The national press has nothing to do with that sentiment.

Maybe not everything, but the press has A LOT to do with that sentiment. The reason McCain appeals to many independents and moderates is because he's been given such adoring press by the DC media for so long. The reality is that he's very, very conservative, and the biggest hawk in the race apart from Giuliani (who isn't really a hawk...more like a phoenix...or something). And most democrats are afraid of McCain because he'll continue to get the media's tongue bathing throughout the election.

re Iraq -- the stated purpose of the "surge" was to give Iraq space for a political reconciliation. You could look it up. That hasn't come close to happening, so while the surge has been somewhat of a tactical success, strategically it's been a complete failure. And it sure as hell doesn't seem to have made it any more likely that we can withdraw from Iraq anytime soon.

Just like in the former Yugoslavia and India/Pakistan, there aren't any good lines to divide Iraq into 3 neat areas. Even if we did, one group is likely to be unable to access much oil, making them even poorer than they are now. Another problem is that Turkey is opposed to any Kurdish state in order to prevent their own Kurdish population from attempting to break away.

I didn't mean to imply that it was simple, Dan. :) There would have to be huge population dislocations, it would be as painful as any war but at least there would be hope for a more peaceful future than what is lurking now, if some kind of economic equality can be reached or if the oil runs out.
I can't help but think Turkey is a ticking time bomb, and that the Kurds will be the spark that ignites the fundamentalist / secularist explosion that is going to happen in some Primate's lifetime, likely even mine.
Having an independent Iraq with the current borders, with no real Iraqi identity, with 3 significant peoples who pretty much hate each other and have a strong proclivity towards tribalism, is begging for a series of civil wars interrupted by strong man rule.

apart from Giuliani (who isn't really a hawk...more like a phoenix...or something)

maybe ... an eagle?

Maybe then the next Algeria? Forget The Battle of Algiers (the movie) if you wish, but take a look at some of the rosy promises made by DeGaulle (later renounced, of course) of Algerie Francaise. All gone within a blink.

I can't attest to the historical truth of that movie, but I saw it recently and it is a tremendous movie and a marvelous piece of propaganda, as effective as Triumph of the Will. It certainly made me feel empathy for the Algerians.

an eagle on roids and greenies?

There would have to be huge population dislocations, it would be as painful as any war but at least there would be hope for a more peaceful future than what is lurking now

I think that would create a whole new set of grudges, as well as spark immense amounts of violence. It's an option that is specifically meant to solve long range problems, but it could very well cause a storm that would destroy it's chances.

an eagle on roids and greenies?

if by roids and greenies you mean 9 and 11. yeah.

A vulture?

how about a sea gull?

one of those hairless bats

damn, vulture is perfect. Don't know why I didn't think of that. He even looks like a vulture.

Titanis walleri?

Maybe he's just a boid? Dirty... disgusting... filthy... lice-ridden boid..

Maybe then the next Algeria? Forget The Battle of Algiers (the movie) if you wish, but take a look at some of the rosy promises made by DeGaulle (later renounced, of course) of Algerie Francaise. All gone within a blink.

I can't attest to the historical truth of that movie, but I saw it recently and it is a tremendous movie and a marvelous piece of propaganda, as effective as Triumph of the Will. It certainly made me feel empathy for the Algerians.

It's my second or third favorite movie of all time, but I added the qualifier because of the political affiliation of the director, which discredits it in some people's eyes---even though for a propaganda movie (which it certaintly was) many of the Frenchmen came off as both nuanced and at least partially sympathetic, General "Matthieu" (Massu in real life) in particular.

And of course the Pentagon was showing it regularly at the beginning of the Iraq war. Too bad they didn't pay much attention to its long range implications.

Heaven help me for posting on this subject, but...

