Edit Preferences
Logout
jbatch's Comments (423)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 423
Please, Cut Obama Some Slack
Commented Dec 17, 2009 at 23:24:18 in Politics
“The length of time Obama has been in office is not the reason folks are angry with Obama. Nor is it what he has or has not accomplished. Rather, it is what he has attempted. He has preemptively capitualted to corporate interests; he has compromised on core principles; and he has put the interests of the people below those of the entrenched and wealthy interests. Far from vanguishing K-Street, he has strengthenned its stranglehold on America.
That's why folks don't want to cut him any slack.”
That's why folks don't want to cut him any slack.”
peaceplez replied on Dec 17, 2009 at 23:49:05
“Thank you.”
Why Politics-As-Usual May Mean the End of Civilization
Commented Dec 07, 2009 at 17:47:36 in Green
“We need to introduce an concept like "effective population" which factors in consumption. For example, the average US citizen consumes 30 times as much energy as the average global citizen. So, from a GHG perspective, the US population is 350 million times 30, or 10 billion 500 milion people. We're growing at about 3% or about 10 million a year -- in "effective population" that would be equivalent to 100 million people per year.
Sorry, but facts are stubborn things.”
Sorry, but facts are stubborn things.”
Why Politics-As-Usual May Mean the End of Civilization
Commented Dec 07, 2009 at 11:12:10 in Green
“I have been in the energy/climate field for over 30 years. Sadly, many of us are so desperate for progress that we celebrate the baby steps being taken now, even though we know, in our heart-of-hearts, that the only possible consequence of baby steps is catastrophic and irrevocable warming.
The Earth could care less about "political realities" -- our climate will respond according to the laws of physics regardless of out political climate.
In Copnehagen we are our Fifth March of Folly.”
The Earth could care less about "political realities" -- our climate will respond according to the laws of physics regardless of out political climate.
In Copnehagen we are our Fifth March of Folly.”
Why Politics-As-Usual May Mean the End of Civilization
Commented Dec 07, 2009 at 11:04:07 in Green
“Your example of willful ignorance and your desperate need to cling to denier talking pts such as the CRU stuff -- which has been shown to be irrelevant to the body of science supporting human induced climate change -- reveals you as a denier. No amount of factual scientific analysis will convince you; you will distort things such as the mediaeval warming and the little ice-age (which was a phenomena due to volcanic activity effecting mostly Europe) while ignoring the obvious and tangible warming occurring now.
You are immune to facts and impervious to reason. Your beliefs are more theological than rational.
If you weren't so dangerous you would be merely amusing in your ignorance, but sadly, you and your ilk are dangerous.
It would be just if the devastation you invoke would be visited only upon those who refuse to face reality. But your ideological perversion of science will impose devestation upon us all.”
You are immune to facts and impervious to reason. Your beliefs are more theological than rational.
If you weren't so dangerous you would be merely amusing in your ignorance, but sadly, you and your ilk are dangerous.
It would be just if the devastation you invoke would be visited only upon those who refuse to face reality. But your ideological perversion of science will impose devestation upon us all.”
goodspkr replied on Dec 07, 2009 at 13:30:35
“jbatch. What I just read is that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You accuse anne of being religious in her beliefs, but you are much more likely to fill this role.
If AGW is correct there should be a hot spot in the atmoshere? Where is it?
If AGW is correct the ERBE/Ceres satellite should show as the ocean heat increases, less heat escapes. It doesn't.
You speak of devastation as if it were a foregone conclusion. But the only place this happens is in climate models which haven't correctly shown any of the actual climate conditions were are currently experiencing.
You speak of science as if you own it. But the CRU cabal refused to share data, covered up problems with data in studies and tried to keep contrary ideas out of journals (not very scientific behavior).
You are amusing because you aren't dangerous. The scientists like Phil Jones and Michael Mann are dangerous, but you are someone who apparantly doesn't have a inkling of how this disaster is supposed to happen and what the science is behind it.”
If AGW is correct there should be a hot spot in the atmoshere? Where is it?
If AGW is correct the ERBE/Ceres satellite should show as the ocean heat increases, less heat escapes. It doesn't.
You speak of devastation as if it were a foregone conclusion. But the only place this happens is in climate models which haven't correctly shown any of the actual climate conditions were are currently experiencing.
You speak of science as if you own it. But the CRU cabal refused to share data, covered up problems with data in studies and tried to keep contrary ideas out of journals (not very scientific behavior).
