Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 02, 2012

OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call.  However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

 

Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 38 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 > 
   3701. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4196081)
BBTF liberal elite


Can I be part of that? I have never been classified as elite before* and I think it would be a cool thing to put on my business card**.

I love how on one hand we are hearing "the problem is too big to solve, especially just by the US alone" and then we also hear "why should the government be involved, liberals want the government involved in everything." With no hint of the contradiction of those two positions. Anything to argue against the "liberal agenda. Down with efficient light bulbs!

Liberals want the government involved in things that are too big to be handled elsewhere***; things that need scale and which require corrections for externalities that impact things and mean the market won't work well. That describes climate change and health care pretty well.

* Well I have, actually, but it probably wasn't really true when it was said, so I don't count it. of course it wouldn't be true here either, so never mind I guess.

** You know if business cards were not dinosaurs.

*** Yes I am aware there are plenty of other things governments do as well.
   3702. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4196088)
I am constantly amazed at how much effort you guys put into debating with Joe. History suggests it's pointless.
   3703. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4196090)
So where's the CPI spike after sulfur became regulated? Because we saw it during the oil crisis of the 70's


That was totally years ago. History, like science, is only relevant if it confirms the article of faith.
   3704. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4196097)
I didn't claim cockpit doors or Katrina planning were liberal issues. The point was, when humanity has had little success solving relatively small, obvious problems, it's patently absurd to expect humanity to band together, across ~200 national borders, to solve the biggest problem known to humanity (i.e., if liberal climate-change claims are correct).


One more hit, and I'll stop Dialing back the thread, but the claim that unsecured cockpit doors was an "obvious problem" prior to 9/11 is to completely rewrite history. Cockpit doors were not reinforced prior to 9/11 because it was COMPLETELY NOT ####### OBVIOUS that they needed to be reinforced. Similarly, the claim that no emergency planning existed in NOLA prior to Katrina is just so fantastically ####### stupid and blind as to beg the question of the mental well being of the person making that claim.
   3705. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4196099)
I am constantly amazed at how much effort you guys put into debating on the internet. History suggests it's pointless.


Fixed to go from the specific to the general.

Pointless? Perhaps. But we must have a reason. Maybe we speak to the countless silent masses certainly reading and admiring our prose?* Maybe we like to "hear ourselves talk"? Maybe we like to sharpen our rhetoric against the whetstone of BBTF?
   3706. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4196100)
I really do want to hear from Ray more on the "worthwhile lives now" reasoning.

If the loans and mortgages are helping people live worthwhile and easy lives now, why the flyingfuck should they care about how it's going to affect YOU - or everyone - later? In fact, why should YOU care? As you have said, it's helping them lead better lives now. The cost to police those actions hurts their lives NOW.

You obviously thought that was terrible actions from the actual people taking out the loans and mortgages with no thought for the future, so why don't you consider the same to be true here?

Unless your answer is "science - booooo!"
   3707. CrosbyBird Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4196106)
Why do you think that cap and trade for carbon is so different from sulfur?

I'm guessing that we'd have a much harder time reducing carbon emissions than we would reducing sulfur emissions.
   3708. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4196109)
Unless your anwer is "science - booooo!"


His answer is "my team says 'science, boo,' therefore science boo." We've already established (whether he admits as much or not) that Ray is a cultural and political conservative* who votes libertarian out of his basic sense of contrarianism. Like, 2000 posts ago.

*in the modern American sense, not in the "makes any sort of actual sense as a conservative framework in political philosophy."

Ray is anti-climate change for the exact same reason Ray is now an Ichiro fan.
   3709. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4196110)
I'm guessing that we'd have a much harder time reducing carbon emissions than we would reducing sulfur emissions.


"It's too hard" is not an answer worth considering.
   3710. Fresh Prince of Belisle Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4196112)

Cockpit doors were not reinforced prior to 9/11 because it was COMPLETELY NOT ####### OBVIOUS that they needed to be reinforced.


So, El Al reinforced cockpits going back to the mid-70s because they thought reinforced steel was totally rad?
   3711. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4196116)
So, El Al reinforced cockpits going back to the mid-70s because they thought reinforced steel was totally cool?


No, El Al reinforced cockpits because they were a tiny company with a tiny market who had extenuating circumstances driving that decision. If the need for American airlines to reinforce their cockpit doors was so completely friggin' obvious prior to 9/11/2001 you should have no trouble whatsoever finding me multiple sources of pre-9/11 articles cached on the internet complaining that such an obvious thing had not been done.
   3712. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4196129)
a scientist who says "nothing to see here, global warming is not a problem" is likely to get no funding.
You're kidding, right? Where is this fantasy world you live in


the fantasy world where global warming is a liberal hoax and the people who believe in it are cultists

that world, Ray world.

I never once claimed, implied, or suggested any "liberal conspiracy," so you're either lying or you're believing the press clippings put out on me by our BBTF liberal elite.


No, I'm taking you posts and trying to figure put your views from them.

For instance, your amazing ability to regurgitate rightwing talking points, while simultaneously claiming to never listen, watch or read the rightwing media sources that tend to disseminate them,like the stuff about how climate scientist is being skewed in the directing of finding that AGW exists by funding- I mean Jaysus Christ, that doesn't come close to passing the smell test, I mean I seriously think you throw that out just to insult everyone's intelligence here.

I mean I disagree with a lot of what JK says, but he does have a valid underlying point about cost and socio-economic upheaval, but you prattle on about cultish beliefs, spew wingnut talking points about how climate science is wrong, then go on about how suspicious it is that there is a "problem" that conveniently allows liberals/leftists to do what they want to do anyway (destroy industry?)

and then you have utterly shameless audacity to say that someone else is lying?

seriously?

   3713. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4196138)
So where's the CPI spike after sulfur became regulated? Because we saw it during the oil crisis of the 70's.

Why would there have been a CPI spike? If people have to pay more for X, that leaves less money to spend on Y and Z.
   3714. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4196140)
Maybe we like to "hear ourselves talk"?


Of course, except for the truly deluded among us who else has any other compelling reason to do this?
   3715. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4196146)
So, El Al reinforced cockpits going back to the mid-70s because they thought reinforced steel was totally cool?

No, El Al reinforced cockpits because they were a tiny company with a tiny market who had extenuating circumstances driving that decision.


I tend to fall on the side of thinking that gee, we should have had stronger doors before 9/11, I mean 9/11 was not the first time IN THE US that hijackers/nutjobs, forced there way into cockpits.

OTOH, steel reinforced cockpit doors are not gonna help in all scenarios- you also need a crew who is not gonna open that door- even if the hijackers start killing hostages one by one- how many people have the stomach for that?



   3716. Fresh Prince of Belisle Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4196147)

If the need for American airlines to reinforce their cockpit doors was so completely friggin' obvious prior to 9/11/2001 you should have no trouble whatsoever finding me multiple sources of pre-9/11 articles cached on the internet complaining that such an obvious thing had not been done.


Ah, the "completely friggin' obvious" standard. Fact is, that nobody considered something doesn't mean that it was right to have not considered something.

