Odds & Sods #59: Blowin' in the Wind Edition

| | Comments (25)

25 Comments

EricM Author Profile Page said:

1. How about a little Ambien humor? At his age, it is a much better fit.

2. We build it, we use it, then we tear it down. It is who we are.

3. Total waste of his time. If that is a talent then he should re-channel it.

4. Don't polish Bernanke up too much, we're not out of this yet.

5. McCain isn't going to win regardless of the campaign he runs.

6. The MSM bows down to the gov't. Color me shocked.

7. See 5.

8. When Gore advocates waving every bit of gov't bureaucracy that would drag that out until 2040 and tells the Kennedy family to f off let me know. Until then, it is media whoredom.

9. Impressive number indeed. It's his to lose.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

When Gore advocates waiving every bit of gov't bureaucracy that would drag that out until 2040

Note that I also mentioned T. Boone Pickens in the same bullet point as Gore. This should be a signal to the reader that those two represent (so far, on this important matter) the best and the worst of the American system -- and neither gentleman is 100% of one or 100% of the other.

What that means is this: the "project" is going to take a partnership of government and business at all levels. And neither entity has a lock on efficiency of purpose or execution.

shep Author Profile Page said:

"When Gore advocates waving every bit of gov't bureaucracy that would drag that out until 2040..."

You've been brainwashed. It isn't government bureaucracy that's been dragging out our move away from fossil fuels, it's the unholy alliance between corporations - particularly oil and car makers - and their cronies in government (see Ronald Reagan). The enemy is corporatism in government not "bureaucracy".

EricM Author Profile Page said:

I finally clicked all the way through to the text of Gore's speech. I was far too kind to him. He remains the single biggest obstacle to the energy sources of the future.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

How so?

P.S. I have to tell you that if I were going to ask the question, "What is the single biggest obstacle to the energy sources of the future?" Al Gore's name wouldn't even be on the list, to say the least.

EricM Author Profile Page said:

From the beginning, Gore has framed the debate as an all or nothing, have to agree with him all the way, good people v. bad people issue, like just about every politician. If you want to alienate people, you do what Gore did. If you want to convince people who may be skeptical of your position on an issue like this give them something they can agree with.

"Alternative" energy is markets, its the jobs that allow America a new leg up in a globalized world where new populations now do just as well (or approximating parity) the jobs that some in our country think Americans are entitled to perform, forever. It's the next great step forward in American ingenuity. That is an argument that people who disagree with Gore (on AGW) could have embraced years ago.

Gore didn't win any argument, the price of a gallon of gasoline did. Republicans would have long ago gotten behind the idea if Gore had appealed to capitalism as well as altruism.

Mark Adams Author Profile Page said:
Gore has framed the debate as an all or nothing
What, you never heard of "aspirational goal horizons?"

Face it, anyone who challenges the cult of authoritarian personality that rationalizes the right wing's use of power to screw their fellow man for the sake of a buck will be demonized, messenger attacked along with the message since the message is incontrovertible.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

"Alternative" energy is markets

With all due respect, I call bullshit.

I was in the alternate energy business for nearly 10 years -- before, during and after the last great oil shock of the mid to late 70s. And we did fine -- until the government yanked the tax credits and the oil markets were de-regulated.

Had the government stayed the course, we'd probably already be out of the mess we find ourselves in yet again.

How many more times do we have to go round the wheel before we get it right?

EricM Author Profile Page said:

Mark,

Don't look to me to defend the moron-in-chief. If I'd give Gore credit for anything related to this it would be that he never claimed to be a uniter before he was a divider.

Ara,

That may be true, but Gore still contributed to that environment by making this a wedge issue rather than one that caused a ground swell of support and crossed ideological lines and forced Washington to change its idiotic ways. To change the way an entire culture fuels its vehicles and powers its homes and various electronics you need more than tax credits, you need someone who finds a way to get everyone on board.

I'm sure you could site examples where Gore voted against ending those subsidies. I have no doubt he did. However, when you want to make the change that Gore has advocated, and if you believe it the way Gore does AGW, it is absolutely necessary to draw the largest coalition possible. Gore has failed miserably in that. His argument has always lacked the second part that I mentioned earlier.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

you need more than tax credits, you need someone who finds a way to get everyone on board...Gore has failed miserably in that.

And that makes him "the single biggest obstacle to the energy sources of the future?"

By that standard, the Rockefeller (oil) and Ford (internal combustion engine) families should be indicted for mass murder, no?

EricM Author Profile Page said:

Now that's a jump. How do you get from a to b?

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

I was just going to ask you the same thing.

Your reasoning seems to be this: Al Gore COULD HAVE brought us together but he failed therefore he is the chief obstacle to the energy sources of the future.

When did he get that kind of a monopoly? When did he get that kind of power?

The answer is, he never did.

Failing to succeed is not the same thing as blocking all efforts at future success. If it were, Standard Oil and Ford Motor Co. would have a lot to answer for because they are far more responsible (than Gore at least) for the kinds of energy choices we have today.

P.S. Which is not to say they are to blame...

P.S. ...and which is not to say that Gore has failed.

EricM Author Profile Page said:

If Gore has identified the real-life falling sky of chicken little, as a steward of national policy I'd say his culpability in not bringing us together is much larger than a for profit business selling their products. Government is much more indictable for not doing the right thing than business.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

Government is much more indictable for not doing the right thing than business.

Well, it is certainly true that government should be by the people, of the people and for the people. Just as business should be by the shareholders, of the shareholders and for the shareholders. Each has its place and purpose.