What you say, Edmundo, might have been true 100 years ago. But the simple fact is that there is now a big city in the middle of Iraq which has something like 1/3 of the population of the entire country, which population has moved there from all over the country, every ethnic and religious group. The people who agree with your plan are definitely the Kurds (who'd get their own country), and most of the Shia in the South, who would get to keep the oil revenues for themselves. You could even persuade some of the Sunni to go along with it in extremis, even though they'd be poor and cut off. But Baghdad would cease to exist in its present form if it were no longer the capital of Iraq. And the huge population that's all migrated there would be utterly screwed. They won't accept the partition of Iraq. They will (literally) fight to stop it happening. That's basically who Moqtada al-Sadr is in Iraqi politics. The leader of the huge Shia population who have migrated to Baghdad and would be utterly destroyed by partition. That's what makes him distinct from the other Shia leaders - and it's why he's more acceptable than they are to the Sunni population.

It is much too late to partition Iraq. Kurdish independence, yes. But the Arab population are going to have to live with each other.

even though for a propaganda movie (which it certaintly was) many of the Frenchmen came off as both nuanced and at least partially sympathetic

I thought that's what put it over the top in effectiveness

But Baghdad would cease to exist in its present form if it were no longer the capital of Iraq.

You write that as if it were a bad thing. :)

And the huge population that's all migrated there would be utterly screwed.

Yeah, that does sound like a deal killer -- my "Shiastan" couldn't possibly absorb all those dislocated people.
Freakin' short-sighted Churchill. :)

#115 sort of describes the situation of Brussels as the only thing keeping Belgium, which no longer has a national government, from splitting up.

even though for a propaganda movie (which it certaintly was) many of the Frenchmen came off as both nuanced and at least partially sympathetic

I thought that's what put it over the top in effectiveness

No question about that----Pontecorvo was no dummy, and unlike many political directors, he had the insight to realize that political cartoon movies (other than lampoons like Fail Safe) seldom make it out of first run, whereas if you treat your subject with the complexity that it deserves, you've got a shot at cinematic immortality. And IMO only Angi Vera and maybe Open City are in its class---I don't like to come off as anti-American, but Americans almost never have been able to produce any serious political movies, for whatever reason. The two Clint Eastwood films on Iwo Jima are almost the only exceptions that come to mind.

i still think we should just bomb em back to the stone age and let em start over.

i still think we should just bomb em back to the stone age and let em start over.

Isn't the punch line, "Oh, never mind. You never left the Stone Age."

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

but Americans almost never have been able to produce any serious political movies, for whatever reason.

I just read "Flyboys" by James Bradley (which includes interviews with G. H. W. Bush, BTW), which spends a lot of time on the Japanese perspective on the lead up to WWII and explanations of why they had the mindset that they did and why they behaved as they did. I'm guessing some might call it anti-American but I thought it was an honest attempt at comparing the differences and some scary similaties between the US and Japanese cultures, primarily the war cultures.
He references some US atrocities in the Philippines post-Spanish-American War. I knew there was some brutality but it is far more gruesome than I had imagined, assuming the author was being truthful.

I'm shocked. 123 posts into a political thread and Andy still hasn't found an excuse to reference Lee Atwater!

What I'd argue is that the recent success in Iraq doesn't tell us anything about Petraeus except that he's competent.

I'll take competent. After that Civil War General thread awhile ago, I'm delighted to have a general that everyone agrees is at least competent!

I'll take competent. After that Civil War General thread awhile ago, I'm delighted to have a general that everyone agrees is at least competent!

The good news is that this general is competent. The bad news is that the political strategy which his military effort serves remains just as numbskulled as ever, the product of a Commander-in-Chief as incompetent as any we've suffered in 230 years.

He's #43 all time Steve, isn't that HOF/HOM?

#43 out of ... oh, that's right, 43.

Not quite HOF/HOM territory.

Harmon Killebrew

Crap. As a kid, Killebrew was my favorite player. I hadn't realized he was completely deranged. *sigh*

The bad news is that the political strategy which his military effort serves remains just as numbskulled as ever, the product of a Commander-in-Chief as incompetent as any we've suffered in 230 years.

The good news, as I frequently remind my many friends who share your sentiment, is that after eight years of absolutely shameless buffoonery from said numbskull, America is still here and still functioning at a high level. If that isn't a remarkable tribute to the greatness of our nation, I don't know what is.

Jack Morris is definitely Mormon.

I don't know if Jeff Kent is. I don't think Kyle Farnsworth is..if rumors of a drinking problem would disqualify you from being Mormon. Plus they aren't listed as Mormons on wikipedia, and Mormons tend to be pretty up to date on who else is Mormon.