See Hutcheson. See Hutcheson yell, Yell, Hutcheson, yell. See Jim Furtado. See Jim Furtado punish everyone but Sam Hutcheson.
   3717. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4196148)
but the claim that unsecured cockpit doors was an "obvious problem" prior to 9/11 is to completely rewrite history. Cockpit doors were not reinforced prior to 9/11 because it was COMPLETELY NOT ####### OBVIOUS that they needed to be reinforced.

Yes, despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, it was totally unforeseeable that lax cockpit security could be a problem.

Similarly, the claim that no emergency planning existed in NOLA prior to Katrina is just so fantastically ####### stupid and blind as to beg the question of the mental well being of the person making that claim.

Yes, packing 30,000 people into the SuperDome was a great plan. Heckuva job, Mayor Nagin.
   3718. Dan The Mediocre Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4196150)
No, El Al reinforced cockpits because they were a tiny company with a tiny market who had extenuating circumstances driving that decision. If the need for American airlines to reinforce their cockpit doors was so completely friggin' obvious prior to 9/11/2001 you should have no trouble whatsoever finding me multiple sources of pre-9/11 articles cached on the internet complaining that such an obvious thing had not been done.


Ralph Nader was banging that drum for a few years. Which may be part of the reason no one listened.
   3719. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4196153)
Ah, the "completely friggin' obvious" standard. Fact is, that nobody considered something doesn't mean that it was right to have not considered something.


I am replying to a very specific comment, in which Joe Kehoskie said the problem was "completely obvious." My point is that if it was completely obvious, it was completely obvious in very secret, quiet, unobtrusive, completely unobvious sort of way.

So try to keep that in mind when you cry to Jim, would you?

EDIT: Also, the point isn't that "nobody considering something doesn't mean that it was the right thing to have not considered it." The point is that if nobody considered it, it wasn't "obvious."
   3720. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4196154)
Yes, despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, it was totally unforeseeable that lax cockpit security could be a problem.


Apparently so, because in reality *no one saw it as a problem.* Your hindsight brilliance does not make the problem "obvious" from the beginning. It's like arguing that any hijacked plane should have been shot down pre-9/11, because it was "completely obvious" that a plane could be flown into a building as a missile. It's only "obvious" in hindsight, which is the opposite of your claim.

Yes, packing 30,000 people into the SuperDome was a great plan. Heckuva job, Mayor Nagin.


You seem to be confusing poor execution with a failure to plan.
   3721. Shredder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4196160)
Yes, despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, it was totally unforeseeable that lax cockpit security could be a problem.
Those hijackings typically were of the "let me into the cockpit or I'm going to start killing passengers" variety. Pre 9/11, pilots took those threats seriouly, because that's how hijackers operated. Hijackers didn't take over the controls of planes and fly them into buildings. In those days, reinforced cockpit doors wouldn't have made a difference, as steel reinforced doors lose their effectiveness when opened voluntarily. It was typically assumed that the hijacker had as much of an interest in getting on the ground safely as everyone else on board the plane. Those assumptions changed after 9/11.
   3722. CrosbyBird Posted: July 30, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4196162)
"It's too hard" is not an answer worth considering.

It is if you're expecting people to cooperate. Reducing sulfur emissions represented a significantly lower sacrifice than it would be to reduce carbon emissions. It's not a real world answer to ignore how much more significant the sacrifices would be and say it's the same sort of proposition.

There are really only two paths to reducing our carbon output:

1) We can reduce our consumption of energy. Increasing efficiency certainly helps, but population is still growing and our reliance on electronic devices that demand power is only growing. I don't think this is a particularly viable solution politically without some sort of serious threat that scares people into sacrifice.

2) We can switch to alternate sources of energy. A big problem here is that there is a lot of money in fossil fuels, and that money strongly influences our political system. Also, some alternate sources of energy have their own potential environmental problems (fracking, nuclear) and some others are not yet advanced enough to service our power demands (wind, hydroelectric, solar).

If you're asking why cap and trade might not work for carbon, it's probably because people won't be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to make it work and attempting to force them is political suicide.
   3723. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4196164)
I am replying to a very specific comment, in which Joe Kehoskie said the problem was "completely obvious." My point is that if it was completely obvious, it was completely obvious in very secret, quiet, unobtrusive, completely unobvious sort of way.

No, the problem was completely obvious. I can distinctly recall being on jetliners that took off with the cockpit door wide open. I never envisioned 9/11, but it seemed absurd that any random lunatic could see into the cockpit, let alone run into it. (And speaking of lunatics, the lax cockpit security clearly was "completely obvious" to Mohammed Atta & Co.)
   3724. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4196169)
No, the problem was completely obvious. I can distinctly recall being on jetliners that took off with the cockpit door wide open. I never envisioned 9/11, but it seemed absurd that any random lunatic could see into the cockpit, let alone run into it. (And speaking of lunatics, the lax cockpit security clearly was "completely obvious" to Mohammed Atta & Co.)


Well, if you're going to use words to mean whatever it is you want them to mean instead of what they actually mean in common usage, we can't even begin to have a conversation. "It occurred to a very small group of very warped men who were trying to find a way to kill people in a very spectacular way" is not what normal people mean when they say "completely obvious."

As to the point about doors being open, no one is arguing that doors were open and unsecured prior to 9/11. They were. Because door security was far from an obvious problem for anyone at the time. Wishcasting your hindsight backwards doesn't actually change the past, you know.
   3725. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4196171)
If you're asking why cap and trade might not work for carbon, it's probably because people won't be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to make it work and attempting to force them is political suicide.


Which is just another way of saying "we won't do anything worthwhile because only the wrong types of people will die and suffer, and in the end, we're lazy, selfish bastards." Which I don't disagree with.
   3726. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4196172)
See Hutcheson. See Hutcheson yell, Yell, Hutcheson, yell. See Jim Furtado. See Jim Furtado punish everyone but Sam Hutcheson.


I thought Dan was the one who was BFF (for real) with Sam?
   3727. The District Attorney Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4196173)
like the stuff about how climate scientist is being skewed in the directing of finding that AGW exists by funding- I mean Jaysus Christ, that doesn't come close to passing the smell test, I mean I seriously think you throw that out just to insult everyone's intelligence here.
Do remember that he had previously claimed that doctors were more likely to allow registered organ donors to die, so that their organs could be harvested. There is a Ray corollary of Poe's Law, I think.
   3728. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4196174)
As to the point about doors being open, no one is arguing that doors were open and unsecured prior to 9/11. They were. Because door security was far from an obvious problem for anyone at the time.

Particularly not to the pilots taking off with the doors open and unsecured. The very parties that reinforced cockpit doors are designed to protect.

I guess this means that airline pilots are part of the liberal elite. Or something.
   3729. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4196176)
I thought Dan was the one who was BFF (for real) with Sam?


