected. They have already died in vain. Sending more people to their deaths won’t change that.
Clarification:
Link
Wolfowitz quote:
Link
H/t littlegreenfootballs.com I feel dirty…
LGF link
OK, I’ll stay off here for a few days and join Free Republic, just to see what it’s like. It will be instructive to see whether I’m as disliked in a hardcore right-wing community as I am here.
Call the waaaaaaahmbulence.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 11, 2008 7:41 PM
Somehow I doubt that he’ll be banned. Considering his sources for the opinions he borrows and posts here, I doubt he’ll run into much conflict over his ideas at that site. He won’t have to bend over backwards to try to seem reasonable – he’ll just be free to post the same assertions that he’s been so redundant about here. Then again, when I think about it I think it’s way more likely that he’ll just blend into the crowd.
Is that the emoticon for “recognising the irony in using that word when talking about a war criminal”? :)
Yes, I think he could last quite a while unless and until he says that Obama is “an honest, likeable person with a lot of integrity” or “I strongly oppose a Constitutional ban on gay marriage”. But, ironically, once he goes off-message with some of his more reasonable opinions, they’ll probably think he’s a concern troll. AFAICT, the volume over there isn’t very high, the comments are usually very short, without a lot of scope for discussion, so I don’t think it’s possible to get banned in hours unless you try pretty hard.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 11, 2008 10:16 PM
Yeah, but given his stubborn insistence on keeping those opinions of his that have been shown to be completely false (i.e. McCain is an advocate of secular government, Obama is an appeaser), I have no reason to think that he actually believes any of the more reasonable things he was basically forced into conceding. To me, it seems as if those things like the two statements you mentioned were merely concern-troll utterances meant to make him look like he was an active participant the discussion. Because if you noticed, he hardly ever uttered one of those reasonable opinions without following it up immediately with something like “but I still don’t see a reason to vote for him,” or some other ridiculous assertion that completely flew in the face of the reasonable comment. That’s why I hold firm in the opinion that he was nothing more than a concern troll on this site, and that’s why I think he’ll fit in quite nicely over there on the right-wing sites.
Early on, I was convinced that he was a (quite brilliant) troll, just trolling for shits’n’giggles, but he claimed to be a Wikipedian, so I found him and contacted him via Wikipedia. There’s absolutely no question that he’s a prolific and well-respected Wikipedia editor, which is really weird considering his sub-Wikipedia level knowledge on, well, everything. I believe that he’s sincere, though: that’s what bothers me. As long as I thought he was a troll, he was hilarious, but the first time I took him seriously, I completely lost it (above). I’m usually pretty good about responding rather than reacting, but he’d “try the patience of a saint”, as my grandfather would’ve said. Bizarrely contradictory, quite a conundrum.
I thought of going back through his posts here, finding all the statements he’d made, collating them, and putting them on a (user) Wikipedia page with [citation needed] after each one :o)
Hmm, then we get into the question of “what is a state?” The elites in the US don’t necessarily identify with the US, which is part of the problem of interpreting this Iraq mess, in the same way that in Rome in the imperial period, the Roman state lost interest in Rome.
All this insinuation that American “elites” are Servants of Darkness is becoming tiresome. What do you mean by “elites”? The super-rich, presumably? Are you trying to suggest they’re all neo-cons (including, say, Bill Gates?), or that maybe most of them are (say more than 50%?), or what? Define your terms.
I find it difficult to see how such negative, sweeping comments about extremely ill-defined groups can be anything more than far-left propaganda.
As if Obama isn’t an atheist.
To brokenSoldier at #282: I can assure you, I am not “concern trolling”. I have given only my honest opinion.
Ultimately, I agree with the consensus view on this forum in some areas, while disagreeing with it in many others. I’m not a typical American conservative, but I’m definitely more right-leaning than left-leaning even by American standards. But I can assure you that I haven’t been lying about any of my beliefs in order to get people to take me seriously as a participant in the discussion. All of it is my honest opinion.
On the one hand, I accept the probable reality of biological evolution, and oppose young-earth creationism and such nonsense; I support same-sex civil unions, where state legislatures see fit to adopt them (and I think a constitutional amendment about it would be pointless and ludicrous); I see the need for some level of practical restriction on civilian gun ownership; and I am in favour, generally, of the separation between church and state, and of ensuring that all laws which affect individual rights have a secular, objective justification. These are all my honest opinions, not “concern trolling”.
On the other hand, I also support tax cuts and a free-market economy; an aggressive stance in the War on Terror; a generally pro-life position on abortion; judicial strict constructionism; and strong opposition to affirmative action. So those are the beliefs which make me a conservative. But that doesn’t mean I’m lying about the others.
After looking at FreeRepublic, I decided not to bother – it doesn’t look like the intellectual standard of debate is particularly high, and, of course, it has a bad reputation on the internet. Can anyone direct me to a serious right-wing conservative equivalent of this site (i.e. somewhere with a relatively high calibre of discussion)? I imagine there must be one.
I should also point out that I enjoy being here, rather than on a conservative site, precisely because I don’t want to “blend into the crowd”; I benefit from having to defend my ideas in the face of reasoned and principled opposition. A discussion full of like-minded people (of any particular affiliation) patting each other on the back is not particularly interesting or productive.
I don’t think he’s in an Atheist in the strict sense of the term, read “audacity of hope” and you’ll see.
I see him more somewhere in between a Benjamin Franklin and a John Adams, who believed in some form of higher power, didn’t reject their Christian education but considered that reason was the only guiding principle.
shorter Walton (as per usual):
I…I…I…I…I…I…I…I…me…
The Southern Strategy is going to look subtle when compared with this year.
shorter Walton (as per usual):
I…I…I…I…I…I…I…I…me…
What else is there for a passive-aggressive narcissist to do?
@Walton
This is closest thing to sane right wingers I’ve come across. Enjoy.
http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/
Good hedging, Walton! Don’t want to stray too far from the flock!
Oh, what a surprise!
That’s like asking for an abattoir where they slaughter lettuce.
You’ll find conservative sites, alright, but the numbers of posts are uniformly pitifully small because their demographic don’t read and don’t think.
It goes away when you wake up.
Look, if the cluetrain eventually arrives at Walton Station, you’ll realise there’s a reason why the intelligentsia are predominantly “godless liberals”. You’re not going to find a site with conservative intellectuals seriously engaging with the issues of the day because there aren’t any. The GOP don’t get votes by rational argument and persuasion, they get them by hammering clichés into the mushy brains of rubes using Faux News propaganda.
They don’t need to think about it. They’re just right because they’re right because they’re right. They have absolute knowledge with no grounding in reality. It’s grounded in ideology, faith, and dogma. They don’t want to be challenged. They don’t want to learn or think. Education is weakness. Ignorance is strength. It’s not a coincidence that fundies and Repuglicans are aligned, their intellectual dispositions are the same. Listen to the dialogue of the windbags you listen to: they project the way their own minds work onto “leftists” and “liberals” by calling us “dittoheads”. They attack universities for being “full of liberal professors” and call researchers “leftist grant-whores”. They’re anti-education and so profoundly stupid that they don’t realise the “solution” to liberal bias in universities: if you want universities to be more conservative, you have to get them to hire more stupid people.
How about a little experiment on candidates’ academic achievement: I’ll do the first one: McCain barely passed his classes in the Naval Academy. Obama has degrees from Columbia (B.A. in politics w/ major in international relations) and Harvard (J.D., magna cum laude) and lectured constitutional law in U. Chicago.
Yet, somehow, you assert that McCain is “quite clearly a better qualified candidate”, then wonder why we pour scorn on you!
That’s like asking for an abattoir where they slaughter lettuce.
*giggle/snort*
Emmet Caulfield at #292: I have to disagree. There is a great conservative intellectual tradition, going back to Edmund Burke, and epitomised today by thinkers such as George Will. Since modern conservatism is so committed to the idea of small government and minimal state interference, I also think we can be said to stand within the libertarian philosophical tradition of J.S. Mill (despite his snide remarks about the conservatives of his day). Not to mention great economic thinkers such as Friedman and von Hayek, whose ideas were at the root of the conservatism of Thatcher and Reagan. So I don’t think you can reasonably assert that there is no intellectual depth to conservative thinking. Yes, the right has its propagandists (Limbaugh and O’Reilly being the pre-eminent examples), just as the left has the likes of Michael Moore. But just as I don’t judge the thinking of great liberal philosophers (of whom there were plenty) by the standards of Moore, one shouldn’t do the same to the right.
I will admit, though, that there are a lot of knee-jerk conservatives, just as there are knee-jerk liberals. The world has plenty of people who are limited in their education and the scope of their thinking. So I will admit that there are plenty of conservative idiots. But that doesn’t mean that conservative thought itself is grounded in idiocy.
The GOP don’t get votes by rational argument and persuasion – Neither does any mass political movement. Like it or not, the majority of the millions of people who vote do not devote a massive amount of thought to their political decision-making. As much as I hate it, it is the reality of democratic politics in the mass-media age: complex ideas must be broken down into slogans, pictures, simplistic advertising campaigns, etc.
Listen to the dialogue of the windbags you listen to: they project the way their own minds work onto “leftists” and “liberals” by calling us “dittoheads”. They attack universities for being “full of liberal professors” and call researchers “leftist grant-whores”. – All true, and I’m no fan of that sort of discourse. But it’s not like liberals don’t also seek to characterise conservatives in disparaging ways. If we could eliminate all these kinds of attacks from all sides of political discourse, it would be great (and you may notice that I have never, in hundreds of posts on this site, used any of those disparaging epithets towards any of you). But unfortunately, political discourse in a democratic age is inevitably full of needless personal attacks.
…you’ll realise there’s a reason why the intelligentsia are predominantly “godless liberals”. – At the risk of making a gross generalisation – and I’m sure one can find plenty of counterexamples – I would contend that, generally, this is because the liberal intelligentsia have not had the types of life experiences which tend to make one a conservative; experiences like building one’s own business from the ground up and surviving in the fast-paced commercial world, for instance. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not criticising academia as a profession. As a society, we need education. But I am simply pointing out that the fact that liberal views prevail in academia does not mean that the liberal outlook is the only intelligent one. Our society needs entrepreneurs (who create jobs and prop up the economy) as much as it needs educators, and entrepreneurs are almost universally conservative. I would contend that the particular idealistic brand of liberalism which prevails among academics and students (as a student, I’m exposed to it every day) is very attractive, in the abstract, to the intelligent and principled mind – but it is held by few people outside the academic world, and the natural inference would seem to be that the life experiences which one has outside of academia tend to guide one away from doctrinaire liberalism.
How about a little experiment on candidates’ academic achievement: I’ll do the first one: McCain barely passed his classes in the Naval Academy. Obama has degrees from Columbia (B.A. in politics w/ major in international relations) and Harvard (J.D., magna cum laude) and lectured constitutional law in U. Chicago. Yet, somehow, you assert that McCain is “quite clearly a better qualified candidate”, then wonder why we pour scorn on you! – All true. But pure intelligence and academic achievement are not the sole relevant qualifications in evaluating a political leader. In terms of intellect alone, the brightest post-war President was almost certainly Bill Clinton (high academic achievement despite coming from an ordinary background; Rhodes Scholar; glittering legal career). Yet for me, that isn’t the ideal background for a leader. I would rather have a political leader who has, for instance, put his life on the line for his country serving in the military, or has built his own business from the ground up through sheer hard work and talent – or has had some other tough, daunting experience which pushed him to his limits of leadership, courage or fortitude. All in all, intelligence alone is not enough qualification to be president. A political leader worthy of respect needs to have faced challenging life experiences which pushed them to their limit and tested their character.
Ah, J the arrogant troll returns: All this insinuation that American “elites” are Servants of Darkness is becoming tiresome. What do you mean by “elites”? The super-rich, presumably? Are you trying to suggest they’re all neo-cons (including, say, Bill Gates?), or that maybe most of them are (say more than 50%?), or what? Define your terms.
You do have a dictionary, correct? Merriam-Webster: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence. Not that hard really — composed of the super-rich, high government officials — the well-connected.
Please show who suggested that they were all neo-cons? Soros is part of the elite, as much as Murdoch. We’re not talking about “intentions” or “personal characteristics” — we’re talking about social movements and their relationship to each other.
Why is it right-wingers can never distinguish between individuals and groups? And don’t whine that you’re not a right-winger — if this is “far-left propaganda”, you’re to the right of almost all thinking politics — quit with the concern trolling, it really is tiresome. Have either balls or brains, rather than this substanceless sniping under your lies and propaganda.
“Servants of Darkness”? What kind of propagandistic idiocy is that? It’s a question of their perceived self and social interest (and whether it’s intelligent or not, and whether it’s narcissistic or not) – no different than an analysis of the behavior of a union or a street gang. Why can right-wingers do that kind of analysis perfectly well when looking at their “enemies”, but as soon as you start doing it for their leaders, suddenly it’s all about intentions and personality? Tiresome, so tiresome — treating us all as idiots.
Walton —
I’ve not had time to look at them in much depth, but some of the blogs on this list look reasonably interesting.
Did Walton answer the call?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/there-probably.html
Hello, Walton,
And you would know this… how?
Anyway, you’re wrong.
True enough. But Liberalism doesn’t exist only in academia – unless you define is as the kind of liberalism that only exists in academia, when doing so would, obviously, beg the question.
Business-oriented people – entrepentuers and managment – tend to vote Republican. Professionals – a class which includes not just academics, but “a large class of affluent knowledge workers — teachers, lawyers, architects, academics, journalists, therapists, decorators and so on — who live and vote differently than their equally well-educated but more business-oriented peers.” (From “Bitter at the Top”, David Brooks, NYT, June 15, 2004).