Edit: Heh, they are Mormon. I had no idea.

America is still here and still functioning at a high level. If that isn't a remarkable tribute to the greatness of our nation, I don't know what is.

Well, yes. But it isn't exactly cause for celebration.

We're still functioning at a high level, but not nearly as high as we might, if we hadn't spent something like half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, creating enormous federal deficits. And if we hadn't squandered the nearly universal international good will and support we had following 9/11 with such blunders as the Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay. And if our administration hadn't spent years denying the factual obviousness of global climate change, and several more years refusing to take it seriously as a matter of policy, while the rest of the world looked upon us in dismay.

It's stuff like that makes me less than blithely delighted over the mere fact of the United States.

If that isn't a remarkable tribute to the greatness of our nation, I don't know what. is

Unfortunately, I'm not sure it is. I think it's just a testament to the power of inertia, and the fact that huge complicated things take a long time to crumble to unrecognizability when merely bungled rather than explicitly attacked from within (as has happened in certain countries at times).

if rumors of a drinking problem would disqualify you from being Mormon.

It would disqualify you only from being an observant Mormon.

It would disqualify you only from being an observant Mormon.

True.

How many MLBers have actually done a mission and then played? I think Matt Lindstrom is the only one.

My thoughts on the election at this point are contained in the following statement: "anybody but Giuliani."

This state of constant war isn't going to end anytime soon; the people at large are too hawkish to want that no matter who the President is. Americans just love war, period, and it's not as though there aren't reasonable arguments for U.S. military presence here and there, enough to keep the fire burning. And domestic policy has been steadily heading in the same direction--toward a society with the worst aspects of both left and right, it seems--for almost three decades now, regardless of what party has been in power. I'm not entirely sure why, but it has. It probably has something to do with the "advancement" of business and marketing theories, and the increasing importance of simply alienating as few of the most powerful interests as possible.

So since nothing will change substantially, I just want a President toward whom I don't have a post-traumatic stress response.

if rumors of a drinking problem would disqualify you from being Mormon.

Mormon's who drink are referred to as "Jack Mormons" and aren't extremely uncommon in areas with sizable Mormon populations.

I think Jeremy Guthrie did.

I would be very surprised if the United States federal government still had the same scope and powers that it has today. The individual regions are starting to become so populous and divergent that there is a real risk that most power will very much return to the states. Right now, the glue that keeps the country together is the military. It's the only real "joint" effort amongst the states that they sort of agree on (other than the postal service).

I could certainly see a time when the states were more able to make their own decisions on education, health care, etc. and more of the tax burden was shifted from the federal government to the states (similar to what it is like in Canada, and in particular, Canada's relationship to Quebec).

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing, either. Let's see what happens to Kansas without California! (No offense to the good people living in Kansas, of whose number I was once one.)

It could actually work for groups of like states to form sub-federations, like "Eastern Seaboard," "New England," "Southwest," "Pacific Coast," "Great Plains," "Great Lakes," etc.

I'm shocked. 123 posts into a political thread and Andy still hasn't found an excuse to reference Lee Atwater!

Not yet, but there was a nice obit of Harry Dent in last Sunday's NY Times Mag. Those are always the best kind of articles to read about anyone associated with southern strategies.

We're still functioning at a high level, but not nearly as high as we might, if we hadn't spent something like half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, creating enormous federal deficits.

I'm not arguing that. There simply aren't many organizations of any size or scope that could survive 8 years of absolutely feckless bungling and yet here we are, bruised but still standing. I don't think any other nation or conglomerate would have absorbed 8 years of unopposed leadership by lazy, self-absorbed, arrogant and dogmatic ignoramus, surrounded only by sycophants and mendacious manipulators and generally oblivious to reality, and emerged in as good a shape as we are now.

If even a clueless ####### [er, dipshite?)like Dubya can't run this country into the ground after 8 full years, how can you question our inherent greatness as a country? Of course all that bumbling is going to make everything harder for the rest of us as we dig out from the mess, but we'll do it and we'll make the nation better for the experience. We're Americans. We invented baseball. We can do anything.