You are amusing because you aren't dangerous. The scientists like Phil Jones and Michael Mann are dangerous, but you are someone who apparantly doesn't have a inkling of how this disaster is supposed to happen and what the science is behind it.”
annecros replied on Dec 07, 2009 at 12:50:33
“No see, this is where you and I are not communicating. Calling me a "denier" is a very small minded smear - and insulting on it's face. I think you owe ma an apology.
I do not deny that climate changes. I know for a fact that it does, based upon personal observation and the historical record. That is referred to generically as "reason" - and I pride myself in being a reasonable person.
I also acknowledge that human's can and will damage their environment. I personally am an environmen
However, I am not a fool. And I am also well acquainted with facts. And, I am agnostic.
For me, "factual scientific analysis" must be based upon facts. Not manipulated by throwing out contradictory evidence - which these scientists are actually acknowledging that they have done. None have denied that the emails are factual ( and have actually stated in public that they are a true representation), and the "Hockey Stick" graph "trick" was acknowledged by "Mike" himself to be a falsehood.
Sadly, I am not the one in "denial" here. Just because you repeat the same thing over and over again, it doesn't magically become true.”
I do not deny that climate changes. I know for a fact that it does, based upon personal observation and the historical record. That is referred to generically as "reason" - and I pride myself in being a reasonable person.
I also acknowledge that human's can and will damage their environment. I personally am an environmen
However, I am not a fool. And I am also well acquainted with facts. And, I am agnostic.
For me, "factual scientific analysis" must be based upon facts. Not manipulated by throwing out contradictory evidence - which these scientists are actually acknowledging that they have done. None have denied that the emails are factual ( and have actually stated in public that they are a true representation), and the "Hockey Stick" graph "trick" was acknowledged by "Mike" himself to be a falsehood.
Sadly, I am not the one in "denial" here. Just because you repeat the same thing over and over again, it doesn't magically become true.”
The Choice at Copenhagen: Heroism, or Collective Suicide
Commented Dec 03, 2009 at 10:57:34 in Green
“Geez Max -- I rely on the NASA temperature data take with sattelites and real thermometers and you rely on "Whattaupwiththat" a site that is paid for by fossil fuel interests, collects no data and has no scientific expertise.
I wonder which is more credible and accurate?
Again, bud -- don't cite denier crap and try to pass it off as fact. So far ythe best you've com up with is youtube and a paid denier site as you sources.
Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
My question to you, is why are you so desperate to believe nothing's happening that you'd throw away all objectivity and swallow this load of BS?”
I wonder which is more credible and accurate?
Again, bud -- don't cite denier crap and try to pass it off as fact. So far ythe best you've com up with is youtube and a paid denier site as you sources.
Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
My question to you, is why are you so desperate to believe nothing's happening that you'd throw away all objectivity and swallow this load of BS?”
The Choice at Copenhagen: Heroism, or Collective Suicide
Commented Dec 03, 2009 at 10:49:08 in Green
“Impervious to facts, eh?
Ice volume has declined year by year for more than a decade; again, you mistake the aerial extent for total amount of ice. Try this: walk out on 12 inch ice covering three quarters of a lake surface, then walk out on half inch ice covering the entire lake. That should help you sort out the difference.
And don't point me to Dr.Singer, who, aside from getting a lot of money from fossil fuel interests, is generally considered a laughingstock by other `climatologists.
You got the Maldives thing completely wrong -- it is not rising or moving; the "bench" you refer to is a result of a storm current eroding away land, not from land building up.
There's no "lake" under Darfur, there's an aquifer, and poor folks have difficulty tapping it.
And don't talk to me about "responsible" reserachers who wll tell me "this"-- I am a scientist and I know who's responsible and who is not.
If you want to appeal to me or anyone based on science don't give us youtube contrarian crap -- cite peer reviewed journals -- Oh wait you can't; no respectable journal will publish the psuedo scientists and paid hacks you guys rely on.
Get a clue. Read real science sources, then come back and discuss this issue from a perspective of knowledge, not partisan BS.”
Ice volume has declined year by year for more than a decade; again, you mistake the aerial extent for total amount of ice. Try this: walk out on 12 inch ice covering three quarters of a lake surface, then walk out on half inch ice covering the entire lake. That should help you sort out the difference.