I am friends with both Dan and Jim in real life, actually. And Dial. And Repoz. And a few more, in fact. I'm Facebook friends with even more. Apparently I'm not the pure evil at the end of the day. (And my FB feed is friggin *hilarious.*)
   3730. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4196178)
Yes, packing 30,000 people into the SuperDome was a great plan. Heckuva job, Mayor Nagin.


no worse a plan than hiring someone whose most significant prior experience was managing horse shows to run the Fed's emergency response...

I'm not going to defend Nagin, because personally I think his response smacked of incompetence, but I have noticed that most of his attackers seem to do so as a way of deflecting criticism of another pol... one whose name I forget...

but it seemed absurd that any random lunatic could see into the cockpit, let alone run into it.


hell some would even let passengers in and sit down at the navigators seat (do the newer planes even have that 3rd seat?), or little children would be brought in to see the pilot and the cockpit.

I've flown on C-130s twice, one I recall had no door between the cockpit area and the cargo/passenger area... I didn't really view that as a security issue, as a practical issue- ever been in one of those planes, they are ####### loud, I mean really ####### loud, I have no idea how the flight crew could hear their own thoughts, let alone anything else, unless the cockpit was thoroughly sound proofed
   3731. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4196181)
little children would be brought in to see the pilot and the cockpit.

"Jimmy, have you ever seen a grown man naked?"
   3732. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4196183)
I am friends with both Dan and Jim in real life, actually.


Are they still on good terms with eachother?
   3733. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4196186)
No, I'm taking you posts and trying to figure put your views from them.

For instance, your amazing ability to regurgitate rightwing talking points, while simultaneously claiming to never listen, watch or read the rightwing media sources that tend to disseminate them,like the stuff about how climate scientist is being skewed in the directing of finding that AGW exists by funding- I mean Jaysus Christ, that doesn't come close to passing the smell test, I mean I seriously think you throw that out just to insult everyone's intelligence here.

I mean I disagree with a lot of what JK says, but he does have a valid underlying point about cost and socio-economic upheaval, but you prattle on about cultish beliefs, spew wingnut talking points about how climate science is wrong, then go on about how suspicious it is that there is a "problem" that conveniently allows liberals/leftists to do what they want to do anyway (destroy industry?)

and then you have utterly shameless audacity to say that someone else is lying?

seriously?


So, in other words, we have this sequencing:

1. Johnny Sycophant -- BTF's beacon of all that is good and pure in political discussions according to Dan -- lies about what Ray says.

2. Ray points out that Johnny Sycophant has lied.

3. Johnny Sycophant doubles down on his initial statements, and then questions Ray's "utterly shameless audacity" to say that Johnny Sycophant is lying.

He is a beacon.
   3734. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4196188)
"Jimmy, have you ever seen a grown man naked?"



You know, Mission Impossible 's plot twist could have worked if Peter Graves played Jim Phelps, but nooo, he read the script and balked at Phelps turning bad... Stoopid move.
I've also read that he initially refused to do Airplane, but his agent insisted...
   3735. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4196189)
Are they still on good terms with each other?


I'm pretty sure they are, yes. Dan took his vacation well, once he spun down from the high he was on. Political threads have a known effect of tweaking Dan up like Beavis in search of TP for his bunghole, on occasion.
   3736. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4196193)
Ray Ray Ray, it's really not hard to find instances of you saying what I've said that you say, it takes 10 seconds of googling:

413. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 05:46 PM (#4021900)
You know, it's pretty pathetic that Face and Ray P are arguing AWG is all a big hoax when the energy giants like Exxon/Mobil and BP are going in bigtime with serious cash on the alternatives.

I've argued not that "AGW is all a big hoax" but that you people are part of a cult, given all that you are spewing, and how many of your assertions are based on assumptions and "models" and deceptions and one-sided conclusions and half-baked facts and fear mongoring and faux certainty and faith. And an unwillingness to weigh cost benefit.

The pretense of certainty the cultists exhibit is priceless.

And magically, when it is all boiled down, we see that this is just a power grab and a crusade to be put in charge of the economy, like every other environmentalist cause has ever been. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.


213. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 21, 2011 at 01:20 AM (#4020696)
Just because you can ascribe a motive to something doesn't prove that something was done for that motive. That's just silly.


Well, when one is summing up what climate change is "about" for the reader, as Bitter Mouse did in 207, but fails to point out that money is involved, I feel inclined to point it out.


People on this board have a lot of damn gall using phrases like "global warming cult"

Since the shoe fits... please do wear it.

I'm happy to double down on this. I see no reason not to call people what they are.


270. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 21, 2011 at 06:14 PM (#4021120)
We saw 30 years ago that the same people were bemoaning "the cooling earth." Then when that didn't make sense any longer they moved to "global warming." Then when *that* didn't make sense any longer they moved to "climate change."

What is left, at this point? A completely stable and stagnant climate, that doesn't change at all? Is that even a good thing? A better thing? Is there precedent for it?

And if the climate did not change you can be sure these same people would be doomsaying over that. You can't trust people like this. You can only hope to stop them from harming everyone else.


7. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:08 PM (#4020083)
There seems little need to counter the nonsense spewed by the climate change cultists anymore, as the world seems to be finally catching on to this particular brand of faux science charlatanism. Canada has pulled out of the new Kyoto, and it seems that Japan, Russia, the US, and even the EU will be following suit. In a down economy, rich corporations cut down on frivolous spending, and once-rich countries cut down on sending $100 billion around the world every year to satisfy the faith-based demands of a collection of unsavory religious hucksters peddling nothing more than a high brow confidence game while claiming to hold obscure specialized knowledge to the impending arrival of the next bogeyman. Their knowledge may be concocted from a mixture of thin air, whole cloth, and hide-the-decline emails, but, my god, it's all unfalsifiable, man.

Thankfully, the religion of the climate alarmists is fading, dying a slow, painless-for-most, painful-for-some, death. Their predictions have not been coming true, surprise, surprise. It's now been six years since a major hurricane hit the US, after we were told it was going to be happening over and over again. The life-is-good deniers are losing.

There, Repoz. Thanks for posting the link.


Whenever the life-is-good deniers have made predictions, they have fallen short/had to be revised/etc. The entire change from "global warming" to "climate change" was because the former term was inconvenient, because people saw that temperatures weren't necessarily getting warmer. And so the term was switched to -- wee! -- climate change. That way, any change in the climate can be attributed to CLIMATE CHANGE! Woo.

The problem is that the term in itself is retarded, because the climate has ALWAYS been changing.
   3737. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4196194)
I am replying to a very specific comment, in which Joe Kehoskie said the problem was "completely obvious." My point is that if it was completely obvious, it was completely obvious in very secret, quiet, unobtrusive, completely unobvious sort of way.


No, the problem was completely obvious. I can distinctly recall being on jetliners that took off with the cockpit door wide open. I never envisioned 9/11, but it seemed absurd that any random lunatic could see into the cockpit, let alone run into it. (And speaking of lunatics, the lax cockpit security clearly was "completely obvious" to Mohammed Atta & Co.)


How many airline security classes have you taken? I'll assume none, and thus you are talking out of your ass.