But to suggest that government (and Al Gore as its representative) is solely to blame for not doing something about climate change is to suggest that business is out of control somehow. "Stop me," say the titans of industry, "before I hurt someone!"

That doesn't wash.

The kind of government you allude to might have existed under Stalinist Russia, but that was then & there, and this is here & now.

Neither government nor business has (or should have) total autonomy and authority. That said, neither has total responsibility either.

Government does have a role to play in relation to business, mostly in keeping an eye on them and making sure they don't abuse the trust of the people. And an independent press has the job of keeping an eye on government. But that's a discussion for another time.

EricM Author Profile Page said:

I'm not thinking of this as a felony, but more of a misdemeanor. I get the impression you are thinking of it as a felony (or at least that I am thinking of it as one).

I am in now way thinking of business as out of control. rather I'm thinking of for profit corporations as amoral entities whose only responsibility is to make as much money for shareholders as possible within the rules set by governments. I might grant that it is preferable to avoid clearly immoral behavior as it tends to negatively impact profits over the long run. I do not think selling automobiles and oils is immoral behavior.

If/when someone else can come along with a better way and knock them off the top of the hill, good for them. However, it is not the job of a for profit entity to create the threat that would require it to refocus its business if that threat came along from the outside. On the contrary that business could very well be legitimately in trouble with shareholders if it did so.

I've never said, nor did I intend to suggest, that Gore is "solely" responsible for anything. However, when you make yourself into a one issue pony like Gore has done it really would behoove him to have crafted an argument that casts as wide a net. In that sense he really is standing in his own way and tying his own shoelaces together. That is how I mean that he is the biggest obstacle. He is the most recognized name out there and is undercutting himself with a needlessly large portion of the US population.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

I've never said, nor did I intend to suggest, that Gore is "solely" responsible for anything.

Let's go to the tape:

He remains the single biggest obstacle to the energy sources of the future.

So what you're trying to say is that he's his own worst enemy?

...he really is standing in his own way and tying his own shoelaces together.

Not the same as "single biggest obstacle." If it were, we'd say McCain was the single biggest obstacle to winning in Iraq.

EricM Author Profile Page said:

You're overlooking his enablers. Those Al Gore fans who give him the positive reinforcement that serves as his own personal heroine and makes him ignore the broader argument.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

"His enablers?" You mean these guys?

Look, if you don't like Al Gore, that's fine. I'm sure there's plenty there to dislike. But just what is the broader argument than saving-life-as-we-know-it-on-planet-earth?

EricM Author Profile Page said:

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in his awards, Nobel included. We aren't going to get any closer on this.

shep Author Profile Page said:

You're a Gore-hater, Eric. Face it. Your prejudices and beliefs bear no resemblance to the man or what he has done.

"Independents" had to construct a villain in Gore because he represented the thing they hate most - the need for everyone to take other people and our interconnectedness into account with our actions. Add government involvement and you have the antithesis of what they believe in their heart of hearts - unbridled selfishness without outside interference.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in his awards, Nobel included.

Do you have something against the awarding bodies? Or something against the idea of awards granting prestige? Or do you simply dislike Al Gore so much that you believe that anyone who gives him an award must automatically be suspect?

EricM Author Profile Page said:

I don't care much for his rhetoric and awarding him (or anyone else) for employing so broadly 'sky is falling' language. I suspect there are issues where Gore and I would find agreement like technology overall and its use in education. We would agree on green even if we disagree on why. I prefer his position on stem cell research to Bush's.

I would say disappointment is more accurate than hate. My view is that he is slowing progress in getting to a greener energy complex. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you have to employ tactics that I find offensive. But, I've been in favor of things like alternative vehicle fuels since a junior year high school chemistry project. It has never seemed so complex to me (and I'm not overly inclined to enjoy the arithmetic side of the scientific arguments). It's all technology and advancement.

I prefer the old moderate Gore to the new proselytizing Gore.

shep Author Profile Page said:

"I don't care much for his rhetoric and awarding him (or anyone else) for employing so broadly 'sky is falling' language."

Apparently Gore thinks the sky is falling (so do I). Perhaps he understands things that you can't or won't grasp. If he's right, or even if he only thinks that he is, shouldn't he say so?


"I prefer the old moderate Gore to the new proselytizing Gore."

Gore wrote Earth in the Balance in 1992. Again you're the victim of a lot of anti-Gore propaganda and possibly your own psychology. And it was the Reagan Administration who changed the policy of the country from weaning itself off of ME oil to a carbon orgy, with ubiquitous and ridiculous Suburbans and McMansions, in 1980! Where did all that "moderation" get us? You need to ask yourself why you insist on keeping on blaming the messenger.

Ara Rubyan Author Profile Page said:

I don't care much for his rhetoric and awarding him (or anyone else) for employing so broadly 'sky is falling' language.

This is why he called it "an inconvenient truth," I suppose.

My view is that he is slowing progress in getting to a greener energy complex. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you have to employ tactics that I find offensive.

Let me get this straight: your resistance to doing something about it is because Gore is so annoying? Have I got that right? If so, this says more about you than it does about him.

But, I've been in favor of things like alternative vehicle fuels since a junior year high school chemistry project.

Well, then, what have you done about it? Given a speech? Written a book? Made a film? Lobbied Congress? Bought a fluorescent light bulb? Turned down your thermostat?

Do you feel like you're being nagged?

It's all technology and advancement.

What exactly does that mean, Eric?

EricM Author Profile Page said:

No, I feel like you are being obtuse while trying not to act like it, Ara.

Leave a comment

Subscribe

Archives

Two ways to browse:

OR

Videos