Are you ready to claim that teachers, lawyers, architects, journalists, therapists etc. have no life experience? Are you going to say “If they are still liberals, then they have had no life experience of the type that turns one conservative?” I advise against it.
(I hope that’s coherent enough… no time to edit, gotta run.)
Apparently not.
“Our poll [from 2007] suggests that more formerly centrist small-business owners are leaning leftward nowadays. The party affiliations of the entrepreneurs in our survey (37% Republican, 35% Democrat, 28% independent/minor party) still tilt more Republican than the overall population, which polls indicate has been favoring the Democrats since 2006, but 30.4% of respondents describe their politics as “progressive” or “liberal,” up from 24% in a similar FSB/Zogby survey in 2004.”
OK, sport, go find the right-wing website teeming with threads 300-800 posts long where the standard of discussion and invective parallels Pharyngula. I’ll invade it, post like your mirror image, and see how long it takes me to get banned.
Of course, but of those who do devote a massive amount of thought to their political decision making, what proportion are “wingnuts” and what proportion are “leftists”? I think you know the answer, sport, you haven’t found that website full of thoughtful Repuglicans, have you?
Yet still, your political thinking is moulded by the Hindenburg Trio who do nothing else! Hypocritical much?
Okie dokie, then. AFAICT Keith Olbermann is about the closest thing there is to an O’Reilly-like liberal windbag. If any Americans can think of someone better, please say so. Now, go and compare Olbermann and O’Reilly side-by-side. Then, come back and say that the liberals are as bad as the conservatives.
A 19 year-old who’s in a position to judge life-experience, hah! I think it’s self-interest. People vote for their own self-interest and conservatives let the wealthy keep more of their money, which is what really matters to them. Not all of them, granted: I ran my own business for 10 years and it didn’t turn me into a selfish prick. I know a very wealthy and successful multi-millionaire who’s about as far left/libertarian as me (about -5, -5 on the political compass), believes in higher taxes, and has never once bribed a politician.
It’s not just academics. Don’t get me wrong, other than for polemical purposes I wouldn’t say “left/godless is smart” and “right/religious is stupid”, it’s a false dichotomy piled on false dichotomies, but that’s the way it is on average and, anecdotally, that’s been my experience, present company included! The few smart right-wingers I know are right-wingers for horribly cynical reasons.
OK then, what are the relevant criteria? Or is it “I’ve a hard-on for war, so military service trumps everything else”?
Frog,
I think it’s obvious that you were speaking of the American “elite” with a negative undertone, or at least were trying to make generalizations. I think sweeping speculations about them are no more legitimate than sweeping speculations about the poor.
Why is it right-wingers can never distinguish between individuals and groups? And don’t whine that you’re not a right-winger — if this is “far-left propaganda”, you’re to the right of almost all thinking politics — quit with the concern trolling, it really is tiresome.
I’m not a right-winger. Insisting that I shouldn’t deny this arbitrary, unsupported charge is simply a dishonest debating tactic.
The fact that I often disagree with dopey leftist agenda-laden nonsense does not make me “to the right of almost all thinking”.
Etha,
Most of them are well known tribalistic knee-jerk reactionaries, precisely the kind of people Emmet and I have been talking about.
I’ve come across at least one intelligent-seeming traditional conservative blog before. I’m not sure I could find it again though.
The blogger declared his support for Obama, because although he disagreed on policy he believed Obama would rebuild the constitution, and, like many of us, believed the GOP had been reduced to inane tribalism. That he agrees with me on one point makes me biased of course – closeness to my opinions clearly implies intelligence ;)
Scott Ritter has described himself as a “card carrying Republican” but obviously knows much about the Middle East. Truthdig doesn’t exactly have a conservative readership though.
Emmet,
That’s a large part of the “high RWA” personality type identified by studies into authoritarianism. See The Authoritarians for some scientific* backing, plus the personality types that can exploit the high RWAs.
*As scientific as sociology and psychology can get, at least.
Emmet’s comments on this thread are certainly worthy of a Molly… “Abbatoir that slaughters lettuce” alone is worth the price of admission.
Now, Walton, you have three days, like a modern day Diogenes. Go out and find a conservative blog in which eliminationist rhetoric, bigotry, and hatred of science do not take center-stage.
I don’t think the notion of right/left has ever really existed in American politics.
So that it’d be clear Clinton’s economic policies were not to the left, but much closer to what we, in “old Europe”, call the right.
It’s only the fairly recent hijacking of the republican party by the neo-cons, which by all means is far right politics, that has given the illusion that there was something to the left of the republican party.
Because since the WWII USA has managed to grow at fairly high pace without the need for any socialist alternance, and its elite have managed to hide until now a complete diquilibrium in the distribution of its wealth by keeping the masses deluded into thinking that they were relatively well off, well educated, well medicated, well entertained, free, democratic, in other words, the best nation in the words, by maximizing the use of propaganda and maintaining a high level of religiosity.
But all this will have its time, the USA is a pressure cooker waiting to explode, by postponing endlessly the implementation of real social welfare programmes, when the masses will suddenly realise that the USA has become the poorest of all developped nations, they’ll revolt.
Only problem, noone knows which way it will go.
Populism leading to National Socialism, or a more gentle way …
Frog,
I think it’s obvious that you were speaking of the American “elite” with a negative undertone
Well, I won’t speak of them with a negative undertone: I’ll just state clearly that I regard them as the most dangerous group of people on the planet by far. That doesn’t mean they are all nasty as individuals, nor that I cannot distinguish more and less dangerous groupings within them, nor that I have no interests in common with those of them who are sane (such as preventing catastrophic climate change). Collectively, however, they are quite clearly determined to continue hogging wealth and power, and ready to use any level of violence necessary in order to do so. I will do what little I can to diminish their wealth and power.
Meanwhile, J., I note that you have in no way addressed the analysis of their motives and actions some of us have been discussing, but have simply employed typical rightist sneers (“dopey leftist agenda-laden nonsense”) as if they were arguments – I assume because you have none of the latter.
Negentropyeater, the term “radical middle” has been used to describe much of American politics. The definition is pretty fuzzy, but the concept is a good one to keep in mind.
Emmet Caulfield at #300:
AFAICT Keith Olbermann is about the closest thing there is to an O’Reilly-like liberal windbag. – I disagree. George Carlin and Bill Maher, from what I’ve seen of them, are at least as bad as O’Reilly or Limbaugh. Al Franken also seems irritating (though I’m hesitant to judge, since I haven’t read his book). And Michael Moore, though he doesn’t use the kind of aggressively barbed rhetoric of his right-wing counterparts, is equally guilty of distorting the truth for partisan purposes and deceiving people by over-simplifying complex issues. So there are just as many bad liberals in public life as bad conservatives.
OK, sport, go find the right-wing website teeming with threads 300-800 posts long where the standard of discussion and invective parallels Pharyngula. I’ll invade it, post like your mirror image, and see how long it takes me to get banned. – I can’t find such a site: that’s what I was asking everyone else for, which is how this discussion got started. Given the great intellectual tradition of conservative thought (which I described in detail above at post #294), I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a right-leaning website where the intellectual and discursive standard parallels this site. Yet there doesn’t seem to be anywhere else, left or right, which really compares.
Don’t get me wrong, other than for polemical purposes I wouldn’t say “left/godless is smart” and “right/religious is stupid”, it’s a false dichotomy piled on false dichotomies, but that’s the way it is on average and, anecdotally, that’s been my experience, present company included! The few smart right-wingers I know are right-wingers for horribly cynical reasons. – So I’m either stupid, or cynical and self-interested. Thanks very much. :-) Indeed, this seems to be the prevailing attitude around here: anyone who professes to be a right winger is either a gullible idiot, completely insane, or deceitful and manipulative (I’ve been accused of all three so far), because no one who is both intelligent and decent could possibly believe in low taxes, small government and a strong national defence.
To Kseniya at #298. Are you ready to claim that teachers, lawyers, architects, journalists, therapists etc. have no life experience? – Depends what you mean by “life experience”. For me, someone doesn’t have enough life experience to be a great political leader until they’ve faced challenges that have pushed them to their mental and physical limits and tested the strength of their character. The most conventional way to do that is, of course, military service, but I wouldn’t contend that military service is the only way to do it. A doctor, paramedic, firefighter or police officer is also faced with life-and-death decisions, responsibility, and the need for physical and moral courage, and they are also pushed to their limits in the course of their careers.
Look at it this way. (Sorry to bring personal examples into it again; no doubt Sven DeMilo will again accuse me of being a narcissist. But it’s relevant to my argument, and I make no apologies.) I’m studying law at a prestigious university (Oxford), and am reasonably successful at it. Constitutional and public law (exactly what Obama specialises in) is my preferred area. I am capable of getting a good degree and becoming a lawyer or a legal academic (like Obama) – but that won’t qualify me to be a great leader. It won’t test my mental and physical courage, force me to make life-and-death decisions under pressure, or make me responsible for the lives of others. And until I’ve been through those tests, I am not qualified to lead a nation. As I keep saying, intelligence is simply not enough. I’m relatively intelligent (although none of you seem to believe this), but I am nowhere near capable of holding high political office and using it responsibly.
Sorry – I forgot to indicate the italicised text in 306 is quoted from J, and was addressed to frog.
Somewhat off-topic, but still related to politics and religion:
Basically, arguing against emphasizing personal public piety in politicians:
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/godless/index.html
And, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. __ (2008) has been decided:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s553pt2.html
Like dousing for wombats in the Sahara.
Then, if he finds one (*snickers*), how quickly will I get booted by “mirroring” his posts here. I reckon “Barack Obama is clearly a better-qualified candidate”, mirroring one of his earlier ejaculations, is all it would take for me to be handed a one-way-ticket to Plonksville, although with some skillful sniveling, I might be able to get past that. Since I’ve no intention of posting anything personal, I’ll need some convincing fiction to overshare. I’m toying with “anal fissures” or “raccoon bites on my scrotum”.
“George Carlin and Bill Maher, from what I’ve seen of them, are at least as bad as O’Reilly or Limbaugh”
George Carlin and Bill Maher are comedians, Bill O’Reilly tries to pass himself off as a newsman (the best term for his ilk is ‘journamalist’ (sic). Limbaugh, well, he’s a special case, he’s ostensibly an ‘entertainer’, but he does have a much greater sway over his political constituency than Maher or Carlin would ever seek to have.
I have sought to find an instance of bigotry in George Will’s past, and have not been able to find any overtly racist statements. So far, I have only been able to find tenuous traces of his support for Anita Bryant’s old antigay “Save Our Children” nonsense. Stupid Anita, by being antigay, she doomed herself to an old age of shunning by drag impersonators.
All this being said, George Will is still an asshat:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/06/04/george-will-cant-stop-lying/
Hate to harp on it,Walton, but aren’t you supposed to have a three-day homework assignment to finish? Go, find that “Conservative Intellectual” presence on the web. Andrew Sullivan may be the closest thing to what you seek, but he’s been “off the res'” for the last few years, what with being gay and all.
To Longtime Lurker: I’ve already watched the George Will-Stephen Colbert segment in question (I’m an avid Colbert Report fan) but I read through the critical link you posted. It seemed to me that the basis of the criticism was that Will’s statements in the interview – about the conservative commitment to individual freedom, particularly – did not square with the practical reality of modern American conservatism (particularly the erosion of civil liberties under the present administration). And I do accept that point.
In the time I’ve spent on this site, I’ve come increasingly to realise that the reality of the American conservative movement today is not in line with the more idealistic conservatism which I believe in. Ultimately, I primarily believe in the freedom and autonomy of the individual, in small government, and in being prepared to fight to defend our liberty (as Jefferson said, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”). The kind of American conservatism which so pisses off most people on this site, on the other hand, is evidently that which has an apparent desire to regulate individuals’ private lives, promote a particular narrow form of evangelical Protestant Christianity using public funds, abuse patriotism for partisan political ends, and erode civil liberties. That is not the kind of conservatism which I support, and it has moved far from the basic principles which inform my political thought. And so, perhaps, I’ve been fighting the wrong fight here.
Don’t forget the muppets in Crank Yankers. Gotta admit, though, you really got me there… by listing a load of comedians. That’s gotta be the fucking Iliad of EPIC FAIL.
And the conclusion is…
Bingo!!! Give the boy a cookie!!!
No, but spending five years being poked in the face with poojah sticks, THAT would make you a great leader!
Obama worked in the corporate sector for 4 years. He served his country as a community organiser, voter-registration activist, civil rights lawyer, educator in constitutional law, state senator and US senator. He has more “life experience”, as you put it, and achievements in his life than McCain, only ever a rather mediocre naval officer and a politician, could shake a shitty stick at.
It won’t test my mental and physical courage, force me to make life-and-death decisions under pressure, or make me responsible for the lives of others.
And, again, fetishization of the hero-myth on some bloody grail quest…blah blah blah.
Grow up. Life is not a fairy tale.
eh. Why beat a dead
narcihorse? *shrug*Is the tendency towards introspection the same as narcissism?
I always figured that being unwilling/unable to examine, express, or defend one’s personal epistemology was one of the necessary symptoms of narcissism.
Hence, Kenny/Planet Killer, etc, etc — too many trolls to count.
On the other hand — the fetishization of conflict; the trait of identifying self-worth with physical bravery and success in combat — that might be something that results from narcissistic tendencies,
But I am not versed in more than a layperson’s understanding of psychology.
On the other hand — the fetishization of conflict; the trait of identifying self-worth with physical bravery and success in combat — that might be something that results from narcissistic tendencies,
triumph des willens.
Well, I contemplated my navel for a long time trying to work out an answer to that question and, you know, I’ve concluded that my navel is Sexy. As. All. Hell. Really, the best navel you can possibly imagine! A unparalleled super-navel! None of you sluts have a navel half as good as mine!