Re-inforced cockpit doors pre 911 would not have prevented a damned thing, because pre-911 we were instructed to co-operate with hijackers, do everything they say (well, short of "Fly into that building there.", not lock them out of the cockpit.
   3738. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4196198)
You know, Mission Impossible 's plot twist could have worked if Peter Graves played Jim Phelps, but nooo, he read the script and balked at Phelps turning bad... Stoopid move.
I've also read that he initially refused to do Airplane, but his agent insisted...


I just looked up Peter Graves on Wikipedia ... he was the younger brother of James Arness. How come I didn't know that? Or did I know it, but have just forgotten it? (Don't answer that)
   3739. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4196200)
Political threads have a known effect of tweaking Dan up like Beavis in search of TP for his bunghole, on occasion.


That was a fairly apt description of that episode I think...

I wonder if anyone has used the Great Cornholio as a BBTF handle?

   3740. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4196203)
So I would like to point out that it is not even clear that it would take huge effort and would destroy our way of life (or whatever hyperbole we see upthread) to make a difference in climate change.

Cap and Trade is basically designed to be a very effective method of curtailing carbon emissions*. Curtailing carbon emissions has positive health effects (reduced asthma among others) and the technology to reduce those emissions is an opporuntity for many small businesses.

Sure it will cost some. And the longer we wait the more it costs. But it is not mandated to wreck our economy, and in fact I suspect if we tried some new technology would come out of the effort - you know like has come out of pretty much every concerted effort we have made.

Plus the cost of not doing anything is very high. Weather changes impact everyone from farmers, to coastal dwellers to everyone who economically interacts with farmers and coastal dwellers (that's everyone by the way). No one is saying dump every dollar in the economy on this no matter what the cost benefit. We are saying this is a problem, let's solve it.

Of course getting past the "This is a problem" stage has taken far too many years. If you are willing to stipulate there is a problem then we can start to have a good discusion about solutions (rather than just assume it is enough to wreck the economy). And yes some folks, while trying to convince folks it was a problem, might have overstated things (but no where near as much as the idiot denialists did in the other direction).

* Cap and Trade is my favorite method, but there are plenty of others. If you want to talk about other methods we can do that to.
   3741. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4196205)
I just looked up Peter Graves on Wikipedia ... he was the younger brother of James Arness. How come I didn't know that? Or did I know it, but have just forgotten it?


ditto, in fact I think I did "know" that at one time, because I recall be amazed previously that I didn't know that...

and James Arness was the Thing in the first movie, The Thing...
   3742. CrosbyBird Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4196208)
Which is just another way of saying "we won't do anything worthwhile because only the wrong types of people will die and suffer, and in the end, we're lazy, selfish bastards." Which I don't disagree with.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that a solution that demands heavy sacrifice on the part of Americans to combat a practically invisible problem (even if it is quite serious) is not going to have much traction. Either there needs to be a very clear picture of the costs of inaction and how directly this sacrifice translates into avoiding that cost, or people need to start experiencing the costs directly. If there is a solution that doesn't demand heavy sacrifice, I think it's politically viable (and we're doing some of those things already).

A significant portion of our carbon emissions comes from automobiles. If there's a viable replacement for carbon-emitting fuel, then I think it would be quite worthwhile. If the expectation is that people start driving a whole lot less often, I think that's a solution that's dead in the water.
   3743. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4196213)
It's now been six years since a major hurricane hit the US, after we were told it was going to be happening over and over again.


For serious, that was in December 2011. Someone should have told Irene that it was not a "major hurricane" before it spent a day humping Vermont.
   3744. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4196215)
It's like arguing that any hijacked plane should have been shot down pre-9/11, because it was "completely obvious" that a plane could be flown into a building as a missile.


As a former military pilot, I've thought long and hard about that hypothetical, and came to the conclusion that had I been scrambled that day, and somehow gotten a shoot order (before the first plane went into the TT), my life would have been over at that very moment. Think about it, what a Hobson's choice. Disobey orders and watch thousands die as the plane flies into the building, get court martialled and spend the rest of your life in prison, or shoot it down (with no way of ever knowing that a planned crash was in fact in the cards), and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.
   3745. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4196218)
If there's a viable replacement for carbon-emitting fuel, then I think it would be quite worthwhile.

There doesn't need to be a complete replacement for it to be quite worthwhile. Greater fuel efficiency standards, greater deployment of hybrids and fully electric cars into the fleet, and greater development of public transportation infrastructure would all be significantly positive steps.

And they would be more achievable steps if one of the major political parties in the U.S. wasn't doing everything it can to prevent them from being undertaken.
   3746. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4196219)
Ray Ray Ray, it's really not hard to find instances of you saying what I've said that you say, it takes 10 seconds of googling:


Thank you for posting the evidence that you were lying, as it saved me the trouble. The issue was not whether I called liberals cultists on this issue -- I obviously did and obviously do -- the issue is that I never once claimed there was some "liberal conspiracy" on this issue; I merely claimed that liberals are operating according to their worldview. My post 3692 of this thread sums this up quite nicely, and is completely consistent with the past posts of mine that you regurgitated above.

Quoting from my 3692:

I never once claimed, implied, or suggested any "liberal conspiracy," so you're either lying or you're believing the press clippings put out on me by our BBTF liberal elite.

What I've claimed is that people will see what they want to see. Liberals see climate change as a problem that MUST BE SOLVED -- with money and regulations that place heavy burdens and restrictions on people and societies. That is not a conspiracy, but a worldview.


And in one of the posts of mine that you barfed up above I even say: "I've argued not that 'AGW is all a big hoax.'"
   3747. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4196223)
Re-inforced cockpit doors pre 911 would not have prevented a damned thing, because pre-911 we were instructed to co-operate with hijackers, do everything they say (well, short of "Fly into that building there.", not lock them out of the cockpit.

So despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, and bigger and bigger threats from Islamic terrorists in the '80s and '90s, the airlines had no specific protocols for dealing with Islamic hijackers?

and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.

This seems a little melodramatic. No one would have been going to prison for obeying direct orders in the middle of a terrorist attack.
   3748. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4196225)
For serious, that was in December 2011. Someone should have told Irene that it was not a "major hurricane" before it spent a day humping Vermont.


I particularly like the formulation wherein a Cat 4 or Cat 5 storm that levels Cuba or Mexico, or a similarly powerful typhoon in the Pacific doesn't count toward the metric of "proving out the theories of more powerful storms due to global climate change."

I fear to tread the path of trying to explain how the recent "Snowpocalypse" in the US, the near Dust Bowl levels of drought in the midwest, and the drastic heat waves across most of inner Russia are also proof of the theory.
   3749. Ron J Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4196226)
it's "the US vs the world" in talks on taking steps to reduce emissions.


Canada's pretty much signed on as well. To the point that the government is forbidding scientists from commenting on the matter.
   3750. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4196228)
There doesn't need to be a complete replacement for it to be quite worthwhile. Greater fuel efficiency standards, greater deployment of hybrids and fully electric cars into the fleet, and greater development of public transportation infrastructure would all be significantly positive steps.