How many MLBers have actually done a mission and then played? I think Matt Lindstrom is the only one.

McKay Christensen?

And if our administration hadn't spent years denying the factual obviousness of global climate change, and several more years refusing to take it seriously as a matter of policy, while the rest of the world looked upon us in dismay.

The same rest of the world that's currently pretending that they actually follow the Kyoto treaty and is currently trying to negotiate the next failed climate treaty in an attempt to gloss over the fact that the current, easier goals have been miserable failures?

Hey, at least they're pretending :)

Hey, at least they're pretending :)

True!

The Kyoto treaty is the geopolitical version of the NFL's drug-testing plan.

I think it has less to do with the greatness of America and more to do with the fact that politicians are not nearly as important as they would have you believe. The least necessary person on board a ship is the captain - everyone else has a proper job to do.

The same rest of the world that's currently pretending that they actually follow the Kyoto treaty and is currently trying to negotiate the next failed climate treaty in an attempt to gloss over the fact that the current, easier goals have been miserable failures?

And this, what ... justifies global climate change denial? Renders pretending the whole issue will just go away if we ignore it a wise strategy, and an example of statesmanlike leadership?

If even a clueless ####### [er, dipshite?)like Dubya can't run this country into the ground after 8 full years, how can you question our inherent greatness as a country? Of course all that bumbling is going to make everything harder for the rest of us as we dig out from the mess, but we'll do it and we'll make the nation better for the experience.

It's not an issue of questioning our inherent greatness as a country. It's an issue of recognizing the seriousness of the mess that dipshite has caused, and the urgency of dealing with it.

Step number one is the critical importance of not electing another pleasantly agreeable blockhead like him into the office of President.

Mike Huckabee, for instance. Who doesn't believe in the scientific factuality of evolution.

And this, what ... justifies global climate change denial? Renders pretending the whole issue will just go away if we ignore it a wise strategy, and an example of statesmanlike leadership?

Given how miniscule the estimated effect on the climate would have been even if everybody, including the US, had followed Kyoto, doing nothing isn't all that different from doing something. The backers of Kyoto had estimated it would be something like delaying the 2100 temperature until 2107 with perfect compliance.

Want to say the Bush administration isn't paying attention to the Copenhagen Consensus? You'll have no quarrel with me. But ignoring the rest of the world's pleas to expensively do absolutely nothing? That's a good thing. The world's yet to formulate any kind of climate agreement that's worth the sweat off my balls, so I'm not going to fault any politician, from the leftest D to the rightest R, that doesn't leap to the forefront to flush money down the toilet to OMG TEH DO SOMETHING!!!!!

The least necessary person on board a ship is the captain - everyone else has a proper job to do.

I'm sorry, but as an enthusiastic amateur historian regarding the "Age of Sail" I have to disagree. If you run your ship aground, you can almost always blame a captain for setting an inappropriate course - not the man at the helm or the officer of the watch. Perhaps this is no longer the case in the modern era, but you wouldn't want to take a lengthy Napoleonic-era voyage without an extremely competent captain.

If one were to take a green loblolly boy and give him a proper Ship of the Line to command, he'd probably do about as well as the current President heading the ship of state, which, rest assured, would be bad news for the crew. We're fortunate that the President does have some small restrictions placed on his foolish whims, despite what Mr. Cheney may claim, or perhaps we would be sunk after all.

Age of Sail was also a fun game.

Given how miniscule the estimated effect on the climate would have been even if everybody, including the US, had followed Kyoto, doing nothing isn't all that different from doing something.

Baloney. If everybody, especially including the US given its enormous prominence as the hugest economy with the biggest eco-footprint on the planet, had followed Kyoto that would have been something extremely important: a profound precedent that the world can actually work in a unified and purposefully collaborative manner on this exceedingly critical issue. It would have been a modest start, to be sure, but it would have been a real start, which, thanks primarily to the Republican Party of the United States, hasn't yet been undertaken. We've just wasted ten years we'll never get back, because on the one hand dunderheads want to believe that nothing needs to be done, and on the other hand defeatists want to believe that nothing can be done.