Godwin!
Er, that is: It seems to be that those traits long predate the work you mention. I was actually thinking of how the Greeks in The Illiad saw the war as an opportunity to win “glory” — that is, the fame that arises from killing a bunch of opposing warriors. And specifically how petulant and self-centered Achilles was.
Among other things.
Now you’re just
being sillytrolling for “Dear-Sir/Madam-I-wish-to-complain…” responses.Harrumph!
Godwin!
just bored. Prepped for class and killing a little time.
IANAΨ
nor do I play one on TV.
None of you sluts have a navel half as good as mine!
—–
IANAΨ
nor do I play one on TV.
I am a slut, but I don’t play one on TV. (and I don’t care how good your navel is…that’s not what I’m after! Pride weekend starts after class tonight! Wheeeeeeeeeee!)
Owlmirror@321,
Silly, I confess to, your honour. Something of an almost Pythonesque humour has overtaken me of late. Trolling for particular responses *sigh*. Yes, your honour, I must plead guilty to that too, but, begging your indulgence, only in the 2nd degree, since my intention was to generate lulz, rather than directly solicit the aforementioned particular response. There was indeed no malice aforethought, your honour. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Walton:
I’ll risk it, against my better judgement…You’re almost there, but let me fix something for you:
It is not always necessary to take up arms to defend our freedom. In making the statement you did, you imply that the use of force is the best way to defend freedom. In making the statement as I amended it, it is made clear that you’re prepared to defend liberty unconditionally, whether it be through humanitarian efforts, legislation, diplomacy, or – should it come to that – through the use of force.
And while I understand the sentiment behind the Jefferson quote you cited, I do not accept it at face value as ultimate truth. The way I interpret his statement is as a commentary on the fact that there are individuals born to this world that will force nations into war, and not as an affirmation that war is necessary for freedom. It may very well have been in Jefferson’s day, but the world has changed significantly in the almost two centuries that have passed since he lived.
This shows a clear flaw in the conservative ideology that you subscribe to. It serves the interests of those in power to have citizens who have no problem with the use of force, so they put forth patriotic-sounding statements such as “be prepared to fight to defend liberty.” Fighting should be used as the last line of defense, not as one of the first, which is how it was used in Iraq. Civilization has progressed past the point of using force to solve all our problems, even if some politicians have not. But those politicians cannot be allowed to hijack the means of nations to serve the interests of a few, and that resistance begins in the mind, not on the business end of a weapon.
In the end, to come back on frog’s point, I don’t think that the elites are fundamentally different in Europe, than in the USA.
I’d say that until now, the elites have been more successful in the USA at maintaining the masses in a delusion of relative happiness, than in Europe, for the following reasons :
1. Europe was a mess after the war, the US wasn’t
2. the US is geographically more isolated
3. the US had more potential for growth
Today, most Americans are simply incapable of comparing themselves with other developped nations. When they believe that they have one of the best health care system in the developped world, that’s a delusion of relative happiness. When McCain repeats than this is the greatest nation on the planet, this is the elitist message by excellence.
Frog, it’s not the elites that are disconnected from the people. It’s the people that are completely deluded, numbed, inept to react.
When the truck drivers completely blocked the country in Spain for the last three days because they are demanding higher tarifs in exchange of higher costs of gazoline, it’s bottom up, and not the elites who are better connected to the people.
Meanwhile, J., I note that you have in no way addressed the analysis of their motives and actions some of us have been discussing, but have simply employed typical rightist sneers (“dopey leftist agenda-laden nonsense”) as if they were arguments – I assume because you have none of the latter.
Sweeping comments regarding large diverse groups are worthy of sneers, in my opinion. That I think many leftists are dopey-minded and ideology-driven does not mean I’m a right-winger. I also don’t think the least bit highly of “many right-wingers”, but there aren’t many of them around here, so you probably won’t see me confront any.
Personally, I think poor people are the most dangerous group on the planet. Naturally, this doesn’t give me cause to treat them with a broad brush, or speak of them with a negative tone.
Well, to be fair, Walton is responsible for the greatest part of shit on the carpet in this thread. However, everyone already knows that. I’m not needed to point it out.
Depends on what you mean by campaigning. For instance, while you cannot contribute your own money, you can fundraise through ActBlue, assuming you can find US citizens or permanent residents who’ll contribute through your page there. You could use your YouTube channel to make your appeals.
http://www.actblue.com/content/learnmore/fundraise
Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?
To brokenSoldier at #326: Thanks for responding. I agree with the majority of what you’ve said on this, and I have no problem in principle with substituting “defend our liberty” for “fight to defend our liberty” in my earlier remarks. It is, of course, perfectly true that the defence of liberty does not always require violence (and, indeed, violence is not always the best way to go about it), though our nations must ultimately be prepared to use violence in preference to the surrender of liberty. I also agree entirely that war should generally be a last resort. And as I’ve said, I don’t think the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a particularly good idea. So I don’t think our area of disagreement is that wide.
As I’ve said, I think it’s unfortunate how far American conservatism seems to have diverged from the basic conservative principles that I hold dear.
brokenSoldier: *applause*
negentropyeater,
I think there are other differences. There are idealistic politicians in both the US and Europe and there are corrupt politicians interested only in their own wealth and power.
In either case, the corrupt serve only themselves, but the difference, I think, is that idealistic American politicians serve something abstract and intangible: the nation, and idealistic European populations serve something concrete and personal: the people.
You see it in the political rhetoric. A European politician wouldn’t be seen dead wearing a flag pin except one day a year: their country’s national day, equivalent of the 4th of July. There is no veneration of a symbol like “the flag”, and frankly, I think it’s an awfully dumb thing to pledge allegiance to. You can be accused of being unamerican, but you can’t be accused of being unirish or unswedish: such adjectives do not exist. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the most jingoistic countries in Europe, were the ones in the “Coalition of the Willing”.
You see it too in the “America is the Greatest Country on Earth” rhetoric. It’s defined in terms of abstractions and ideals like “freedom” and “opportunity”, not measured in terms of educational attainment, average health outcomes, longevity, quality of care. These things are our values and sharing them is really what binds the EU together. France didn’t refuse to join the coalition of the willing because they were “cheese-eating surrender-monkeys”, they did it because the didn’t believe the lies, and French values, like universal free childcare, cannot be delivered laser-guided from a warplane.
I know it’s odd to speak of concrete things as being values, but that’s how I see it. I think it’s the reason why we don’t fuss so much over things like “Separation of Church and State”. Americans are often appalled that many European countries have state churches. But they’re benign and politically impotent. Something as abstract as religion isn’t a value here, low unemployment rate or short waiting time for surgery are values.
J: Care to define this?
“Personally, I think poor people are the most dangerous group on the planet.”
It would seem that you are truly a wretch.
“I’m voting republican”
GENIUS ALERT
This is soooo you PZ, you’ll love it !
I really don’t see why, it’s just that in Europe, the working classes have made it harder for politicians to forget that they exist.
Could it have been differently ? no. There were no obstacles. So the US went all steam ahead. The rethoric is just the result, in a sense it adapted itself to its environment. Now there are obstacles, and America never learned. Good luck.
Err… France isn’t jingoistic? The causes of any given nation joining the “Coalition of the Willing” are likely complex, and partly depend on the government of the day. Some suspect Sarkozy would have joined: his foreign secretary supported the invasion at the time.
Those who joined included the traditionally pro-American UK and Netherlands (whose populations were also the most supportive, peaking at 50% pro-war), and the poorer and weaker “new Europe” (whose populations were as anti-war as any). Spain and Italy probably could only be explained with reference to their governments of the day.
The term “anti-american” is odd too. No-one is accused of being anti-italian, anti-spanish or whatever. As a propaganda term it assumes:
a) A nation is a morally culpable entity.
b) A nation is homogeneous, defined by its government.
In other words, a nation is anthropomorphised. This is of course rubbish.
c) The United States is morally Good.
This is never extended to other democracies, except Israel.
d) Anyone who dislikes American policy therefore Hates America, and as America is Good this person must be Evil.
It would seem that you are truly a wretch.
Hahaha. I know someone wouldn’t like that. See, it’s OK to say the rich are the most dangerous, but when you make the same statement about the poor, sparks fly.
I think that the poorer and worse educated an individual is, the more brutual, savage, intellectually dishonest and generally dishonest he or she is likely to be. So yes, I think I do have good reason to say it’s the poor, not the rich, who are the most dangerous. Human beings generally frighten me, but less so (on average) if they’re wealthy and educated.
J: Personally, I think poor people are the most dangerous group on the planet. Naturally, this doesn’t give me cause to treat them with a broad brush, or speak of them with a negative tone.
And still you insist you’re not a right-winger?
I think that the poorer and worse educated an individual is, the more brutual, savage, intellectually dishonest and generally dishonest he or she is likely to be.
Gah, you’re an idiot. Talk about broad-brushes. The worse-educated someone is, the more ignorant they are — but even a slight experience leads one to recognize that the poor and badly educated are, in general, less brutal and less dishonest than those who have a great deal of power. In general, they don’t see human beings as objects in their play.
Now, what you may be misunderstanding is that in conflicts, poor people are more likely to knife you, personally, while wealthy people are much less likely to need to do that — they have other options, from the law, to the police, to (at the top end) the military.
Sparks fly because you really are an intellectually dishonest — or incompetent — right-wing wretch. It takes either an obscene vacuousness or an insane propagandistic turn to not recognize that in terms of kill-to-head ratio, the poor are magnitudes away from the brutality unleashed by those who have the power to unleash it.
Because you kill someone with a button makes you no less brutal than a cannibal; and in some ways it is more brutal in its degradation of your opponent.
And still you insist you’re not a right-winger?
Yep. Left (but not far left) probably best describes my position. This doesn’t prevent me from being extremely cynical about human nature.
Anyway, be sure not to take me out of context. Read the posts. Nick Gotts claimed that the American “elites” are the most dangerous people on the planet. I countered with my opinion that the poor are in fact the most dangerous. I am not using this as reason to start talking negatively about them.
Gah, you’re an idiot. Talk about broad-brushes. The worse-educated someone is, the more ignorant they are — but even a slight experience leads one to recognize that the poor and badly educated are, in general, less brutal and less dishonest than those who have a great deal of power. In general, they don’t see human beings as objects in their play.
I don’t know what planet you’re living on, but here on Earth poor neighbourhoods practically universally come top of whatever metric of violence you care to choose.
Because you kill someone with a button makes you no less brutal than a cannibal; and in some ways it is more brutal in its degradation of your opponent.
A hilarious self-caricature of extremist leftist wingnuttery. Dear Frog, you excel yourself.
Yeah, I think the poor are more violent than the rich. This doesn’t mean I’m a right-winger. I do not support the Iraq war, and never have done. It is beyond absurd to accuse me of “kill[ing] someone with a button”.
frog,
That’s a trait of the psychopath and the pathological narcissist. It may be that psychopaths are better equipped than most to enter positions of power in business and government, but otherwise it’s not related to wealth or education. See Robert Hare, e.g. Snakes in Suits.
J,
Street crimes are committed by the poor. War crimes are committed by the powerful, particularly the “supreme war crime” of aggression.
Seriously, the US Army kills more people than the Crips and their ilk.
Why are you guys arguing over such a ridiculous notion of who of the rich or the poor are the most dangerous people on the planet ?
I thought this was highly amusing:
J@328:
*snigger*
negentropyeater: #327
In the end, to come back on frog’s point, I don’t think that the elites are fundamentally different in Europe, than in the USA.
I’d say that until now, the elites have been more successful in the USA at maintaining the masses in a delusion of relative happiness, than in Europe, for the following reasons :
1. Europe was a mess after the war, the US wasn’t
2. the US is geographically more isolated
3. the US had more potential for growth
I’d agree that it’s a two way street: people are less deluded in Europe, because of their historic memory of WWI, WWII and their lives on the front lines of the Cold War.
But I’d still assert that the elites of Europe still see their interest tied with their nations in a way the American elites don’t. Europeans, in general, are more tied to their localities — aside and beyond the game of jingoism (so are S. Americans). Partly it’s just my impression comparing the culture of American academic elites to European academic elites.
But I always note news reports which follow the pattern of the head of DeutscheBank being pushed out partly because he spoke in very American terms about screwing the population — it wasn’t just popular pressure, but a recognition by other bankers that such policies were dangerous to themselves. You just hear more Soros like commentaries, where in the US Soros is a crazy elite, who’s more worried about the danger of fascism than about padding his pocket even more than it already is; where Buffet is also seen as a bit unhinged for caring about leaving a legacy than isn’t just accumulation of personal wealth.
Being dangerous is quite independent from being rich or poor, generalisations about those things make no sense…
G.W.Bush dangerous ? Rich ?
Timothy Mc Veigh dangerous ? Poor ?
The 9/11 terrorists dangerous ? Poor ?
The president of Exxon Mobil dangerous ? Rich ?
etc…
Anybody care to make some calculations ? Do they make any sense ?
No, people are less deluded, because they were not satisfied. In Europe, we were for years definitely much less well off than Americans. The masses kept complaining, going to the street, demanding welfare programmes, whilst Americans were growing, growing, growing, until…
In a sense, America is now a victim of its success.
Politicians, whether in Europe or in the USA just react to whatever happens. No difference. The rich, owners of capital, just protect their capital. No difference.
Berlusconi is scary, even by American standards. Sarkozy is very “American like”. It’s all the same.
It’s the populations in their entirity who make the difference.
Street crimes are committed by the poor. War crimes are committed by the powerful, particularly the “supreme war crime” of aggression.
Yes, but the poor don’t happen to run the world, so there’s an utter lack of what we scientists call a control.