And they would be more achievable steps if one of the major political parties in the U.S. wasn't doing everything it can to prevent them from being undertaken.

And if hundreds of billions of dollars just fell from the sky like manna from the environmental gods.

The United States is the wealthiest country on Earth and it's struggling to pay for the things you list. Who's going to pay for the 6.7 billion other people who need similarly advanced, efficient cars and technology?
   3751. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4196230)
So despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, and bigger and bigger threats from Islamic terrorists in the '80s and '90s, the airlines had no specific protocols for dealing with Islamic hijackers?

If only Joe Kehoskie had been on the case!
   3752. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4196231)
As a former military pilot, I've thought long and hard about that hypothetical, and came to the conclusion that had I been scrambled that day, and somehow gotten a shoot order (before the first plane went into the TT), my life would have been over at that very moment. Think about it, what a Hobson's choice. Disobey orders and watch thousands die as the plane flies into the building, get court martialled and spend the rest of your life in prison, or shoot it down (with no way of ever knowing that a planned crash was in fact in the cards), and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.


It is for such things that the Presidential pardon was conceived.
   3753. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4196232)
Sure it will cost some. And the longer we wait the more it costs. But it is not mandated to wreck our economy, and in fact I suspect if we tried some new technology would come out of the effort - you know like has come out of pretty much every concerted effort we have made.


Eventually we will replace our current energy production system with something that releases less carbon (or even re-sequesters carbon), I don't know when eventually is.

When I was growing up, viable fusion energy was right around the corner... that didn't happen

When I was growing up solar panels were starting to show up on suburban roofs, that ended when the tax credits did. 20+ years later they've started to reappear.

I'm guessing we start getting scads of geo-thermal before we figure fusion out.
   3754. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4196235)
So despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, and bigger and bigger threats from Islamic terrorists in the '80s and '90s, the airlines had no specific protocols for dealing with Islamic hijackers?


That is correct. Or more specifically, there was no protocol to shut yourself off from what was going on in the cabin, especially in the face of imminent danger to the passengers and cabin crew. The watchword was cooperate, get on the ground as quickly as possible, and let the professionals handle it from there. Bolting the doors and not letting them in was not an option.

and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.


This seems a little melodramatic. No one would have been going to prison for obeying direct orders in the middle of a terrorist attack.


It wasn't known to be a terrorist attack at the time. Not until the second plane hit the WTC. It thought to be a routine (if one can use that word for such a rare event) hijacking, and ordering a hijacked plane to be shot down was something the Soviets did, not us. It was so out the realm of possibilities that had I been on duty, I might have required a direct order from the President before firing.

   3755. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4196236)
So despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, and bigger and bigger threats from Islamic terrorists in the '80s and '90s, the airlines had no specific protocols for dealing with Islamic hijackers?


For someone who spends an awful lot of bandwidth describing how sadly naive "liberals" are about the "real world," you seem to have no clue whatsoever about how decisions and crises are actually addressed in the real world.
   3756. The District Attorney Posted: July 30, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4196240)
As a former military pilot, I've thought long and hard about that hypothetical, and came to the conclusion that had I been scrambled that day, and somehow gotten a shoot order (before the first plane went into the TT), my life would have been over at that very moment. Think about it, what a Hobson's choice. Disobey orders and watch thousands die as the plane flies into the building, get court martialled and spend the rest of your life in prison, or shoot it down (with no way of ever knowing that a planned crash was in fact in the cards), and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.
I don't think even hypothetical you (BTW, thanks for your service) would have to worry about that :) On 9/11/01, that order wouldn't have been given before a plane hit a building. And given that that has now in fact happened, you wouldn't be jailed if the situation came up nowadays, because you and your superiors would in all probability be able to justify the presumption that the plane was going into a building.
   3757. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4196241)
Why would there have been a CPI spike? If people have to pay more for X, that leaves less money to spend on Y and Z.


You said this, regarding sulfur cap and trade:

The idea that only "polluters" and not consumers pay for "cap and trade" is funny. Why don't you care about poor people?


If companies simply kept on doing business as usual and passed costs to consumers, there would have been a spike in CPI. Spikes in CPI are what we see when companies pass broad-based costs to consumers. This is not hard.



If you're asking why cap and trade might not work for carbon, it's probably because people won't be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to make it work and attempting to force them is political suicide.


C&T worked for sulfur in the US and abroad. C&T for carbon has worked--and worked well--in Europe. Why exactly, outside of rank obstructionism, is it impossible for it to succeed in the US?

I mean, what else do you need?
   3758. Shredder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4196242)
If only Joe Kehoskie had been on the case!
Seriously. Joe also thinks it was totally obvious that the Japanese would launch an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. And that only idiots like the Trojans would have pulled a big-ass wooden horse into the city. It was so obvious!!
   3759. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4196244)
If the expectation is that people start driving a whole lot less often, I think that's a solution that's dead in the water.


agree
   3760. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4196245)
Seriously. Joe also thinks it was totally obvious that the Japanese would launch an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. And that only idiots like the Trojans would have pulled a big-ass wooden horse into the city. It was so obvious!!

I would describe him as a Monday morning quarterback, but there's no call to bring racial slurs into this.
   3761. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4196246)
If only Joe Kehoskie had been on the case!

That's not the point. The point is that these various problems and threats posed a far greater tangible threat to Americans, and yet there was not only no urgency, but no real action taken at all until after disaster had struck.

The climate-change crowd wants everyone to make draconian sacrifices in their standard of living so that the Earth's temperature might be 2 degrees cooler some 25, 50, 100 years from now. It's a fantasy.
   3762. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4196250)
The United States is the wealthiest country on Earth and it's struggling to pay for the things you list. Who's going to pay for the 6.7 billion other people who need similarly advanced, efficient cars and technology?


The US has a problem with legacy infrastructure* that the developing of the world does not. But as long as you think climate science is a lie, there's no reason discussing the issue, because you're outright dismissing the possibility of a system that can produce objective knowledge based on aggregated empirical observation.

*and legacy belief systems, as is apparent in this thread.
   3763. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4196251)
That's not the point. The point is that these various problems and threats posed a far greater tangible threat to Americans, and yet there was not only no urgency, but no real action taken at all until after disaster had struck.

The climate-change crowd wants everyone to make draconian sacrifices in their standard of living so that the Earth's temperature might be 2 degrees cooler some 25, 50, 100 years from now. It's a fantasy.


So, the very guy who decries people's lack of action to avoid/minimize "obvious" damage, says it's ridiculous to attempt to act to avoid/minimize damage.
   3764. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4196253)
and legacy belief systems, as is apparent in this thread

Big time.
   3765. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4196255)
So, the very guy who decries people's lack of action to avoid/minimize "obvious" damage, says it's ridiculous to attempt to act to avoid/minimize damage.


Pretty much. The man's a Gordian knot of inaccessible, self-assuming "logic."
   3766. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4196256)
For someone who spends an awful lot of bandwidth describing how sadly naive "liberals" are about the "real world," you seem to have no clue whatsoever about how decisions and crises are actually addressed in the real world.