And don't point me to Dr.Singer, who, aside from getting a lot of money from fossil fuel interests, is generally considered a laughingstock by other `climatologists.
You got the Maldives thing completely wrong -- it is not rising or moving; the "bench" you refer to is a result of a storm current eroding away land, not from land building up.
There's no "lake" under Darfur, there's an aquifer, and poor folks have difficulty tapping it.
And don't talk to me about "responsible" reserachers who wll tell me "this"-- I am a scientist and I know who's responsible and who is not.
If you want to appeal to me or anyone based on science don't give us youtube contrarian crap -- cite peer reviewed journals -- Oh wait you can't; no respectable journal will publish the psuedo scientists and paid hacks you guys rely on.
Get a clue. Read real science sources, then come back and discuss this issue from a perspective of knowledge, not partisan BS.”
Obama's Unavoidable Cure for the Afghanistan Cancer
Commented Dec 03, 2009 at 10:19:00 in World
“First, I voted for Obama despite his Afpak position and opposed him in the primaries because of it.
Second, it's really not confounding; it's quite simple.
Afghanistan does not pose a threat to us --and while terrorist training camps might, we could wipe out training camps with a drone.
And occupations don't work; how many times must we learn that?
To have any hope of achieving a postive outcome, the militaries own counter-isrgency manual says it will take 600,000 troops a decade -- or $6 trillion dollars.
That's the price -- not including the dead soldiers which is the real cost.
So, are the stakes to the US that high?
Hell no.
Quite simple, really.”
Second, it's really not confounding; it's quite simple.
Afghanistan does not pose a threat to us --and while terrorist training camps might, we could wipe out training camps with a drone.
And occupations don't work; how many times must we learn that?
To have any hope of achieving a postive outcome, the militaries own counter-isrgency manual says it will take 600,000 troops a decade -- or $6 trillion dollars.
That's the price -- not including the dead soldiers which is the real cost.
So, are the stakes to the US that high?
Hell no.
Quite simple, really.”
iamnumba1 replied on Dec 03, 2009 at 11:50:11
“Why didn't you run for President then?”
The Choice at Copenhagen: Heroism, or Collective Suicide
Commented Dec 02, 2009 at 11:17:39 in Green
“We're in a solar minimum -- so if anything, the human caused warming is worse than it appears.”
The Choice at Copenhagen: Heroism, or Collective Suicide
Commented Dec 02, 2009 at 11:14:44 in Green
“There have not been 2 successive years of rebound in Arctic ice. You mistake ice extent for ice volume, which has continued to decline year by year.
A one foot bench in the Maldives has nothing to do with climate, and it most certainly will not save it from a meter to several meter increase in sea level.
Darfur has been drier for 3 deades. Period. And by quite a lot.
If the process you describe in Bangladesh had not been upset by seal level rise from global warming, then it would have created a homeostatic condition.
So much for your "facts."”
A one foot bench in the Maldives has nothing to do with climate, and it most certainly will not save it from a meter to several meter increase in sea level.
Darfur has been drier for 3 deades. Period. And by quite a lot.
If the process you describe in Bangladesh had not been upset by seal level rise from global warming, then it would have created a homeostatic condition.
So much for your "facts."”
max08 replied on Dec 03, 2009 at 09:57:14
“Oh yes there has been two years of rebound in the Arctic ice.
Watch a real scientist from MIT with 30 years of research under his belt show the evidence:
http://www
As I wrote above, the NYT reported the discovery of a lake the size of Lake Erie under Darfur in 2007.
A one foot bench in the Maldives is BECAUSE THE LAND moves as well. Responsible oceanographers involved with responsible climate change research will tell you this.”
Watch a real scientist from MIT with 30 years of research under his belt show the evidence:
http://www
As I wrote above, the NYT reported the discovery of a lake the size of Lake Erie under Darfur in 2007.
A one foot bench in the Maldives is BECAUSE THE LAND moves as well. Responsible oceanographers involved with responsible climate change research will tell you this.”
The Choice at Copenhagen: Heroism, or Collective Suicide
Commented Dec 02, 2009 at 11:07:16 in Green
“Explanation for what? There is no cooling. 2007 and 2005 are tied for the hottest years on record, and the last 6 months are the hottest on record. 8 of the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade.
So, I repeat, explanation for what?”