The world is generally worse off when ignorant individuals with views similar to those from poor neighbourhoods are placed in positions of power. (Heard of someone called “George W. Bush”, by any chance?)
That was supposed to be “control”.
(Kind of ruined the effect of my cute little rejoinder.)
Why are you guys arguing over such a ridiculous notion of who of the rich or the poor are the most dangerous people on the planet?
Yes, it is ridiculous. I was just observing that if I had to guess who’s the most “dangerous” group out of the super-rich and the poor, I’d choose the poor. So saying that the “elite” are “dangerous” does not yield a justification for making sweeping comments about them.
I think the natural state of humans is one of savagery and cruelty (except to very close relations). Wealth and education, in my opinion, generally take us further away from this condition.
The super-rich corporate & political elite in this country hold a large part of the responsibility for the socioeconomic conditions that marginalize the lower classes and hinder their educational and personal opportunities, leading to a disaffected social state that sometimes manifests itself in violence and crime.
J: I think the natural state of humans is one of savagery and cruelty (except to very close relations). Wealth and education, in my opinion, generally take us further away from this condition.
You’re a cutting edge 17th century thinker, ain’t ya?
You know, we’ve had about three centuries of research into the subject — what you think and a dime will get you five cents. What a maroon!
Sven: LoL @ IANAΨ
:-D
Walton:
Mais, non! It depends on what you meant by it:
“Doctrinaire” liberalism? Is that like the “doctrinaire” conservatism espoused by academics like D’Souza? You’re poisoning the well, here, by asserting that the liberalism embraced by the intelligensia is, by definition, doctrinaire. Nice try, but no. No, I do not accept that.
Your claim is demonstrably false, because many non-academics – the professional “knowledge workers” David Brooks mentions – are a) liberals, b) members of the intelligensia, and c) out here in the real world, not holed up in some ivory tower, as you, Master Oxford, would have us believe. Windy’s comment even refuted your claim that entrepeneurs are “universally conservative”. They are not.
The difference, according to Brooks and his sources, is not, as you claim, based on some divide vs. academia and “real” life experience, an idea that reeks (once again) of Limbaughism and the disheartning, widespread Rightest distain for higher education. The dividing line is along the border between professional knowledge workers and managers. The border follows differences in temperment, in vocational outlook and in what kinds of skill-sets are seen as valuable. “Professionals” tend to vote Democratic, while “managers” tend to vote Republican. “Real life” experience has little to do with it – once again, you’ve been taken in by the propaganda of those who want their readers (or listeners) to believe that the so-called liberal-academic-elite-intelligensia are out of touch with reality and have no “real life” experience. The implication is that knowledge earned by way of higher education is worthless. The message is, “Mistrust the educated.”
What do you suppose is the purpose of that message, Master Oxford?
The message is crap. Dangerous, corrosive crap. I suggest you either abandon that line of thinking, or drop out of school yourself and live the Conservative American Dream. Hard work, and a little horse-sense, can take you farther than a worthless scrap of paper from a university, dontcha know.
I’m sure I haven’t covered all the bases, here; I don’t deny that doctrinaire liberalism exists, or that it has a home in academia – but that’s not what’s under discussion. You cannot base an argument on the assumption that the “liberal intelligensia” is wholly contained within the comfortable confines of “academia” – it is not – nor on the assumption that liberalism cannot survive outside those friendly confines – it can, and does.
Personally, I think poor people are the most dangerous group on the planet.
Crap. They are not armed with thermonuclear missiles. And you are a right-winger – every commnet you make, makes that more obvious.
J said:
Osama bin Laden is a scion of one of the wealthiest famillies on the planet (and the Shrub was not exactly short of booze money growing up either.)
That opinion of yours needs some work methinks!
Yes, but the poor don’t happen to run the world – J
There’s no “happen” about it. And the fact that the super-rich do and the poor don’t is a fundamental reason why the former are much more dangerous – they have the power to be so. Are you really too thick to see that?
If the poor and the middle classes are deluded into thinking that the 0.1% rich are somehow “powerful”, I just can’t help it. What a delusion.
“Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!”
We’ll see if the rich are that powerful.
When are Americans going to be more realist. The rich aren’t going to give up all the tax heavens associated with their capital becaused they are somehow cruel and machiavellian. Why should they if nobody asks for it ? Return on capital is taxed at the lowest rate, what do they care about work ?
It’s the responsibility of your inept inefficient deluded dreaming educated middle classes who have beed screwed all this time, to organise and force a different system which doesn’t systematically favour capital over labour.
Well, Lilly, those are good counter-examples, but J did say “generally” – and, generally speaking, when people are getting their needs met, and are free (to some degree) from the shackles of ignorance, they’re less likely to beat their neighbor over the head with a stick as a prelude to grabbing his food/land/females.
Not that this makes “the poor” the most dangerous group on the planet.
The power-lust we sometimes see in the rich and educated may be in another category entirely.
Personally, I think poor people are the most dangerous group on the planet.
Personally, I think men are the most dangerous group on the planet.
Kseniya said:
That’s kind of the point I was making (maybe not too well). If you happen to be a power-mad little oik or a fanatical mouth-foamer it is considerably easier to translate your personal bugaboo into everyone elses problem it if you have capital and influence behind you than if you don’t.
I have yet to see any evidence that either category (mouth-foamers or power-mad bastards) are more prevalent amongst the poor than the rich – as you say if you’re poor you tend to be more interested in feeding yourself and your family than plotting to take over the world ™.
To Kseniya at #352: I take your point, and I accept that your interpretation is better-supported than mine (mine was largely an educated guess, in the absence of any studies). So “knowledge workers” tend to be liberal, and “managers” tend to be conservative – that does make sense. And both occupational groups are essential for a healthy modern society.
However, your points don’t support Emmet Caulfield’s original argument at #292, which was essentially “most academics and highly educated people are liberals, therefore liberalism is a more intellectually sustainable viewpoint than conservatism”. That is what I was primarily disputing. I realise that you weren’t making that argument, but others were.
FWIW, I don’t despise higher education (I’m undergoing it at the moment), and neither do most conservatives. If Rush Limbaugh does appear to harbour a little bitterness towards intellectuals and academics, this is probably more because of his personal background than any political factor (he dropped out of the University of Southeastern Missouri in his first year after failing every class, including, bizarrely enough, ballroom dancing). But there are plenty of educated and intellectual conservatives who don’t despise the world of academia. I have no desire to send the world back into the Dark Ages.
Personally, I think Psychopaths are the most dangerous group on the planet.
Personally, I think Sexually deprived males are the 2nd most dangerous group on the planet.
…bonobos are much less violent than chimps, no wonder they have orgies and have assumed their bisexuality…
If only men had organised society according to their natural instincts, and not some fucked up religious notions there would be less cruelty.
…and even that one, I’m not buying it… (sorry Kseniya)
Evidence please ?
I listened to McCain’s town meeting yesterday.
He doesn’t have a problem with academics in general like GWB, but he does with Economists. He repeated that he doesn’t believe in them. He listens to the people in the street, and defines his economic policies that way.
That’s going to be another interesting notion.
“I think Sexually deprived males are the 2nd most dangerous group on the planet.”
HEY! That hurts me deeply.
Welcome to the club !
Do you think I can use this as a pickup line?
Hey baby, do you want to make me less dangerous?
Sure!
*snip*
Spurge said:
Please promise you’ll bring along a webcam if you ever do try that – that’s footage I would pay good money for!
:-)
There. Fixed.
Lilly, I think it was I who wasn’t clear. (My morning comments tend to be more stoopid than my evening comments.) I’m with ya, and was not intending to contradict you at all, except on this one point: J’s comment allowed for exceptions, so he wasn’t wrong. (And we all know that affluence and education are more people-friendly than poverty and ignorance.) To further your point, however, let it be said that history shows that the rich and powerful have never been widely accused of being excessively compassionate or philanthropic towards those less fortunate than themselves. (I like to think this is changing, but… I dunno.)
Negentropyeater:
No need to apologize. Evidence is good. :-)
For what it’s worth, I’m working off this article I read four years ago and saved on my computer, but which is available online here: David Brooks, “Bitter At The Top”.
Brooks references The Emerging Democratic Majority by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira. [no link, I’m avoiding moderation]
Lately, Ruy Teixeira can be found contributing to The Democratic Strategist weblog.
I haven’t been keeping up with what these guys have been doing, but FWIW, the claims I’ve made come from Brooks, who refers (once, anyway) to Judis and Teixeira.
There’s no “happen” about it. And the fact that the super-rich do and the poor don’t is a fundamental reason why the former are much more dangerous – they have the power to be so. Are you really too thick to see that?
You’re the thicko here if you think it’s the American elite (as opposed to, say, Jihadist elite or North Korean Elite) that poses the biggest threat to the world.
The neocon stranglehold on American politics is relatively recent, and seems set to blow over. It won’t matter in the grand scheme of things. It’s the primitive regions of the world, not the West, that is most dangerous.
(NB: Just to pursue the point a little further — who do you think voted for the neocons? Mostly mega-rich billionaires, or uneducated bumpkins? What do you think?)
You know, we’ve had about three centuries of research into the subject — what you think and a dime will get you five cents. What a maroon!
Yes, and the research substantiates exactly what I said: the natural state of Mankind is one of violence and savagery, and generally only the wealthy areas of the world manage to overcome this.
Kseniya said:
I’m with you there – sadly I don’ think our hopes are bearing much fruit though.
Still, got to keep trying I suppose.
J said:
Glad you’re so sure.
Personally, given that they’re all batshit insane, I’d go with the loonies with the most nukes.
Walton: Though it seems obviously true that “most academics” are liberals, I do believe it’s wrong to assert that “most highly educated people” are liberal. (Emmet, what is the threshold for “highly educated”? Master’s level? PhD?) My point – though all I’m doing is echoing Brooks, obviously – is that the red/blue dividing line doesn’t follow lines which divide levels of education, intelligence, or income. Along types of intelligence and education, yes, among other things (you know, like “values”.)
I know you’re not anti-intellectual – that’s not the issue at all. Neither are Limbaugh’s personal feelings about education. The point is that the so-called Republican Noise Machine nurtures and promotes the distrust of intellectualism in the general population. There’s a long history there.
Consider, for example, the contrast between the plain-spoken war hero Dwight Eisenhower, and his honorable political counterpart Adlai Stevenson, who was the very soul of Democratic intellectualism in the middle of the last century. Eisenhower, whom I admire in many ways, was at times disturbingly anti-intellectual. The distrust of “book-larnin'” amongst the common folk here in American has deep roots, which go back to frontier times, when people left the intellectual and cultural centers behind them in the East, along with most of the Enlightenment thinking that had given birth to the country in the first place. Literacy was scarce, erudition even more so; the most common book on the frontier was the Bible, and whomever was able to read it was likely to become the leading intellectual light of the family or community. After a couple of generations, the heartland was populated by folk who would have been likely to mistrust those city-slicker intellectual elites who had written the Declaration and the Constitution.
In some respects, not much has changed.
OT, but Speaking of Eisenhower, there is a man whose war experiences turned him into a kind of pacifist. Dubya could stand to learn a few things from this man, their similarities notwithstanding. Quotable quotes:
Personally, given that they’re all batshit insane, I’d go with the loonies with the most nukes.
They’re not equally batshit insane. This is a very significant point.
That’s an odd question, J.
The mega-rich billionaires make up a pretty small bloc, in terms of votes. Billionaires in the voting booth have very little power. (Yay, democracy! *snicker-snort*)
I refer again to the Brooks article. Let’s talk income: Republicans tend to dominate the higher income brackets, but the very highest brackets tend to vote Democratic.
Bush won the popular vote (vs Gore) amongst college graduates. This not only goes contrary to what most on the Left like to believe, it also goes some distance towards putting the lie to the whole “liberal indoctrination in the colleges” red-herring that the Right likes to wave around.
I’m not sure which candidate took the bumpkin bloc.
Which goes to illustrate once again your lack of direct experience in Oklahoma :)
:-D
True, true. I have never been to Oklahoma.
I’m not sure which candidate took the bumpkin bloc.
There’s a lot to be said about this, but it’s not as cut-and-dry as I implied. I’ll concede this point, though not without noting that it’s a rampant stereotype on Pharyngula. It’s funny that people point out the error (if indeed it is an error) only when I commit it.
Anyway, the central point is that supremely speculatory generalization about the “elite” has no validity whatever. Neither does tacitly equating them to neocons.
If you’re going to claim that we have a right to treat the American elite as a uniform entity due to their being “most dangerous”, then you’re indulging in a highly contestable claim.
Feeling persecuted, J?
I’m not in opposition to you, here. Frankly, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Who elected the neo-cons? About half the country, the half that leans to the right. That includes a lot of college grads, business people, a few mega-billionaires (I suppose), and maybe some bumpkins. What are bumpkins? Low to lower-middle class rural whites? I’m gonna take a wild guess and say yup, Bush won the bumpkin vote. Is that what you mean? Are you saying the power elite didn’t elect the neocons, so when the average conservative voter tires of them, they’ll be gone?
Yes, the “bumpkin” stereotype is rampant in the leftist mind. Aside from the pejoriative nature of the term, why shouldn’t the stereotype persist? Rural areas tend to vote conservative. This is not news.
Which goes to illustrate once again your lack of direct experience in Oklahoma :)
Oops… shoulda refreshed before posting.
If I’m understanding you correctly, then I must agree. There are “elite” on both sides, and indulging in The Intrepid Underdog fallacy is typically a conservative tactic, so why go there? If you listen to heartland talk radio, you’d almost believe it boiled down to George Soros and Liberal Elite vs. The Butcher, the Baker, and The Candlestick Maker.