So the same people who couldn't marshal support for things as simple as better cockpit security and better levees around NOLA are now assumed to be capable of convincing everyone on the planet to reduce their standard of living? That's funny.
   3767. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4196257)
The climate-change crowd wants everyone to make draconian sacrifices in their standard of living so that the Earth's temperature might be 2 degrees cooler some 25, 50, 100 years from now. It's a fantasy.


Again, no policymaker has proposed "draconian sacrifices." Cap and trade is what has been proposed. It's been effective in this country and abroad. It is on pace to reduce European emissions by 21% without significant costs.

Let's dwell in the real world, shall we?
   3768. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4196260)
And that only idiots like the Trojans would have pulled a big-ass wooden horse into the city.


well, if the Trojan Horse was real, and if that's how the Greeks really won that war, then yes, the Trojans were unbelievable dumb asses.

FWIW I remember my aviation teacher in HS (early 80s) once mentioning that cockpits should be locked behind secure doors, but that only the Israelis did that, because:

Pilots didn't want locked doors, they wanted to be able to get up and about easily, plus they wanted the service staff to be able to easily pop in as well, flights are long you know.

If you are going to have a locked door, it's going to have to be a strong steel door, else why bother, and you'd be amazed at how "flimsy" everything on a plane is- most airplanes are designed to be as light as reasonably possible- airplane weight = money. every ounce you save is an ounce more cargo/passenger and/or fuel saved.

How prevalent was the view in the 1980s that cockpit doors "should" be secured? I don't know, but I know it was out there.

I also think it's quite possible that the guidelines that pilots cooperate with hijackers was put in place BECAUSE the doors were not secure.

   3769. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4196261)
You know who I bet is behind the whole climate-change crowd, and wants everyone to make draconian sacrifices?

Hillary!

There. I said it.
   3770. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4196265)
The US has a problem with legacy infrastructure* that the developing of the world does not. But as long as you think climate science is a lie, there's no reason discussing the issue, because you're outright dismissing the possibility of a system that can produce objective knowledge based on aggregated empirical observation.

You believe the U.S.'s infrastructure is worse than what is found in the Americas, China, India, etc.?

***
So, the very guy who decries people's lack of action to avoid/minimize "obvious" damage, says it's ridiculous to attempt to act to avoid/minimize damage.

No, the same guy who points out incompetence regarding relatively simple and tangible problems says it's ridiculous to entrust those same people with what would be the biggest and costliest global undertaking in human history.

***
Again, no policymaker has proposed "draconian sacrifices." Cap and trade is what has been proposed. It's been effective in this country and abroad. It is on pace to reduce European emissions by 21% without significant costs.

Wow, not just 20 percent but 21 percent. That's CBO-level specificity.
   3771. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4196267)
So the same people who couldn't marshal support for things as simple as better cockpit security and better levees around NOLA are now assumed to be capable of convincing everyone on the planet to reduce their standard of living? That's funny


Oh, for ####'s sake. You're either an idiot or a troll.

First, no one failed to "marshal support" for better cockpit security because no one saw cockpit security as an issue to marshal support around. You've simply ignored all of the people explaining to you that this was the case over the last page and reasserted your delusional assumption that there was an "obvious" need for cockpit security pre-9/11 and the problem was that no one could "marshal support" for it due to governmental incompetence. It's a failure of thinking so deep as to beg the question of your sanity.

Second, no one could "marshal support" for better levees in NOLA because PEOPLE LIKE YOU were doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH REGARD TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE; obstructing, obfuscating, denying the need, complaining about the costs, whinging that it wouldn't work - anything to avoid actually addressing the problem. And then, when the problem drowned an entire ####### city, you flip the script on a dime and use that "inability to marshal support" as a talking point to obfuscate, obstruct, deny, complain and whinge about the problems we're facing today. You're nothing but a poorly constructed cartoon of an sophomore year post-modern propagandist.

Finally, the argument for action on climate change isn't "can we make everyone agree." Of course we can't. The world will ALWAYS have nutjob irrational lunatics like Joe Kehoskie in it, Joe. The question is can we find a way to work around the lunatics like you and get something done regardless, even if the lunatics are in power in China too.
   3772. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4196270)
You believe the U.S.'s infrastructure is worse than what is found in the Americas, China, India, etc.?


I'll just jot down "can't read" on your list of failings too.
   3773. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4196274)
no one could "marshal support" for better levees in NOLA because PEOPLE LIKE YOU were doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH REGARD TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE; obstructing, obfuscating, denying the need, complaining about the costs, whinging that it wouldn't work - anything to avoid actually addressing the problem. And then, when the problem drowned an entire ####### city, you flip the script on a dime and use that "inability to marshal support" as a talking point to obfuscate, obstruct, deny, complain and whinge about the problems we're facing today.

I'm telling ya, it's the playbook of the GOP in Congress vs. Obama. If it's good enough for them, I guess it's good enough for our friend Joe.
   3774. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4196275)
First, no one failed to "marshal support" for better cockpit security because no one saw cockpit security as an issue to marshal support around. You've simply ignored all of the people explaining to you that this was the case over the last page and reasserted your delusional assumption that there was an "obvious" need for cockpit security pre-9/11 and the problem was that no one could "marshal support" for it due to governmental incompetence. It's a failure of thinking so deep as to beg the question of your sanity.

Except the Israelis. But whatever.

Second, no one could "marshal support" for better levees in NOLA because PEOPLE LIKE YOU were doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH REGARD TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE; obstructing, obfuscating, denying the need, complaining about the costs, whinging that it wouldn't work - anything to avoid actually addressing the problem. And then, when the problem drowned an entire ####### city, you flip the script on a dime and use that "inability to marshal support" as a talking point to obfuscate, obstruct, deny, complain and whinge about the problems we're facing today. You're nothing but a poorly constructed cartoon of an sophomore year post-modern propagandist.

I was hoping for at least junior-year. That really hurts.

Only a liberal hand-waves "cost" as an issue. In Liberal World, only the small-minded mouth-breathers worry about cost.

Finally, the argument for action on climate change isn't "can we make everyone agree." Of course we can't. The world will ALWAYS have nutjob irrational lunatics like Joe Kehoskie in it, Joe. The question is can we find a way to work around the lunatics like you and get something done regardless, even if the lunatics are in power in China too.

What's stopping you from getting started? How many miles per month do you ride around in dirty, polluting automobiles? Is your air conditioner running right now? How big is your home? You don't really need a TV, do you?
   3775. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4196277)
Digression: when exactly did "whinge" come into common usage? Seems like it's everyone's favorite word on the internets these days. Did I not get a copy of the memo?
   3776. formerly dp Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4196286)
So the same people who couldn't marshal support for things as simple as better cockpit security and better levees around NOLA are now assumed to be capable of convincing everyone on the planet to reduce their standard of living?