The perfect needn't be the enemy of the good. Waiting until everything is perfect until acting is a perfect recipe for truly doing nothing. And, truly, doing nothing on this issue will actually, certainly, and unequivocally result in disaster on a vast scale.

Step number one is the critical importance of not electing another pleasantly agreeable blockhead like him into the office of President.

I do hope the American public has learned their lesson in that regard. The media certainly hasn't. Eight years ago we were encouraged to look favorably towards Dubya because he seemed a better fellow to share a beer with. Today we'll fret over John Edwards' haircut and Barak Obama's middle name.

Mike Huckabee, for instance. Who doesn't believe in the scientific factuality of evolution.

Well in Huckabee's defense, he does have a very old book.

I really don't have any inherent problem with religious people seeking public office, but if you're going to wave your religiosity like a banner you should be called to the fore on it. The next time someone wants to boast of their Christian credentials in a public forum they should be queried: Do Jews go to heaven? How old is the earth? Are we in the End Times? Does the Pope hold any spiritual authority (or, if the candidate is Catholic, does denying the earthly authority of the Pontiff have any effect on salvation), and so forth. You want to bring it out, let's get it all out there, and I'd guess we'd see a marked diminishment of bible-waving in politics.

Baloney. If everybody, especially including the US given its enormous prominence as the hugest economy with the biggest eco-footprint on the planet, had followed Kyoto that would have been something extremely important: a profound precedent that the world can actually work in a unified and purposefully collaborative manner on this exceedingly critical issue. It would have been a modest start, to be sure, but it would have been a real start, which, thanks primarily to the Republican Party of the United States, hasn't yet been undertaken.

That's a pretty expensive way to give people warm, fuzzy feelings. You cut the most wasteful things first, not last, so it's not like it's a useful stepping stone to some meaningful number.

There are two ways to get out of this issue - tech our way out or go back to a pre-industrial society. Every dollar wasted on compliance with treaties nobody really cares about is a dollar unavailable to help develop actual solutions.

The perfect needn't be the enemy of the good. Waiting until everything is perfect until acting is a perfect recipe for truly doing nothing. And, truly, doing nothing on this issue will actually, certainly, and unequivocally result in disaster on a vast scale.

And doing Kyoto also, certainly, unequivocally results in disaster on a vast scale because it does absolutely nothing. With our current technology, there's absolutely no cuts that can be made that actually would have a legitimate effect on the situation. It's future tech and amelioration that's important not paying dodgy companies to plant trees in Africa or bribing Russia for pollution credits because of their collapsed economy.

There are two ways to get out of this issue - tech our way out or go back to a pre-industrial society.

Given that a pre-industrial society wouldn't support a fraction of the earth's current human population, that one sure ain't happening, at least not voluntarily.

So, yes, absolutely, the only way out is to tech our way out. And the only way we're going to tech our way out is by applying international, legally-binding limits and reductions on greenhouse-gas emissions, that will force the issues of technological innovation and transformation.

Unquestionably, government is not the entire solution to this dire problem (nor to any other). But to pretend that government, on a global scale, doesn't need to be a significant part of it is to live in a fantasy world.

Baloney. If everybody, especially including the US given its enormous prominence as the hugest economy with the biggest eco-footprint on the planet, had followed Kyoto that would have been something extremely important: a profound precedent that the world can actually work in a unified and purposefully collaborative manner on this exceedingly critical issue. It would have been a modest start, to be sure, but it would have been a real start, which, thanks primarily to the Republican Party of the United States, hasn't yet been undertaken.

The Republican Party? You do realize that Clinton never bothered to even submit Kyoto to the Senate, and that just to be sure, the Senate went ahead and voted 95-0 to reject it just in case Clinton did decide to submit it, right?

There are two ways to get out of this issue - tech our way out or go back to a pre-industrial society. Every dollar wasted on compliance with treaties nobody really cares about is a dollar unavailable to help develop actual solutions.

Or, we -- and by we, I mean the world, not the US -- could just ignore it, get richer, and then spend the money to deal with any problems that arise as a result. (Hey, I'm all for anybody who wants to research solar power, or electric cars, or magic, but it makes little sense for nations to outlaw (explicitly or implicitly) coal and oil in the meantime, costing the world trillions of dollars, when we could just not build cities below sea level.)