Vince McMahon, are you listening?
J, please regale us with tales of union workers banding together to hire Pinkertons to attack plutocrats, of slaves cutting off the feet of plantation owners to prevent them from leaving their mansions, of Tainos slaughtering Columbus’ cronies on Hispanola… you live in a dark fantasy world. Who’s more dangerous, Pat Robertson, or the middle-aged, homeless preacher-kook on the number 4 train?
Hell, even islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the west these days tend to come from middle-class backgrounds. The bankers and ideologues tend to be millionaires from the Arabian peninsula.
Finally, while the indigent meth addict down the block is more likely to club you on the head and steal your wallet, the guy in the main office is more likely to take actions which will result in your entire family being impoverished.
I’ve already said that I wasn’t trying to paint a black/white picture, except for the rhetorical purpose of having a little fun with Walton, who doesn’t seem to understand anything else. The individual opinions that he has expressed have been annihilated or severely undermined over a number of threads by a large number of people, but he has failed to generalise that to the untenability of support for the GOP and McCain, which he represents as being based on those tattered opinions. He expresses a willingness to reevaluate, but shows no sign of having done so other than on a microscopic scale.
To answer your question, in any studies I’ve seen, the metric of education is the rather crude “number of years of formal education”. Where one says, “to the right of this is highly-educated, to the left not” is relative and somewhat arbitrary. For example, in making international comparisons including developing countries, “highly educated” might mean more than 8 years, but we wouldn’t consider someone with 10 years of formal education “highly educated” in the context of the same comparison amongst only OECD countries.
The level of my argument in this thread has been very low, I admit, riddled with gross generalisations, sloppy logic, and ad-homs, but that can be great fun! For the most part, I’m doing it for the lulz. Far from being characteristic of “doctrinaire liberalism”, my own views are somewhat eclectic, but that’s not going to come across in every thread. In another thread, I wouldn’t let my own comments, above, go without shredding them.
{Hey, no fair! the system TOLD me it didn’t post my comment, asked me politely to repost, then it turns out it DID post the first time and I look like a *shudder* Double-Poster!}
I’m sorry!!!
That’s what I thought. I wondered, though, if you had a more specific definition in mind (whether for your own immediate rhetorical purposes, or something more widely accepted).
As for the rest…
I suspect that you might enjoy Quoteminton as much as I do. ;-)
Sven, Sven, Sven.
Double-posters will be sent to a small, ah, relaxation camp, in the Magadan Oblast for “re-laxation”. You will be rendered to Moscow, and will then be put aboard a car on the Trans-Siberian Railroad. You will share a compartment with Kenny and Brenda.
Enjoy!
To be honest, for the immediate rhetorical purpose, I didn’t give it much thought. I’ve spent the greater part of my life in formal education, but I haven’t got a PhD nor even a master’s (coming soon to an Emmet near you!). I dropped out of a PhD over 10 years ago (getting some of the “life experience” that Walton likes) and I’ll go looking for a nice shiny PhD position once the MSc is done. In terms of “number of years of formal education” I’m well ahead of the pack, in terms of “highest level of educational attainment”, I’m certainly not.
Guilty. Google: the battledore of quoteminton!
I’m not in opposition to you, here. Frankly, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Who elected the neo-cons? About half the country, the half that leans to the right. That includes a lot of college grads, business people, a few mega-billionaires (I suppose), and maybe some bumpkins. What are bumpkins?
That was just one point I made, which I’ve already conceded. I admit that I overstated the role of the bumpkins in getting the neocons elected.
#374
It’s of course absolutely impossible to think for a second that Americans, in their great discerning abilities, would ever think of hiring a loon for president.
That would never happen would it ?
J.,
The world is generally worse off when ignorant individuals with views similar to those from poor neighbourhoods are placed in positions of power. (Heard of someone called “George W. Bush”, by any chance?)
The example of a liar, coward, drunkard, and all-round scumbag who became POTUS only because his daddy was, counts against the claim that the US elite is dangerous?
You’re the thicko here if you think it’s the American elite (as opposed to, say, Jihadist elite or North Korean Elite) that poses the biggest threat to the world.
The US elite have nearly got us all killed at least twice already (October 1962 and November 1983). What help they had was from the Soviet elite. Neither the jihadists nor the North Koreans have anything close to the power to do that.
The neocon stranglehold on American politics is relatively recent, and seems set to blow over. It won’t matter in the grand scheme of things. It’s the primitive regions of the world, not the West, that is most dangerous.
Um, the USA is one of the primitive parts of the world. I mean, what else would you call a place where 96% of the population believes in an invisible sky-fairy, and half thinks the world is only 6000 years old? If you would care to read frog@295 and me @306 you will note that both of us explicitly stated that the neocons form only part of the US elite. Getting rid of them will be an improvement, but the fundamentals of US foreign policy are most unlikely to change. In case you weren’t aware of it, the US elite has had a policy of being willing to be the first to use nuclear weapons – even against non-nuclear powers – ever since they were invented. It has also evaded effective international control on biological weapons. It was under Clinton that the doctrine of “full spectrum dominance” was promulgated in the “Joint Vision 2020” document. And there is a long, long history of US aggression and expansionism, going back to the earliest days of the republic.
Um, the USA is one of the primitive parts of the world. I mean, what else would you call a place where 96% of the population believes in an invisible sky-fairy, and half thinks the world is only 6000 years old?
Yeah, good criteria for judging “primitiveness”. Let’s forget that the United States is overwhelmingly the world leader in science, technology, and almost any intellectual field you could care to name. Let’s forget that it routinely performs better in social freedoms studies than hundreds of other nations.
By all means, let’s judge a nation on its people’s views on subjects which the vast majority of those from “sophisticated” nations haven’t thought about for ten minutes.
Let’s forget that it routinely performs better in social freedoms studies than hundreds of other nations.
Bit of sloppiness on my part: there aren’t hundreds of nations. Replace “hundreds” with “many dozens”.
Let’s also forget that half of working scientists and engineers in the United States are foreign-born.
Let’s also forget that is routinely performs worse in measures of human development.
Let’s also forget that half of working scientists and engineers in the United States are foreign-born.
Even allowing for that, the US would still come top by no small measure. It has utterly dominated science and technology since the end of WW2.
Let’s also forget that is routinely performs worse in measures of human development.
What?
Re: a primitive society
It might be worth noting that we imprison a greater proportion of our populace than almost any other nation, including China, which is generally regarded as a repressive society.
We now openly advocate torture, either in-house or by the method of “extraordinary rendition,” at the highest executive levels, and consider human rights documents like the Geneva Conventions “quaint.”
Not exactly advanced.
It might be worth noting that we imprison a greater proportion of our populace than almost any other nation, including China, which is generally regarded as a repressive society.
Isn’t that largely because China execute a greater proportion of their populace? Just sayin’.
It might be worth noting that we imprison a greater proportion of our populace than almost any other nation, including China, which is generally regarded as a repressive society.
Maybe because the Chinese are so preoccupied with executing their prisoners. Does that qualify them as “one of the most primitive”?
Sorry, should’ve refreshed before posting.
Isn’t that largely because China execute a greater proportion of their populace?
From Wikipedia:
From DoJ Bureau of Justice Statistics:
No.
J,
That’s fine. You may have overstated it, but only to the extent that you maybe have overstated their numbers relative to the total population. I don’t think it’s possible to grossly overstate the tendency for the bumpkin bloc to lean to the Right. So we aren’t in total disagreement by any measure, IMO.
WRT all this “primitive society” – I vote for all of the above. What we have here is the most technologically advanced society in human history, a model (in theory) for representative democracy and personal liberty that has been widely adopted (and adapted) by many of our peer nations, yet we’re hamstrung by rampant superstition and poisoned by an almost pathological inability to imagine non-violent solutions to life’s problems.
It’s one part Bruce Banner, one part HULK SMASH! From sea to shining sea.
J:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ – That’d be the USA at #12.
Also a great source for quoteminton about health and social statistics:
http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=MEI_CLI
“It’s coming to America first/The cradle of the best and of the worst.” — Leonard Cohen, “Democracy”
I don’t think it’s possible to grossly overstate the tendency for the bumpkin bloc to lean to the Right. So we aren’t in total disagreement by any measure, IMO.
Sure, I’m quite happy to accept that the great majority of bumpkins vote Republican. Personally, I find the statistics you originally cited somewhat counter-intuitive, as it just seems obvious to me that the Republicans are the “stupid party”.
That’d be the USA at #12.
#12 out of 177? Come on, Emmet, argue fairly. I never anywhere compared the US to other countries of the developed world. I actually believe the US is well behind the EU on many fronts (and public education about evolution is one of them). What I am trying to do is defend it from the ludicrous assertion that it’s “one of the primitive parts of the world”.
And besides, #12 — ahead of countries like Germany, UK, Austria, Denmark and Belgium — is not bad, in my eyes.
J:
Oh, but you did, and not very long ago, either. (post #395, to be exact):
(bold mine for emphasis)
Ксения Николаена Кириленко, ОМ, ФСБ (#390):
sounds like the Googleag Archipelago
Fun with statistics:
China, with a total population of 1,294.4 million, had a prison population of 1,512,194 (117 per 100,000) in 2002 and executed at least in 1,010 (.078 per 100,000) in 2007. The US, with a total population of 290 million, had a prison population of 2,033,331 (701 per 100,000) in 2002 and executed 42 (.0145 per 100,000) in 2007.
Even if we consider 1,010 a great underestimte of the amount of people executed in China, it doesn’t seem nearly high enough to account for the discrepancy in relative prison populations. Of course, this doesn’t account for the role sheer fear of execution might have in reducing overall crime rate (and thus imprisonment), but there you have it.
Sources: wikipedia, US Bureau of Justice, and Home Office World Prison Population List (5th Ed). (The last of these is a very comprehensive catalog of prison populations in various nations & is quite interesting.)
(NB: The ratios on capital punishment are actually a bit off as I used the 2002 population to calculate them…)
Even if the true figure were an order of magnitude higher, it wouldn’t amount to a squirt of piss in the ocean, you mean.
And I don’t think they were trying to make the deterrent argument. For that we’d have to get into actual current and historical crime rates (not to mention the actual effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent), which might be interesting, but not germaine, I do not think.
Friday the 13th is invariably a pleasant day for me. Just now, I return from meditation and an invigorating walk on the beach to find you good people eviscerating J. I love this blog. Carry on.
What about the discrepancy with F, D, UK, I (pop. 250 million) 0 executions, and only 260,000 prisonners…
About 7 times lower, without death penalty.
Why use China as reference ?
J,
May I recommend the Wikipedia page which lists Nobel Prizes by nationality of recipient.
If your maths is up to it you could then calculate, say, the US and the UK for prizes per 100,000 population – once on total numbers and then again after you’ve taken out the “foreigners” in both cases!
With the US having five times the population on current numbers and with the US being So Much Better in Every Way, shouldn’t the land of the free have more than five times as many laureates as this funny little archipelago on the edge of Europe?
But it doesn’t – check it out for yourself.
With the US having five times the population on current numbers and with the US being So Much Better in Every Way, shouldn’t the land of the free have more than five times as many laureates as this funny little archipelago on the edge of Europe?
Being from the UK myself, I would be glad to believe that. Of course, it undermines none of my claims. I didn’t say the US is the world leader in scientific production per capita. (But it’s obviously not “primitive in this regard.)
Besides, “number of Nobel prizes” isn’t the only measure of scientific achievement, and by itself proves nothing. Even if I were defending the strawman you assailed, you wouldn’t have knocked it down.
Well, “primitive” in what sense?
On it’s face, yes: “primitive” in the sense of illiterate nomadic hunter-gatherers, dwelling in caves, dressed in skins? Obviously, that is ludicrous, as you say, but I’m not sure it’s so ludicrous if you have other notions of what it means to be “primitive”.
I think it could be argued that having the death penalty is primitive. I think it could be argued that the level of incarceration is primitive. The lack of universal healthcare could be regarded as primitive, not to mention bad value-for-money. The national obsession with personal weaponry could be regarded as primitive. The amount of work the average American needs to do to have a decent living could be regarded as primitive. Military spending greater than the rest of the planet combined, grossly disproportionate to national income or population could be regarded as primitive. Waging a war of aggression could be regarded as primitive. Even the popularity of engines three or four times larger than necessary could be seen as primitive, depending on your point of view. The poor high-school education, as you have already pointed out, could be regarded as primitive.
There are a few areas, of course, where the US is world-leading, as you say, including science and technology, but it seems odd that the US has utterly failed to use its staggering wealth to effect a healthy, happy, and educated population. Sweden is, per capita, about as wealthy as Alabama, yet its residents enjoy some of the best healthcare and education in the world (no, I’m not Swedish) and are (now that the US has pissed trillions of dollars away killing brown people) no more endebted than the US.
In short, I wouldn’t say the assertion is “ludicrous”, but I would certainly question what is meant by “primitive”.
Even if we consider 1,010 a great underestimte of the amount of people executed in China, it doesn’t seem nearly high enough to account for the discrepancy in relative prison populations. Of course, this doesn’t account for the role sheer fear of execution might have in reducing overall crime rate (and thus imprisonment), but there you have it.
OK, I admit that the United States has the highest number of inmates as a proportion of its population, and this has nothing to do with the fact that others demonstrably perform executions more frequently. I posted without thinking and made a silly suggestion.
Well so what? It’s a worrying statistic, but does it mean that the United States is “one of the primitive parts of the world”? No.
According to a 2006 study, the USA has the maximum rating possible for Political Rights and Civil Liberties, and is ranked way ahead of many dozens of nations in this area. In standard of living, the study cited by Emmet above puts the USA at #12 out of 177. In Human Poverty Index, the United States is placed at #17, one rank below UK and one rank above Ireland. Could be better, but it’s not an especially bad grade, and certainly it doesn’t warrant being called “primitive”.