I started small upthread, but you dodged it. Republicans won't even agree to higher fuel efficiency standards. Republicans don't want to address transportation infrastructure as a climate change issue. These are not huge sacrifices to our standard of living. The whole "change is impossible, so let's not discuss it" trope seems like an elaborate way to crawl back from the error of your entrenched position.

You believe the U.S.'s infrastructure is worse than what is found in the Americas, China, India, etc.?


I said that the US has a legacy infrastructure problem those other countries don't have, not that the US has worse infrastructure (but from a carbon-emission perspective, US infrastructure is worse. You either know the difference and are pretending not to, or honestly don't understand the term. So I'll explain-- US infrastructure was built on the assumption that carbon emissions are not bad. This means living way out in the country and having a 40 mile commute to work in your 15 MPG suburban is a virtuous thing, provided you can swing the cost of filling your tank. Newly-industrializing countries are in the midst of adopting infrastructure that's already well-entrenched here, buying their first cars, designing highways, building new homes, ect. In short, the US is built on a lifestyle/infrastructure of high carbon emission. The developing world isn't, and when they adopt new technologies, they can adopt ones designed with the aim of low carbon emission.
   3777. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4196287)
What's stopping you from getting started? How many miles per month do you ride around in dirty, polluting automobiles? Is your air conditioner running right now? How big is your home? You don't really need a TV, do you?


I drive a Prius

My AC IS running. It is an 18 SEER, and I live in a climate which requires approx $0 per year on heating costs.

I have a 2300 SQ ft home for 4 people

No, I don't really need a TV, but since I bought it in 1987 and it still works, I use it.

You?
   3778. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4196288)
What's stopping you from getting started? How many miles per month do you ride around in dirty, polluting automobiles? Is your air conditioner running right now? How big is your home? You don't really need a TV, do you?


I'll bite:
What's stopping you from getting started? Inertia/laziness

How many miles per month do you ride around in dirty, polluting automobiles? Me, about 750-800, I take the train to/from to work, but if I'm being honest here (And despite what some may think, I am) I'd drive if I could park near my office for less than $400 a month.

Is your air conditioner running right now? Weather.com say sit is 75 degrees right now in my neighborhood, so I'd say it's less than 50/50 that it's running RIGHT now. It is running in my office right now...

How big is your home? Not big enough IMHO (edit, about 2200 for 4 people, so I'm either beating or being beaten by Misirlou, but then again I'm not counting my basement which isn't finished[yet])

You don't really need a TV, do you?
Yes, yes I do.
   3779. just plain joe Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4196290)
Digression: when exactly did "whinge" come into common usage? Seems like it's everyone's favorite word on the internets these days. Did I not get a copy of the memo?


Someone copped it from the Brits/Aussies; "whingeing" has long been an accepted idiom in those two cultures. As for the memo, funding was cut and distribution was chopped, you probably got removed from the list.
   3780. Lassus Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4196292)
Digression: when exactly did "whinge" come into common usage? Seems like it's everyone's favorite word on the internets these days. Did I not get a copy of the memo?

I always put it on just Sam, because, you know. A Braves fan talks funny. Not really any kind of news.
   3781. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4196293)
As for the memo, funding was cut and distribution was chopped, you probably got removed from the list.

Yet, I did get multiple copies of the memo explaining that we're now putting the new cover sheets on our TPS reports before they go out. So there is that.
   3782. zonk Posted: July 30, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4196296)
So, I'm a recent convert to twitter and I've got to say --

I'm enjoying Mitt's PR operations response to his Israel-Palestinian "culture" dust-up -- the response is essentially "I wasn't just talking about the Palestinians -- Mexico has inferior culture compared to the US and Ecuador has inferior culture compared to Chile, too!"

I'm not objective by any stretch, and since foreign policy tends to be pretty far down the list of what causes undecided voters to make up their mind, it probably has little bearing on the election... but is there any other way to describe this trip as something other than a debacle?
   3783. Tripon Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4196299)
I don't know but Mitt's handlers response that he made these same comments in his book and nobody ####### about it then is extremely tone deaf.

Yes, nobody ####### about it then, but to say it again IN THE FREAKING MIDDLE EAST is just asking to get ripped a new one.
   3784. Kurt Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4196301)
Someone on one of the lefty blogs popularized "whinge", maybe Kos. The uses I've seen have all come from people who lean that way and read those blogs.
   3785. CrosbyBird Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4196303)
If you are willing to stipulate there is a problem then we can start to have a good discusion about solutions (rather than just assume it is enough to wreck the economy). And yes some folks, while trying to convince folks it was a problem, might have overstated things (but no where near as much as the idiot denialists did in the other direction).

I feel like it's very hard to get a handle on the problem because there's very little rational discussion on the subject. I feel like the options are generally either hysteria or denial, and I reject both of them.

These are facts: the climate is changing, and humans are contributing in a significant way to that change. That's been my position for pretty much the past ten years and I don't see how anyone that says that could reasonably be called a denialist. I think it's very probably a problem. I don't know that anyone can legitimately claim certainty on the issue; it's not something that can be experimentally proven. It's likely enough to be a problem that I think we should do something about it.

Here's where I think it starts to get murky. Practically every solution that I've seen suggested is to reduce carbon emissions, but it's not clear how much reduction will matter and what it will cost. The US currently produces something like 18% of the world's carbon despite having less than 5% of the world's population, and in order to be in line with what other first-world countries produce, it seems like the sort of goal that would be nearly impossible without drastic change in our way of life. Am I terribly misinformed here?

I'm not at all opposed to discussing potential solutions but that discussion must take the costs of those solutions into account.
   3786. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4196311)
Digression: when exactly did "whinge" come into common usage? Seems like it's everyone's favorite word on the internets these days. Did I not get a copy of the memo?


I just saw it for the first time, with Sam's post upstream on this page.
   3787. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4196312)
Here's where I think it starts to get murky. Practically every solution that I've seen suggested is to reduce carbon emissions, but it's not clear how much reduction will matter and what it will cost. The US currently produces something like 18% of the world's carbon despite having less than 5% of the world's population, and in order to be in line with what other first-world countries produce, it seems like the sort of goal that would be nearly impossible without drastic change in our way of life. Am I terribly misinformed here?


Once again: cap and trade in Europe is on pace to reduce emissions by 21% by 2020 (the stated goal of the legislation). It has done so at minimal cost and without causing supply shocks.

Germany has just hit greater than 25% of their power in renewables. By comparison, in the US, that number is 3%.

If we had gotten working on this 7-8 years ago, we'd be in a better spot. It's still pretty easy to get going. In 10 years, things are going to get a lot more difficult.
   3788. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4196313)
is there any other way to describe this trip as something other than a debacle?

If he's succeeded in collecting ginormous campaign contributions from the British and Israeli gazillionaires he's courting, then it isn't a debacle, but as far as establishing an image of Romney as a smooth, effective international player, then yeah, big time debacle.
   3789. Steve Treder Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4196316)
If we had gotten working on this 7-8 years ago, we'd be in a better spot. It's still pretty easy to get going. In 10 years, things are going to get a lot more difficult.