Or, we -- and by we, I mean the world, not the US -- could just ignore it, get richer, and then spend the money to deal with any problems that arise as a result. (Hey, I'm all for anybody who wants to research solar power, or electric cars, or magic, but it makes little sense for nations to outlaw (explicitly or implicitly) coal and oil in the meantime, costing the world trillions of dollars, when we could just not build cities below sea level.)

3 problems:

1) Deciding to "not build cities below sea level" becomes hard when all of our coastal cities are below what sea level will be when the sea rises. Unless we want to abandon the current coast entirely, this isn't really doing anything.

2) No one is trying to outlaw coal or oil right now. The only actions are attempting to find different energy sources and to make anything that uses coal or oil to produce energy to be more efficient to reduce how much we have to use.

3) Ignoring it and trying to fix it later is a lot like ignoring cancer or not slowing down your car on an icy road as you approach an intersection - there's the chance it will be all right in the end, but the risk it won't is far too great not to start now.

So, yes, absolutely, the only way out is to tech our way out. And the only way we're going to tech our way out is by applying international, legally-binding limits and reductions on greenhouse-gas emissions, that will force the issues of technological innovation and transformation.

Science doesn't care about arbitrary limits set by bureaucrats. As long as we think scientific progress can be created by fiat why not simply outlaw death in an attempt to "force" the technology of gene research?

3) Ignoring it and trying to fix it later is a lot like ignoring cancer or not slowing down your car on an icy road as you approach an intersection - there's the chance it will be all right in the end, but the risk it won't is far too great not to start now.

In fact, people do decide not to treat cancer when there's no practical method of treating it. The only current "fixes" involve spending massive amounts of human capital to do next-to-nothing. This, in fact, has a lot in common with the treatment of very late-stage cancers.

In fact, people do decide not to treat cancer when there's no practical method of treating it.

Sure, but that's just conceding the inevitability of death. I'm not sure that's the way we want to go just yet.

1) Deciding to "not build cities below sea level" becomes hard when all of our coastal cities are below what sea level will be when the sea rises. Unless we want to abandon the current coast entirely, this isn't really doing anything.

Despite what Al Gore's movie told us, the predictions from the same people who are cited in support of global warming alarmism are that the sea level will rise at most about a meter. That is not going to put "all of our coastal cities below sea level." It will put a few small portions of some cities below sea level, which can be solved with dikes and/or moving those parts of those cities to higher ground.

2) No one is trying to outlaw coal or oil right now. The only actions are attempting to find different energy sources and to make anything that uses coal or oil to produce energy to be more efficient to reduce how much we have to use.

Nobody is "trying" to outlaw coal or oil; they're just setting goals that would require it. To cut emissions by 50, 70, 90% -- numbers that have all been floated lately by various politicians -- by mid-century, particularly given economic growth in Asia, would indeed require that.

3) Ignoring it and trying to fix it later is a lot like ignoring cancer or not slowing down your car on an icy road as you approach an intersection - there's the chance it will be all right in the end, but the risk it won't is far too great not to start now.

The problem is that the cost of addressing the issue isn't equivalent to the cost of "slowing down." It's more like slowing down to a crawl in a situation where you're trying to get your friend, who has just been shot and is bleeding profusely in the back seat, to the hospital.

News about Mormons, Mormonism,and the LDS Church claim Kent and Farnsworth are Mormons:

Link

the predictions from the same people who are cited in support of global warming alarmism are that the sea level will rise at most about a meter.

Citation? It seems incredibly wrong to me, seeing as how neither Greenland nor Antarctica are giant ice cubes. A vast amount of water is frozen on land, and a meter seems way, way to small a rise in sea level.

Nobody is "trying" to outlaw coal or oil; they're just setting goals that would require it. To cut emissions by 50, 70, 90% -- numbers that have all been floated lately by various politicians -- by mid-century, particularly given economic growth in Asia, would indeed require that.

You don't think that we'll have energy sources not requiring coal or oil that could produce 50% of the worlds power by 2050? I would say it's likely, especially if an organized effort is made to do it.