Emmet,
Sure, the US is primitive in some areas compared with the rest of the developed world. But it’s also the world leader in some areas. Why would you arbitrarily single out certain areas (e.g. religosity or public evolution education), as Nick Gotts did, unless you had an anti-American agenda to advance? This is my point.
J,
at the rate at which things are going, unemployement, inflation, oil prices, the dollar, the budget deficit, the housing crisis, … let’s see how many ranks the USA will have lost by the end of 2008 on standard of living and human poverty index. 5 ? 10 ? 15 ?
How many ranks does the USA still have to regress before it’s not considered “anti-american” to try to open people’s eyes and make them realise that it’s time to react ? That it’s enough ? That Americans have to get rid of all these delusions that have been kept well active by the republicans who are still basically proposing to change nothing substantial.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/the_obama_failing.php
Same speech.
Quite so. I noted at the time that PZ was being an intellectually dishonest jackass, for which he hypocritically called me “black & white” and threatened to ban me … shortly before he gave me a Molly. Clearly he is rather irrational on this subject.
Ah, but it was the community that voted for you; PZ merely cast it in silicon…
Personally, I think men are the most dangerous group on the planet.
People are the most dangerous group on the planet. Within that category, dangerous people are the most dangerous group. It’s a error to “narrow” that to a group that isn’t a subset of it — e.g., “men”.
Ah, but it was the community that voted for you; PZ merely cast it in silicon…
“Ah” but you’re factually wrong. It wasn’t an election; recommendations were just that. It remained his choice. In any case, the bit about the Molly was an aside, and not the basis for claiming that PZ is irrational about Obama and religion.
And really, Kseniya, don’t you have anything to say about the fact that PZ was against the speech before he was for it? Or is he just too sacred a cow for you? he talks about what Obama could do to make him happy. Well, it would make me happy for PZ to admit what an incredible ass he has been on this subject — it’s why I left the site.
Am I? I’m afraid I must disagree. It’s a vote. PZ merely tabulates – and may, at his discretion, award two in one month if there are two clear front-runners – but the commenters decide.
And I do realize it was an aside, and not related to the topic at hand in any but the most tangential way, but I chose to address as possible misconception on why you were awarded the Molly. Why do I care? Good question. I suppose I prefer you view it as a direct result of the respect you’ve earned here, not a grudging concession from PZ. Why do I prefer that? Because it’s true.
Anyway, I hope all is well with you out there.
What a speech! I’m an atheist so sure, I wish it had been stronger but such words coming from a politician, a strong presidential candidate at that, is incredible.
Which is exactly what many of us said the last time this speech was up here, that time with PZ condemning it and repeatedly lying about what Obama was saying — just go read the comments at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/the_obama_failing.php
Am I? I’m afraid I must disagree. It’s a vote.
Your pathetic dishonesty is not simply a disagreement.
I chose to address as possible misconception on why you were awarded the Molly
The day that you properly conceive something that I don’t is the day that hell freezes over.
That’s a good question. I’ll have to review the issue before I can answer. I missed something along the way here. I don’t remember the thread you linked to (“The Obama Failing”) and I apparently didn’t comment on it.
I suppose I prefer you view it as a direct result of the respect you’ve earned here, not a grudging concession from PZ. Why do I prefer that? Because it’s true.
Your lack of intelligence is manifested by the fact that you are unable to grasp that is both. Single causes only exist in the minds of idiots.
Burning bridges, are we?
Enjoy.
Here’s a reminder, packed with pathetic denial about obvious cherry picking (made so much more stark by this post) and strawmen:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/the_obama_failing.php#comment-743826
“If there is consensus on one person, they win; otherwise, I’ll be the arbitrary judge of the nominees and pick one.”
Ok, it’s potentially both – my mistake. The support in your case was rather overwhelming; the addition of Mrs. Tilton was aparently at PZ’s discretion.
So if he gave you a Molly after threatening to ban you, after you called him an “intellectually dishonest jackass” what does that mean ?
1.that he really didn’t like being called an idj by you
2.that he would demonstrate this by threatening to ban you
3.but the molly recommendations showed him clear evidence that you were one of the most valued commenters on his blog
4.so he decided like any rational adult to forget about 1 and 2 and award you the molly
What is most irrational about this ? that he did 1 and 2 (and forget about it), or that you can’t seem to forget about him doing 1 and 2 ?
Burning bridges, are we?
I consider that a stupid concept employed by intellectual cowards. I will not prostitute intellectual honesty for the sake of placating someone. In any case, bridges to you were burned the day after the cite thread, in our debate about abortion rights.
I’m sure that Kseniya is even now considering the probable clusters of multiple psychological disorders being exhibited.
Yeah, right. Sure you did.
Who cares? What do you think this is, a personal column?
And of course, PZ got the message of this speech wrong, Obama is not “a guy who has a bias in favor of religion”.
Seems he’s slowly getting to understand this, finally listenned to the whole speech , is searching for more evidence (does anyone know if he has expressed similar sentiments now?), which I think is unnecessary, when he should read his book, and not wait for Obama now, in the middle of the general election, to make him happy by declaring that he hasn’t a bias in favor of religion.
SO what, PZ is fallable. I don’t see a reason to call him a jackass for that, nor does that mean that he’s a sacred cow if nobody doesn’t.
So if he gave you a Molly after threatening to ban you, after you called him an “intellectually dishonest jackass” what does that mean ?
What part of “the bit about the Molly was an aside, and not the basis for claiming that PZ is irrational about Obama and religion” are you unable to understand?
1.that he really didn’t like being called an idj by you
2.that he would demonstrate this by threatening to ban you
It’s easy to present it that way if you ignore the actual evidence. His reaction to me was not merely to me insulting him, it was to the substantive content of our disagreement, which was about his cherry picking (which was commented on by many people, not just me), and his intellectual dishonesty. His post in which he threatened to ban me did not say that he would do so simply because he didn’t like how I characterized him; he made specific countercharges that were specious and intellectually dishonest, repeating his strawmen that he had been repeatedly called on by myself and many others.
Who cares? What do you think this is, a personal column?
If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t comment, asshole. Kseniya characterized my actions, and I explained why her characterization didn’t concern me. That would be clear to anyone not going out of their way to be stupid.
SO what, PZ is fallable.
What a stupid fucking strawman, and an idiotic rationalization.
it’s why I left the site.
Yeah, right. Sure you did.
It’s an objective fact that, since my exchange with PZ in February, I didn’t post here again until once in late May, and then again today. It’s additionally a fact, though one that I can’t provide evidence for, that I did not read or otherwise visit pharyngula until shortly before that May posting. Not that it should matter to anyone — I am merely responding to the implication of your retarded comment.
I will now attempt to return to the wisdom I displayed between Feb and May.
What an idiot !
Oh yeah, you show me where I’m mirepresenting something here.
One more comment:
1.that he really didn’t like being called an idj by you
2.that he would demonstrate this by threatening to ban you
3.but the molly recommendations showed him clear evidence that you were one of the most valued commenters on his blog
4.so he decided like any rational adult to forget about 1 and 2 and award you the molly
You have the time sequence wrong; the molly recommendations came before our spat, thus he already had that evidence. Threatening to ban someone who has been nominated by many people for your site award isn’t exactly rational. That his awarding me the molly anyway was rational and adult isn’t the point — I didn’t say he possesses no rationality; in fact he possesses a great deal of it. Rather, as I said, he was irrational about Obama and religion back in February, and he did act like an intellectually dishonest ass. He’s fallible? Well duh … that follows immediately. But we don’t excuse others — say, creationists — for being intellectually dishonest or acting like asses just because humans are fallible.
In the above I comment about what PZ did back in February. But what is sorely lacking in this thread is any indication that he revisited that discussion when it was pointed out that it was the same speech … not a single comment from him on the seeming inconsistency in his positions then and now. It was in February and is now a personal disappointment to me because I was one of his strongest defenders against his detractors, both here and on other sites. Which emotional evolvement is one indication out of many of my fallibility.
Oh well. I will now return to spending my time in better ways … like helping to get Obama — who is himself quite fallible in far more important ways than his attitudes about religion — elected.
[…]
And you wrote this after claiming the high ground for intellectual honesty?
Hey, if I’m so retarded, so stupid, my comments shouldn’t rate any response.
Ah, yes. Take the mask off and pretend that the screaming frothing emotionally abusive lunatic is somebody else.
I remembered it that way. Which thread was it, I’ll check.
What part of he’s fallible don’t you understand ? You seem to be thinking that I’m somehow excusing him. It’s just that, unlike you, I don’t expect that PZ should be always right in his judgement on everything. That’s why we comment, and if we disagree with his judgement (which I did several times) or think that he not being honest (such as in this case), it doesn’t give us the right to call him a jackass.
Look, you’re the one who is being completely irrational here. Look at how you started this #421.
You could have only pointed out the inconsistencies, without remembering us your whole banning/molly personal little grief with the squid-master. But no, you chose to bring back all the emotional part. What for ? Can’t you forget about it and behave like an adult.
et’s see how many ranks the USA will have lost by the end of 2008 on standard of living and human poverty index. 5 ? 10 ? 15 ?
That’s speculation, as downward trends are frequently reversed. Moreover, recession in the UK seems pending, and over here we could well be worse off than the US in the long run. There’s economic instability all over the world; let’s at least be even-handed in our doom-crying.
Quite so. I noted at the time that PZ was being an intellectually dishonest jackass, for which he hypocritically called me “black & white” and threatened to ban me … shortly before he gave me a Molly. Clearly he is rather irrational on this subject.
Look at that — another self-caricature of ultra-leftist wingnuttery! We can read for ourselves, you know. PZ clearly wasn’t lying, despite your hilariously raving delusions, and you do have an outrageous black-or-white mentality.
There are parts of that speech I utterly detest — the unthinking obeisance to the importance of belief. There are also parts I wish he had the guts to say now — the advocacy for separation of church and state. I want him to say that again now, and set himself apart from the Republican panderer to religion. Is that so hard to understand? Even the earlier post where I expressed my intense dislike for key parts of the speech included the statement that I had voted for him in the caucuses and would almost certainly be voting for him in November.
This weird notion that you’ve got that I must either hate a candidate with every fibroblast in my body, or I must adore him uncritically, is why you got called “black & white”. That and your tiresome habit of lashing out viciously at anyone who offers even a tidbit of disagreement with you, something we’re seeing on prominent display right here on this thread.
And no, I didn’t “give” you a Molly. I tally up the nominations and accept the decision of the commenters, no matter who it may be (I only hold in reserve the idea of overriding a majority decision in case my poll gets crashed by a bunch of strangers — which was not the case in your election). If people here voted for Kenny in droves, I’d hand it to him — but please don’t get any ideas, OK?
Please do note that I avoid making suggestions and I do not vote in the Molly threads, so I didn’t vote for you. You are welcome to ‘return to the wisdom you displayed between Feb and May’.
Nice admission that you’re being a fool now, by the way.
PZ said,
2 linked questions :
1) do you honestly believe that he could advocate this strongly now, in the middle of the general election, and still win, or that it would give him an advantage ?
2) do you have reasonable doubts that ounce elected, he will be a strong advocate of separation of church and state ?
Can you answer Yes to both questions, so that we understand why you’d want him to say that again now ?
1. Yes, he could. I don’t think he could announce he’s an atheist and still win, but I think he could promote tolerance for freethought — it’s like Nixon and China. A believer could do that now.
2. Of course I have doubts, deep doubts. He’s a Democrat! Look at Harry Reid and the other senate dems right now — completely craven failures. I can easily imagine a squishy spineless Obama doing absolutely nothing for four years, enabling yet another Rethuglican election in the next cycle.
He’s an idealist, which is appealing, but we can’t afford another Carter idealist. We need one with some steel in him.
1. the “campaign strategists” probably think it’s too risky at this time, and not worth the risk as most non believers are going to vote for him anyway.
Non believers are now a significant majority in America, but are they sufficiently well organised as a political force ? Have they contacted the campaign about this ? Have you done it ?
2. I can’t imagine a squishy spineless Obama at all. Just doesn’t fit with the way he completely overturned this primary. He’s a very intelligent, action oriented, highly educated 46 yold. I doubt he’ll do nothing for four years, I see him doing a lot, including for separation of church and state.
sorry meant significant minority
amk, thanks for the clarification of the quote (comment 276)! It does make more sense that way…
No, it’s what I made up for “cute” or “touching”, whether ironic or not. I am capable of laughing at jokes like North Korea, even though I’m fully aware they are anything but funny from any smaller distance.
I note you didn’t reply to comment 291. Could you elaborate on that “probable”, please? You are among experts here, so you can expect your questions to be answered…
In the USA and apparently the UK. Not everywhere else.
Friedman? Milton Friedman, the man who deflated Chile? Great economic thinker?
<shudder>
And, no, mentioning Thatcher and Raygun does not confer an aura of intellect onto what you say. It has the precise opposite effect. SDI, Reaganomics, Grenada… I’m less well informed on Thatcher, admittedly, but I’ve read quite damning assessments of her work.
Come on. Compared to Limbaugh and O’Reilly, Moore is a philosopher, and you know it.
To be fair, Olbermann says “Understand this about Limbaugh: he doesn’t believe half [the crap he spouts or whatever the exact wording was]”. He knows Limbaugh personally to some extent.
I disagree. In boldface even.
A democratic election is not a people looking for a king to anoint. It is… the analogy has its limits, but in terms of “life experience” we can call it a corporation looking for a new CEO. It’s a hiring decision.