And the perfect need not be the enemy of the good. Some progress, even small progress, is better than throwing our hands up in the air and doing nothing at all.
   3790. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4196322)
The United States is the wealthiest country on Earth and it's struggling to pay for the things you list. Who's going to pay for the 6.7 billion other people who need similarly advanced, efficient cars and technology?
This is a poor argument. It's like listening to an announcer scream over and over that, because a team is down by five runs the game is over because it's impossible to hit a five-run homer. Nobody's arguing that the United States should fix the energy inefficiency issues that burden the entire world. The argument is that the United States should solve it's own energy inefficiency issues. That would go a long way towards addressing the larger issue. AGW didn't occur overnight, and it won't be solved overnight. Wild, draconian measures won't change that, but the gradual creeping wide-spread adoption of smarter energy policies over many, many decades will.

In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle. It's easy to do nothing, it's easy to not care, it's easy to just say that the problem is too big to address. We've turned a blind eye to so many other issues, what's one more?
   3791. tshipman Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4196323)
is there any other way to describe this trip as something other than a debacle?


Well, the only way it really matters would be if Republican party elites started criticizing him. Traditionally, foreign policy has almost never mattered in post-war electoral politics (Bush II being the exception). The only real thing this trip matters for is to impress Republican party elites. Obviously it hasn't been successful, but outside of the schadenfreude on the left, probably has no real lasting damage.

Rather than a debacle, I'd describe it as a tempest in a teapot. Admittedly, if he does or says something that causes significant criticism from Republican party actors, then it would become a debacle. That hasn't happened yet.

Edit:
In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle. It's easy to do nothing, it's easy to not care, it's easy to just say that the problem is too big to address. We've turned a blind eye to so many other issues, what's one more?


Nah. Solar technology will almost certainly become more cost effective than petroleum in the next 20 years and the whole thing will largely be a moot point.
   3792. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4196324)
In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle.


Woohoo!!
   3793. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4196325)
If he's succeeded in collecting ginormous campaign contributions from the British and Israeli gazillionaires he's courting, then it isn't a debacle, but as far as establishing an image of Romney as a smooth, effective international player, then yeah, big time debacle.


It's a big time debacle from his POV only if it actually effects his chances of getting re-elected.
For instance DSK had a foreign trip that apparently cost him the Presidency (of France), that was a big time debacle

this was for Romney, a hicuup.

of course it could be ma depart of a meme, Romney insulting people for instance
   3794. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4196327)
In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle.

Woohoo!!
Worst part is, when people really do start dying because of this, all the obstructionists will likely already be dead, unaffected by the consequences of their inaction.

The world is an unfair place.
   3795. rr Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4196333)
I think that anyone still undecided will base his/her vote on percepton/stats WRT the economy (it's the...stupid) and on the last couple of debates. How Romney could actually hurt himself with this type of stuff would be a high-profile late-game gaffe talking to/about working class people in a swing state, like Ohio, and/or at a debate. If he said something late in the game such that Obama's operatives could tie it to the "out-of-touch-rich-guy" meme, that might affect a few key votes in a tight state, but I certainly don't think this will.
   3796. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4196336)
In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle. It's easy to do nothing, it's easy to not care, it's easy to just say that the problem is too big to address. We've turned a blind eye to so many other issues, what's one more?


how do you define "win,"

if by "winning" you mean if we do nothing they have won because they want to do nothing, well then yes It is quite possible that they will "win"

if by "winning" you mean it turns out that they are "right,"? I don't put the odds of that at quite zero... And by "right" I do not mean right about global warming I mean right in the sense of that doing "nothing" now turns out to be the right move because of some intervening event:

1: Volcanoes spew enough ash to cause of 250 ear "mini ice age," but all the human produced CO2 offsets that

2: We really are/were trending back into a natural cyclical ice age sequence, but all the human produced CO2 offsets that

3: We figure out fusion energy

4: We bioengineer super pond scum that scrubs the excess CO2 out of the air

5: Space aliens come and wipe us out in a relativistic bombardment, so we might as well live it up until that time comes

   3797. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4196338)
Worst part is, when people really do start dying because of this, all the obstructionists will likely already be dead, unaffected by the consequences of their inaction.


Woohoo!!

   3798. CrosbyBird Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4196339)
C&T worked for sulfur in the US and abroad. C&T for carbon has worked--and worked well--in Europe. Why exactly, outside of rank obstructionism, is it impossible for it to succeed in the US?

This quote is sort of what I was thinking of:

US infrastructure was built on the assumption that carbon emissions are not bad. This means living way out in the country and having a 40 mile commute to work in your 15 MPG suburban is a virtuous thing, provided you can swing the cost of filling your tank. Newly-industrializing countries are in the midst of adopting infrastructure that's already well-entrenched here, buying their first cars, designing highways, building new homes, ect. In short, the US is built on a lifestyle/infrastructure of high carbon emission.


We have a remarkably low population density in this country, made more dramatic by several very large urban population centers. A huge part of this country simply cannot function without heavy automobile travel, and we consume enormous amounts of energy shipping goods from one region to another. At the same time, we've got ancient infrastructure that gets replaced a little piece at a time. We've gone about 150 years since we last had a whole city destroyed by war that we had to rebuild (and even then, never in most of our largest cities).

We're not even close to our fair share of carbon emissions; if we were to cut our output in half, we'd be only slightly behind the entire European Union. The reason I think cap and trade won't work for us is because we'd need an obnoxiously large cap or to spend an outrageous amount of money buying credits from other countries (something our economy can't handle right now, and perhaps never will be able to). The United States, for better or worse, is fundamentally different from every other country in the world, and "worked for Europe" doesn't translate into "works for the US."
   3799. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4196343)
if by "winning" you mean if we do nothing they have won because they want to do nothing, well then yes It is quite possible that they will "win"
Yes, that's what I meant by "win".

Even CB, who is marginally of the "problem is too big" group, acknowledges the science. Then again CB is not insane (Ray) or just enjoys arguing to argue (Joe).
   3800. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 30, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4196344)
Worst part is, when people really do start dying because of this, all the obstructionists will likely already be dead, unaffected by the consequences of their inaction.

Woohoo!!
Best part is, ObamaCare is constitutional, so those affected in the United States will have coverage.
Page 38 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(631 - 6:39am, Oct 31)
Last: Norcan

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(10 - 6:15am, Oct 31)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(18 - 6:07am, Oct 31)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogThe Players' Tribune: Jeter: The Clean Up
(2 - 4:23am, Oct 31)
Last: zachtoma

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(83 - 4:02am, Oct 31)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(135 - 3:35am, Oct 31)
Last: baxter

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(10 - 2:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Dan

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(52 - 2:35am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1021 - 1:53am, Oct 31)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(108 - 1:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4785 - 12:40am, Oct 31)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogThings we learned from the 2014 playoffs
(11 - 12:17am, Oct 31)
Last: bobm

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(103 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogFielding Bible
(2 - 11:24pm, Oct 30)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(544 - 11:11pm, Oct 30)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Page rendered in 1.1491 seconds
52 querie(s) executed