And do you seriously think that we'll stick to those goals if starts to look like we'll miss those targets?

The problem is that the cost of addressing the issue isn't equivalent to the cost of "slowing down." It's more like slowing down to a crawl in a situation where you're trying to get your friend, who has just been shot and is bleeding profusely in the back seat, to the hospital.

I'm no expert on Ambulence technology, but I assume they can't go from 0 to 60 instantly. It's more like trying to move him to meet the ambulence in a place that will save it several minutes. Just because we don't have a total solution now doesn't mean we can't start doing things that help.

Sure, but that's just conceding the inevitability of death. I'm not sure that's the way we want to go just yet.

Perhaps, but I'd want the emphasis to be on promoting scientific research, not pointing a gun at it. Arbitrary cuts by politicians that wouldn't do anything if followed doesn't do a thing.

In fact, I'm far more willing for taxation to work on the problem than most libertarians (I'm a geolibertarian). However, as currently run, the War on Climate Change is run exactly like the War on Terror - demand for an unlimited checkbook, for vague, unworkable goals, goals which haven't even been presented as ending or even alleviating the problem to any significant extent, absolutely no consideration for the effects of the policy or any unintended consequences and anyone who disagrees with it is labelled a bad person.

Kyoto and the upcoming millstone seem to me to be the worst of both worlds - expensive *and* doesn't do anything. I'm sorry, spending trillions of dollars to create a warm fuzzy feeling that you're trying is a waste of money. And if we're going to spend that money one way or another, it should be done for the most practical ends, which Kyoto and Friends are most certainly not.

Citation? It seems incredibly wrong to me, seeing as how neither Greenland nor Antarctica are giant ice cubes. A vast amount of water is frozen on land, and a meter seems way, way to small a rise in sea level.


The IPCC had a meter as the high point of their estimate, IIRC.

Perhaps, but I'd want the emphasis to be on promoting scientific research, not pointing a gun at it. Arbitrary cuts by politicians that wouldn't do anything if followed doesn't do a thing.

I may be wrong, but I thought current measures focused on 3 things:

1) Research funds for alternative energy sources
2) Incentives for businesses that burn coal or oil to reduce pollution or increase efficiency (or mandate minimum mileage for new cars)
3) Incentives for consumers to reduce energy usage and tax breaks for solar cells and windmills

You don't think that we'll have energy sources not requiring coal or oil that could produce 50% of the worlds power by 2050? I would say it's likely, especially if an organized effort is made to do it.

If I lived in a windy place, I'd buy a windmill.

I hear there's no greater joy than watching the dial on your electric meter running backwards.

1) Research funds for alternative energy sources
2) Incentives for businesses that burn coal or oil to reduce pollution or increase efficiency (or mandate minimum mileage for new cars)
3) Incentives for consumers to reduce energy usage and tax breaks for solar cells and windmills

Yeah, and what we end up with is making food more expensive for the poor in the US and around the world so that we can turn corn into something ever-so-slightly more efficient than oil and politicians NIMBYing windmills in places where the windmills would actually be useful because of their vacation homes. Corporations do stupid and evil things as well, but at least they don't force you to be stupid at gunpoint.

Yeah, and what we end up with is making food more expensive for the poor in the US and around the world so that we can turn corn into something ever-so-slightly more efficient than oil and politicians NIMBYing windmills in places where the windmills would actually be useful because of their vacation homes. Corporations do stupid and evil things as well, but at least they don't force you to be stupid at gunpoint.

Corn to ethanol is retarded. Switchgrass to ethanol, however, looks promising as a short term aid.

I don't get what you mean by "politicians NIMBYing windmills in places where the windmills would actually be useful because of their vacation homes." Do you think politicians would really restrict where windmills would be placed other than for safety reasons?

I don't have anything against corporations, but I also don't think they're going to implement a solution for long term purposes. Sure, it helps when consumers make an active choice to buy from those that are attempting to help the problem, but counting on that to be enough is like trying to build a tunnel through a mountain with just a pick.

Do you think politicians would really restrict where windmills would be placed other than for safety reasons?

Already happened. Both Kennedy and, I think, one of the Maine senators have already torpedoed windmill projects for this very reason.