Putting one’s life on the line requires strong faith. It does not require that this faith be in the least justifiable. In other words, it does not require that the person in question is capable of any amount of thinking beyond that needed for blind obedience or deep delusion. And indeed, just about every religion and just about every ideology in general has its martyrs. I don’t need to mention suicide bombers — I don’t even need to mention those of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, let alone those of the PKK, do I?
And in the USA at least, decisions over war & peace are not the president’s business anyway. They are made by Congress (…unless of course Congress unconstitutionally gives the president a blank cheque, as it did for Iraq).
I have always been proud to be a confessing coward, and that’s the kind of people I prefer as politicians. I don’t want people who are incapable of admitting a mistake (that’s the “confessing” part), and I don’t want people who aren’t afraid of the consequences of their actions (that’s the “coward” part).
I notice* you use the word “leader”. A president is not a leader. A president is an executing officer. The CEO, more precisely.
* Well, I always notice that because the last time a politician was called “leader” over here… errrr… you know what the German word for “leader” is? It always gives me a stomach ache when people talk about “leaders” in English.
Oh no. I don’t think you are cynical, gullible, or selfish, let alone deceitful. I think you are quite intelligent and decent. What you are not is informed. On all the topics you think you have understood, there is a lot more knowledge out there that you haven’t even imagined yet. The smartest people can easily advocate the most mind-boggling bullshit when they don’t know what they are talking about — has happened often enough, and has probably caused the death of millions of people!
And that’s not a swipe at your age. I’m 25, Kseniya is even younger…
To elaborate: Reaganomics (low taxes for rich people) clearly has a certain appeal in theory, but it overlooks the theoretical issue of how to determine if the present taxes are in fact too high, as it automatically assumes, and it overlooks the practical issue of what rich people do with their extra money when their taxes are cut: it would make some sense for them to invest it, creating jobs in the process, but that’s not what they do in reality. This is where we leave philosophy and enter science: Saint Ronnie did the experiment, and Fearless Flightsuit, unwilling to accept the results, is repeating it. Both times the extra money is not invested, it is parked in foundations or in bank accounts on the Cayman Islands. That’s why I agree with Austria’s Social Democratic Party in thinking that a tax system must — Calvinist-style ;-) — encourage and reward becoming rich and discourage being rich.
And isn’t it the case that the robber barons of the Gilded Age paid a whopping 90 % of their income as taxes?
(Often people talk about political beliefs as if they were automatically untestable. Many may be difficult to test, but most, if not all, are as testable as the religious belief that the sun won’t rise tomorrow if we don’t sacrifice human hearts.)
I suppose that’s another way I could have put it. :-] After all, I agree: a president is not supposed to be a hero, a president is supposed to be a capable, knowledgeable executive officer.
That’s because our grandparents have all been on the receiving end of what that leads to.
The greatest patriots in Europe, outside of perhaps the Balkans and Russia, are the Swiss. Guess why.
“Ungerman” does exist. Ooh boy, does it exist. <stomach ache>
Guess since when it hasn’t been used.
We had that rhetoric, too. All over the continent. Guess when it stopped.
It was till 1939. Or perhaps till de Gaulle realized that the war in Algeria was unwinnable.
Sarko would have joined — and the French would have made a revolution.
Sure. That’s why they immediately left when those governments were fired.
Well, there is such a thing as an ideology of antiamericanism. But of course it also goes the other way around, as you describe — keywords “hate/blame America first”.
I’d take “poorer” out of this, except to the extent that poverty hinders access to education — an extent that is considerable but not 100 %, as shown most prominently by Fearless Flightsuit, whom you brought up yourself. (“Africa is a nation that…” “Does Brazil have blacks, too?”)
Yep, that’s a big factor. Things like universal healthcare and pension were introduced in the late 19th century by conservatives who wanted to prevent the working class from fulfilling Marx’s prediction of the Revolution. The USA was already rich enough that this danger was negligible. Only now does it have a relative disadvantage.
Many, if not most, American conservatives do. That’s how it was possible that the existence of global warming became a political issue there — it isn’t anywhere else.
I have noticed that lots of biologists seem to have recently moved to Uppsala…
BREAKING NEWS: Hell now using nitrogen instead of sulfur to boil sinners’ souls.
Posted by: truth machine | June 14, 2008 12:09 AM
But you didn’t leave the site. You’re still (obviously) commenting here. If you had truly left, I wouldn’t have to read your idiotic comments again in order to get through this thread.
It is really a great place: as a foreigner living there, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it to a biologist or anyone else.
J@395, you’re a moron. I was simply responding to your use of a halfwit term like “primitive”.
I should add…
Marx predicted that the Revolution would start in the most highly industrialized countries, first of all England. I’m not sure if he thought Germany was next or if it was he who said “the Germans will never make a revolution, because for that they’d have to step on the lawn”, but there clearly were people who thought it was probable enough.
(Incidentally, the French step on the lawn pretty often [pers. obs.].)
Well, we wouldn’t be leaving Obama off the hook.
a few thoughts about PZ’s point #450.
Do you think a Camus or a Sartre would have left things dangling like that ? If they had had doubts about their most promissing politician of the time on his willingness to promote tolerance for non believers, then what ?
Who are the most prominent AMERICAN (not british) non believers of this time ?
If they can’t force their candidate to promote tolerance for non believers now, in the middle of the general election, when non believers represent a significant chunk of the electorate of the dems (about 1/4) is it because;
– they haven’t tried hard enough ?
or because
– their candidate has no interest in doing it ?
BTW I call non believers all those who don’t believe in the veracity of religions, we shouldn’t get into a discussion about God(s) which is futile.
So that includes all sorts of people, atheists, agnostics, deists, …etc , you might also call them non religious, or freethinkers (stupid expression), brights (even more stupid).
So according to various polls, they represent between 13 to 15% of the population, maybe more if these polls weren’t as biaised in their wording, now if you assume that when Obama would clearly promote tolerance for non believers he could collect a vast majority of their votes and increase their participation (at least 80%, who would vote for McCain ?) ie between 20 and 25% of the dems potential electorate. Very significant indeed.
And what would he risk in doing so ? Alienating himself from the fundamentalists who anyway aren’t going to vote for him ? Would this cause a problem to his more moderate Christian and Jewish electorate, promoting tolerance for non believers ?
So, maybe it’s worth the risk afterall. Maybe after 8 years of Bush it’s the perfect timing for doing so.
David Marjanović, OM@457
Toward the end of his life, IIRC, Marx grumbled about the English failing to act as he had predicted (by that time, trades unions and early legislation to protect British workers from the grossest forms of exploitation meant those workers had somewhat more to lose than their chains); but also came to see the possibility of revolution in Russia.
Nick Gotts said:
I love it – if the facts fail to support previously stated predictions, there’s something wrong with the facts!
Funny how certain patterns of thinking don’t change down the generations isn’t it?
To David Marjanovic at #453: Interesting points, and sorry I’ve taken a couple of days to reply (I’ve been busy in RL recently).
Come on. Compared to Limbaugh and O’Reilly, Moore is a philosopher, and you know it. – I disagree. Moore is very clever in his own way; he’s a great filmmaker and entertainer and a very gifted propagandist, and very good at making unpalatable left-wing doctrine seem appealing to the masses. However, his standards of intellectual honesty are close to zero. He aims to convert and spread the message, not to present issues in a serious and thoughtful way, and to that end he invariably distorts the truth. He performs much the same role that Limbaugh performs for the Right; perhaps he’s a better artist than Limbaugh, and a bit brighter, but he’s no more worthwhile as a political thinker.
And in the USA at least, decisions over war & peace are not the president’s business anyway. They are made by Congress (…unless of course Congress unconstitutionally gives the president a blank cheque, as it did for Iraq). – True in theory, but in practice the President has a lot of control over the deployment of forces, with very limited congressional oversight. There has been no Congressionally-declared war since 1941. Many wars since then have been started on the President’s own authority (the most egregious example being when Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia without even bothering to inform Congress). And I would argue that, in practice, in the modern world a rapid, decisive response is often needed – and that’s why I’d rather have an experienced war leader in the White House, personally. But I do see your point.
Well, I always notice that because the last time a politician was called “leader” over here… errrr… you know what the German word for “leader” is? It always gives me a stomach ache when people talk about “leaders” in English… The greatest patriots in Europe, outside of perhaps the Balkans and Russia, are the Swiss. Guess why…
“Ungerman” does exist. Ooh boy, does it exist.
Pretty good point, Walton, and spot-on in theory, but the truth is that the New World has always been, and still is, a mostly-white, Christian, European man’s, man’s, man’s world. Also, patriotism here is degenerating into intransigent nationalism. The problem (and it’s a problem that’s a couple of decades older than either you or me) is that the meaning of patriotism has been corrupted. What passes for patriotism is often no more than flagwaving or jingoism, and those citizens who care enough to engage in Coffin’s “lover’s quarrel” with their country are branded anti-American, treasonous, or cowardly.
“Unswedish” does exist. It is often used in the positive sense.
Could you elaborate?
A response to what, for example? What event could there be that would prevent the administration and the various advisers from getting together and talking? Even the Cuba crisis was not solved by Kennedy playing Decider™.
There was no comparison. :-) My points were: 1) be very careful what you wish for — if you want a leader, you just might get one, even if not such an extreme; rather think about if a leader is really what you want; 2) there isn’t something in the soil that has sucked the patriotism out of most Europeans; 3) no point, just a digression on the observation that words like “unenglish” and “unfrench” don’t exist… wait… sorry, I did try make the tangential point that “unamerican” (usually spelt “un-American” or even “unAmerican” so the capital letter can be saved) is most commonly used in ways that are disturbingly similar to how “ungerman” was used.
That wouldn’t have required patriotism. Sheer fear for, ultimately, life & limb would have been enough. Actually, I’d say it was enough.
See, this is a contradiction in terms.
Don’t say “proud” when you mean “glad”. It isn’t possible to be proud of anything but one’s own accomplishments. I am not and cannot be proud of the fact that Hans Kelsen basically sat down one afternoon in 1920 and wrote the Austrian constitution, even though it turned out pretty fine. I am not and cannot be proud of the fact that the Austrian national football team won 3 : 2 against Germany in 1978, avenging a battle that Austria-Hungary lost against Prussia in 1866. Or to change the range of examples, I cannot be proud of the fact that my thesis supervisor was the first to find the lissamphibians among the lepo- rather than the temnospondyls. I didn’t do anything for that.
What should be encouraged is not American patriotism. What should be encouraged is knowledge and understanding of the big-C Constitution — worldwide.
Interesting. It looks like it is vaguely similar to the English word “foreign”, which can be used both positively, in the sense of “exotic”, and negatively, in the sense of “barbarian”.
By Finns :-D
Sorry. I then went on to actually read the page. ;-)
Prescriptivist! :-þ
(Although the exact nuances and variations in the meanings of “proud” is something that I have sometimes pondered myself)(and also he exact nuances and variations in the meanings of “love”, which can be a similarly tricky term.)
Actually, the concept is pretty common in Germany and Austria, there’s just no word for it. As an example of the Austrian self-image, may I present The Three Austrian Arguments (first put into words by a comedian): “That has always been that way”, “that has never been that way”, “but then anyone could come and…!!!”. Austrians and Germans also consider themselves, and each other, unbearably whiny. =8-)
<shrink>
…uh…
<shrink>
…actually…
<shrink><voice=”pipsqueak”>…I was arguing against confusing the concepts. The words themselves are but smoke and mirrors. :-]
“Un-finnish” exists too but it’s even more neutral than “un-swedish”: “This beer tastes un-finnish”, “Her looks are very un-finnish”, “Their music is un-finnish”, all meaning only “not typically Finnish”
Actually it would be fun to try the same kind of usage in the US:
“Thanks for that exotic dinner. It was very un-American.”
“You own a tiny fuel-efficient car? Wow, that’s so un-American!”
Can you get high marks on a paper in a Swedish school simply by turning in a blank piece of paper, and claiming that it’s “un-finnished”?
I think it’s far too late for that, given current English usage.
But I would agree that it might be worthwhile to point out the confusion.
Just out of curiosity, do you know how other languages would word phrases like “I am proud to be an X”, where “X” is a locale marker or a culture or some less definite concept where the speaker wishes to assert or imply an inherited group affiliation?
How about praise phrases, such as “I am proud of you [for doing something]”, or “I’m proud of who you are” (thinking of the lyrics of “Don’t Give Up”, here)?
From Voltairine de Cleyre’s “Anarchism & American Traditions”:
To the average American of today, the Revolution means the series of battles fought by the patriot army with the armies of England…They have no idea why it should have been called a “revolution” instead of the “English War,” or any similar title: it’s the name of it, that’s all. And name-worship, both in child and man, has acquired such mastery of them, that the name “American Revolution” is held sacred, though it means to them nothing more than successful force, while the name “Revolution” applied to a further possibility, is a spectre detested and abhorred. In neither case have they any idea of the content of the word, save that of armed force. That has already happened, and long happened, which Jefferson foresaw when he wrote:
To the men of that time, who voiced the spirit of that time, the battles that they fought were the least of the Revolution; they were the incidents of the hour, the things they met and faced as part of the game they were playing; but the stake they had in view, before, during, and after the war, the real Revolution, was a change in political institutions which should make of government not a thing apart, a superior power to stand over the people with a whip, but a serviceable agent, responsible, economical, and trustworthy (but never so much trusted as not to be continually watched), for the transaction of such business as was the common concern and to set the limits of the common concern at the line of where one man’s liberty would encroach upon another’s.