Yes, Kennedy that fat hypocrite, torpedoed the the Cape Wind project primarily because it affected the view from his and his rich friends Nantucket mansions.

I guess Kennedy must be a staunch Republican since it's only Republicans who don't fight global warming

Yeah, Kennedy is talking out of both sides of his mouth on the windmill issue. The Cape is an ideal place to set up a windfarm but he won't allow it because it will spoil his view of the ocean.

Already happened. Both Kennedy and, I think, one of the Maine senators have already torpedoed windmill projects for this very reason.

Seems to me that keeping offshore wind farms a mile and a half away from shipping channels is a reasonable safety measure.

It was Kennedy and Young (R-Alaska), by the way.

Seems to me that keeping offshore wind farms a mile and a half away from shipping channels is a reasonable safety measure.

Problem with this is the fact that the alternate site that Kennedy and other rich opponents of the Cape Wind project had in mind, Buzzards Bay, was closer to even a busier shipping lane. It wasn't a safety issue, it was an OMG TEH RICH PEOPLES SEE THEM! issue.

And even if it was a safety issue, it's one that has to be dealt if we use wind because the coastlines are some of the best spots for wind farms. We can't just stuff them in rural Alabama.

All-in-all, it's a small issue, but it's the kind of things politicians do when they have the power (yeah, Young sounds about right as the other one).

In fact, I'm far more willing for taxation to work on the problem than most libertarians (I'm a geolibertarian). However, as currently run, the War on Climate Change is run exactly like the War on Terror - demand for an unlimited checkbook, for vague, unworkable goals, goals which haven't even been presented as ending or even alleviating the problem to any significant extent, absolutely no consideration for the effects of the policy or any unintended consequences and anyone who disagrees with it is labelled a bad person.

To the extent that we're convinced that AGW is a problem that needs to be solved, I -- and most libertarians I know (*) -- think that taxation is the only legitimate approach. Tax all human activity across the board based on carbon emissions (or methane, or any other 'greenhouse gas'), and let the market do its work to determine the most efficient method for reducing said emissions.

(The war on terror analogy isn't a bad one; you can add "cries of crisis completely out of proportion to the actual events." to your point.)


(*) Given the identity and predilections of those pushing the global warming 'crisis,' many libertarians are justly suspicious of their motives, but of course that's ultimately not a valid argument.

I don't endorse the Fair Tax as is, but yes, it is. But it's not really 23%; it's really 30%. The 23% is calculating it inclusively, the way Europeans do with the VAT.

That is, where a product has a sticker price of $1 in the US, it actually costs $1.23 (if the sales tax rate were 23%). But in Europe, or with the FairTax, if a product has a sticker price of $1, it costs $1. It's a 77¢ item, with a built in tax of 23¢. Rather than dividing 23 by 77 and saying that it's a 30% tax, they divide 23 by 100 and say it's a 23% tax.

This may or may not be an accurate description of FairTax, but it's not correct in respect of VAT.

VAT is calculated as a percentage of the VAT-free price; it's just a truth in labelling law requires all sticker prices to be all-inclusive (not just tax-inclusive either, for instance a car's sticker price has to include a tank of fuel, vehicle registration fee, all the taxes, etc. - described as the "on the road" price).

List prices for consumer sale are normally quoted VAT-inclusive, and that means that a £499 computer is £499 including 17.5% VAT - but that's not 17.5% of the £499, but 17.5% of the ex. VAT price, meaning it was £424.68 ex VAT and £74.32 VAT.

Don't forget that there's a big difference between a pure sales tax and VAT - the retailer can't claim back the sales tax on what he buys; he can claim back the VAT. (which is why it's called Value-Added Tax).

One result of this is that prices that are aimed at businesses are always quoted ex-VAT; because a business can claim back the VAT on its inputs, while charging VAT on its outputs. I work for a law firm; we add 17.5% VAT on our fees, but only pay a fraction of that to the government in VAT; the rest gets credited against the VAT on everything we buy. One notable consequence of this is that a lot of people try to pass large purchases through their company accounts - then they can recover the VAT, and save 15% of the sticker price.