They thus took their starting point for deriving a minimum of government upon the same sociological ground that the modern Anarchist derives the no-government theory; viz., that equal liberty is the political ideal. The difference lies in the belief, on the one hand, that the closest approximation to equal liberty might be best secured by the rule of the majority in those matters involving united action of any kind (which rule of the majority they thought it possible to secure by a few simple arrangements for election), and, on the other hand, the belief that majority rule is both impossible and undesirable; that any government, no matter what its forms, will be manipulated by a very small minority, as the development of the States and United States governments has strikingly proved; that candidates will loudly profess allegiance to platforms before elections, which as officials in power they will openly disregard, to do as they please; and that even if the majority will could be imposed, it would also be subversive of equal liberty, which may be best secured by leaving to the voluntary association of those interested in the management of matters of common concern, without coercion of the uninterested or the opposed.
…It was the intention of the Revolutionists to establish a system of common education, which should make the teaching of history one of its principal branches; not with the intent of burdening the memories of our youth with the dates of battles or the speeches of generals, nor to make the Boston Tea Party Indians the one sacrosanct mob in all history, to be revered but never on any account to be imitated, but with the intent that every American should know to what conditions the masses of people had been brought by the operation of certain institutions, by what means they had wrung out their liberties, and how those liberties had again and again been filched from them by the use of governmental force, fraud, and privilege. Not to breed security, laudation, complacent indolence, passive acquiescence in the acts of a government protected by the label “home-made,” but to beget a wakeful jealousy, a never-ending watchfulness of rulers, a determination to squelch every attempt of those entrusted with power to encroach upon the sphere of individual action – this was the prime motive of the revolutionists in endeavoring to provide for common education.
Ask [the American public-school student] if he ever read Jefferson”s letter to Madison…
Or to another correspondent:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/cleyre/amertrad.html
“un-finnishing” was actually not an unknown notion in schools in Northern Sweden in the last century… in some places, children were forbidden to speak Finnish even at recess, to “encourage” the population to adopt a more civilized language.
What “right”? It seems that people call each other jackass here pretty freely over all sorts of disagreements.
You have to admit, it was rather ironic for PZ to praise the same speech he previously attacked without any explanation. If you had previously had a heated disagreement with PZ on this matter wouldn’t you get annoyed?
I am patriotic.
You are nationalistic.
(S)he is xenophobic.
In German, French and Russian it’s done the exact same way as in English, with a word (not related to the English one in any of these cases) that translates 1 : 1 as “proud”. But of course that’s all Standard Average European; most likely, one language came up with the concept, and it got translated into all others. No idea how it’s done in Chinese or Japanese; those ought to be interesting comparisons.
Anecdotes:
– My sister went to school in the French-speaking part of Switzerland for a year. Her classmates told her they were proud to be Swiss. When she asked them if they were really proud or just happy, they agreed that “happy” actually fit better.
– If you say “I’m proud to be German”, there are three possibilities: 1) you’re a neonazi; 2) you’re a naturalized immigrant who wants to raise the self-esteem of naturalized immigrants and wear down the edge of xenophobia (never mind that you’ve actually done something to become German, even if it was only a battle against the bureaucracy); 3) you are part of a pretty small movement that is actively trying to reclaim the term from the nazis for fear that the whole language might become taboo — in other words, you’re saying it to annoy the nazis.
– I don’t think anyone has ever claimed to be proud to be Austrian. (Except probably in 1978, see above.) I remember reading an article by a politologist (and media talking head) in a left-of-center investigative magazine in the late 90s who said he was an Austrian patriot when nobody else was — in the 60s or so, when most Austrians didn’t think Austria was a nation –, and now he isn’t one anymore, because he doesn’t think people have the same interests just because they have the same citizenship. One of his examples was, I think, that Catholic mothers in rural northeastern Austria have more in common with Catholic mothers in rural Argentina than with Social Democratic civil servants in Vienna. (OK, Catholic and Social Democratic is not a contradiction, but I imply different priorities, and the rural areas are mostly conservative in Austria like elsewhere.)
– Why do most Austrians now agree that Austria is a nation and even consider dissent ridiculous? Because they’ve redefined “nation” to mean “citizenship”. I’m Austrian because I have the Austrian citizenship; that’s a bureaucratic fact and not something I attach emotions to. And I don’t belong to a people any more than most Americans do.
I did mention I’m a nerd, didn’t I? :o) I have no idea what you mean. I know very little about any music composed since the 1950s because I actively avoid listening to it whenever possible. Way too much rhythm. I want my own emotions to be in control of my heartbeat, not some external influence. I play the flute, er, the recorder, and even that only once or twice a year at irregular occasions.
Windy,
Why ? It’s right for PZ to praise this part of the speech and ask the question now, would he do the same thing ?
And the other part he attacked previously, I can’t remember what he attacked exactly, but it’s true that Obama has not been very much in favour of promoting tolerance for non believers this year, so if he’s got his doubts, why shouldn’t he say it ?
I asked him 2 questions #449, and he answered very clearly #450.
My cocnlusions are in posts #458, 459.
And about TM, yes I’d be annoyed like him at first, but after 5 months ? That’s like, really, what an ego, wow !
Oh, we can have that cheaper nowadays. Much cheaper. Media that wait, like vultures around a wanderer in the desert, for an opportunity to proclaim a scandal and call for the political death of those responsible suffice entirely. Deterrence is very effective.
This, on the other hand, doesn’t work if Rupert Murdoch owns one half and the other half is propaganda such as Faux News.
Case in point: As soon as the existence of BSE was confirmed, all European countries completely forbid the previously widespread use of animal meal as fodder and made testing of all slaughtered cattle mandatory (within two or three weeks the whole continent had done it, as far as I remember). The politicians’ fear that they could be accused of knowing inaction and pressed to resign by outraged media, if not by mobs with torches, was palpable. You could almost feel it on the TV screen. In the USA, as was recently mentioned in a comment here on Pharyngula, testing is still not mandatory, and if you do it anyway, you must not mention it — because that would be an unfair advantage over all those other butchers who don’t care if their consumers survive. Something is rotten in the states of America.
It appears that it’s the tempo that’s correlated with increased heartbeat, not so much the style (or age) of the music. If Flight of the bumblebee doesn’t give you a heart attack, neither should speed metal.
No offense, but your comment reminded me of a religious friend, who would not drink coffee or tea because they were “mind-altering substances”, and would order cocoa instead ;)
Oh, we can have that cheaper nowadays. Much cheaper.
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#Media_consolidation_in_particular_countries
http://www.theyrule.net/
(Rupert Murdoch owns Faux News :).)
Yes, and he’s taking it out on me for daring to suggest that the Molly award was the clear result of a community vote, and not a manifestation of some additional character defect of PZ’s. There’s more than “ego” at work here.
You don’t say…
PS: a quote pulled from the archives:
“Truth Machine shall be disassembled and the consituent components made into a really fast race car.”
(and for that matter: “Kseniya shall be of consequence.”)
Brownian shall be prophetic.
Owlmirror: Well, the t.m. at its best is a force to be reckoned with, and its contributions have been formidable indeed. I have, at times, greatly admired its performance, despite the sometimes unsettling side effects of that rather inconvenient “Turret Syndrome” bug in the firmware. However, I think now that it’s simply overdue for a lube job. Either that, or the scrap heap – but I feel pretty strongly that junking it would be premature, and a waste of some halfway-decent hardware.
Brownian shall struggle greatly with the desire to make a risqué self-deprecating double entendre based on this sentence from Kseniya’s comment:
So I guess that’s a “no” vote on the rocket launcher?
G-A-A-A-AHH! I can’t take it!
I’m overdue for a lube job!
*Sob!* I tried, I really, really tried….
Owlmirror noted the potential for double-entendre and refrained from mentioning it, unlike some people.
Harrumph!
Well, Brownian’s not a slave to his self control, unlike some people.
BTW TM made an appearance again in the thread
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/you_want_crazy_we_got_crazy_al.php#comments
it starts at #91
quite fun !
his usual style…
but then he seems really pissed with “PZ lying about Obama” again.
PZ’s post was not exactly perfectly worded and easily subject to misinterpretation (as evidenced by the comments), but accusing him of lying ?
My conclusion is, TM is still lurking around, checking especially PZ’s posts about Obama. And he’ll comment in those threads.
Walton,
If you want loyalty to principles, then have loyalty to principles. Of course, it does help if one can actually describe them. Why bring a nation into it?
Those who claim a monopoly on American patriotism today – the Right – are those who are attempting to turn the US into an elective dictatorship. To them, the Leader is above the law, claiming powers to arbitrarily detain, torture, arbitrarily eavesdrop, arbitrarily engage in warfare, arbitrarily ignore bits of legislation through signing statements, and with the current campaign for telecom amnesty order others to break US law too. To say that these powers are vulnerable to abuse is a ludicrous understatement. They are utterly at odds with the traditions of the American founding, which explicitly gave the United States a government of laws, not of men, and made the branches of Executive, Legislature and Judiciary separate but equal.
Patriotic Britons stand to attention to honour the monarch. Lord Goldsmith recommended that school leaders swear allegiance to the monarch, as MPs and civil servants do. That has nothing to do with democracy or equality.
Humans are vulnerable to ingroup-outgroup thinking. Patriotism feeds directly into that, forming an ingroup based on nothing more substantial than an emotional attachment to the abstract concept of a nation and its symbols. Even at its most benign, patriotism leads to ingroup bias based on the nation. A patriot always has a hard time believing that bad things could be done in the name of their nation. History provides many examples of democracies abusing foreigners, e.g. the US colonisation of the Philippines. Patriotism makes that possible.
By the way, we need to get truth machine and Walton to have a chat. So we can watch.
o I would argue that while nationalist sentiments in Europe have been a destructive force in the past, British and American patriotic pride is a great thing and should be encouraged.
*jaw drop*
The Limbot is pretty amazing.
To David Marjanovic at #478: Interesting; I hadn’t really thought about these issues from an Austrian or German perspective, never having lived in those countries.
You say: If you say “I’m proud to be German”, there are three possibilities: 1) you’re a neonazi; 2) you’re a naturalized immigrant who wants to raise the self-esteem of naturalized immigrants and wear down the edge of xenophobia (never mind that you’ve actually done something to become German, even if it was only a battle against the bureaucracy); 3) you are part of a pretty small movement that is actively trying to reclaim the term from the nazis for fear that the whole language might become taboo — in other words, you’re saying it to annoy the nazis.
– I don’t think anyone has ever claimed to be proud to be Austrian. (Except probably in 1978, see above.) I remember reading an article by a politologist (and media talking head) in a left-of-center investigative magazine in the late 90s who said he was an Austrian patriot when nobody else was — in the 60s or so, when most Austrians didn’t think Austria was a nation –, and now he isn’t one anymore, because he doesn’t think people have the same interests just because they have the same citizenship.
I would venture to suggest that the difference is this: the past ultranationalism of Germany and Austria, manifesting itself most strongly in Nazism, was based ultimately on ideas of race and descent – a shared “Teutonic” racial and cultural identity. Indeed, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it historically the case that Germany awarded citizenship based on jus sanguinis rather than jus soli – right of blood rather than right of birth – so it was easy for a person of German descent born elsewhere to gain citizenship, but very difficult for a non-German living in Germany, even in the second or third generation, to gain citizenship? (I realise this is no longer the case, and I could be wrong – German history, apart from WWI and II, is outside my field of expertise – but if true, it illustrates my point.)
In contrast, America and Britain have never based their national identities on conceptions of race and descent. America is, of course, a nation of immigrants; and its national identity has, as I understand it, always been based on shared values and cultural bonds and shared loyalty to the nation, rather than to some concept of racial identity.
As regards expressions of national pride, you mention “a pretty small movement that is actively trying to reclaim the term from the nazis for fear that the whole language might become taboo.” I think this is a very healthy and positive thing. Here in the UK, national pride is a very potent cultural and political force; yet it has to an extent been hijacked by the British National Party and other extremist xenophobic groups. Those of us on the moderate right are trying to reclaim it for the mainstream. Being proud of one’s country does not make one a xenophobe.
You don’t understand it. I urge you to read up on the history of US immigration policy.
Our political identity should be based on shared values, not on blind loyalty to or baseless “pride” in a nation-state. The best scale on which to support one’s principles is, as it always has been, the local. The people I’ve studied in the early 20th century – in Europe, the US, and Latin America – were trying to form global networks of “free” cities, with an identity based upon a shared program of equality and liberty. The twentieth century, with its two world wars and the construction of international institutions, threw a wrench into this project, but it is experiencing a resurgence. Organizations like Mayors for Peace; the Human Rights Cities movement; local resolutions to fight the ravages of corporations or oppose the Patriot Act, recognize gay marriage, or disinvest in murderous regimes; and on and on. Mark my words – this is where the action will be in the 21st century. National/imperial patriotism, whatever it claims to be based on, is a stupid relic that continues to hinder the cause of global freedom and justice. Fortunately it’s on its way out.
(By the way, for anyone interested in the construction of national identities, Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities is a good place to start.)
By the way, for anyone interested in the construction of national identities, Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities is a good place to start.
HELLZ YEAH!
Well, to play
devil’stm’s advocate, PZ talks about the religious like this all the time – he will accuse them of lying when they misrepresent something. Like in the post “A pleasant, smiling apologist is still lying to you”. If people here accept that, I don’t think tm’s usage is completely out of line.And, the ‘I voted for him, what more do you want’ explanation sounds a bit whiny – voting does not excuse misrepresenting someone. Sorry. :)
btw, I thought tm’s lashing at Kseniya was weird and unnecessary so my advocacy doesn’t extend that far. :)
Yes, especially considering that he was wrong on the Molly point. Has t.m. ever admitted an error? Other than tacitly, I mean? Has he ever come right out and said “I was wrong,” or anything of the sort?
When t.m. is wrong (on the internet), the wrongness is fractal.
So, what would you diagnose? Something in the autistic spectrum? Or something else?