So, I repeat, explanation for what?”
max08 replied on Dec 03, 2009 at 09:40:14
“Excuse me, but you are wrong. There has been no rise in the global temperature since 1997, but there has been a rise in CO2, which was what all the hoohah about the hacked emails were about last week.
http://wat
==========
If there were a 10-degree rise in temperature on Eastern Antarctica, it would result in massive snow and ice. The increased humidity causes the precipitation. Eastern Antarctica, the biggest section of Antarctica and the coldest (-100 F) benefits from rises in temp in what we call the winter months, and which is summer for them.”
http://wat
==========
If there were a 10-degree rise in temperature on Eastern Antarctica, it would result in massive snow and ice. The increased humidity causes the precipitation. Eastern Antarctica, the biggest section of Antarctica and the coldest (-100 F) benefits from rises in temp in what we call the winter months, and which is summer for them.”
Questions Obama Has To Answer Tonight
Commented Dec 01, 2009 at 17:40:06 in Politics
“These are the least of what Obama must answer:
How about:
1) The army's own counter-insurgency manual says it takes 600,000 troops and at least a decade to achieve a positive outcome in a country the size of Afghanistan. Why do you think 100,000 will work?
2) It costs $1 million to keep a soldier in Afhghanistan for a year, so it would cost us $6 trillion to wage this war successfully, according to the Manual.
2a) Aren't there more important and more beneficial things to spend $6trillion on?
2c) Doesn't this level of spending actually make the US weaker, more vulnerable, less secure, and less prosperous?
3) Do 100 al Qaeda really pose a significant threat? The Taliban has no international ambitions, so why should we spend $6 trillion waging war?
4) Is there another, cheaper, way to mitigate whatever threat they may pose? For example, aerial recon, predator drones, and selected special force incursions, coupled with good intel could be used to prevent training sites from being established.
5) Given the fact that the surge in Iraq is now unravelling why are we using it as a model?
6) Why are you listening to Generals? Generals wage war. Presidents decide which wars to wage and the strategic context in which they are fought.
I could go on, but America deserves answers to these questions, and they deserve a President who will ask them.”
How about:
1) The army's own counter-insurgency manual says it takes 600,000 troops and at least a decade to achieve a positive outcome in a country the size of Afghanistan. Why do you think 100,000 will work?
2) It costs $1 million to keep a soldier in Afhghanistan for a year, so it would cost us $6 trillion to wage this war successfully, according to the Manual.
2a) Aren't there more important and more beneficial things to spend $6trillion on?
2c) Doesn't this level of spending actually make the US weaker, more vulnerable, less secure, and less prosperous?
3) Do 100 al Qaeda really pose a significant threat? The Taliban has no international ambitions, so why should we spend $6 trillion waging war?
4) Is there another, cheaper, way to mitigate whatever threat they may pose? For example, aerial recon, predator drones, and selected special force incursions, coupled with good intel could be used to prevent training sites from being established.
5) Given the fact that the surge in Iraq is now unravelling why are we using it as a model?
6) Why are you listening to Generals? Generals wage war. Presidents decide which wars to wage and the strategic context in which they are fought.
I could go on, but America deserves answers to these questions, and they deserve a President who will ask them.”
Anatomy (and Meaning) of the "Did You Know?" Video Series (VIDEOS, PHOTOS)
Commented Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20:08 in Technology
“Fanned and faved. One of the most insightful comments I've seen on Huffpo or anywhere.
Raw data is like uneaten food; it provides no nourishment; results in no growth. It simply exists as a potential. To lose sight of that is to confuse bits for brains.”
Raw data is like uneaten food; it provides no nourishment; results in no growth. It simply exists as a potential. To lose sight of that is to confuse bits for brains.”
ChristopherAtom replied on Nov 27, 2009 at 09:41:20
“You both stink of fear. The winds of exponential change will blow that blow stench from our synthetic olfactory nerves. Prepare yourselves for the coming SINGULARITY!!! *roll creepy music*
We are one!
I AM LEGION!
Here's a big one mac left out: information is free, knowledge requires 3 partime jobs, a 2nd mortgage, and one big ole chunk-o-time, somethings many folks can't afford.
Human brains are starving and like the poor people of the world who boil the leather of their only pair of shoes for food so dose the starving brain stuff itself with nano-knowledge.
Free all knowledge and humanity will follow.”
We are one!
I AM LEGION!
Here's a big one mac left out: information is free, knowledge requires 3 partime jobs, a 2nd mortgage, and one big ole chunk-o-time, somethings many folks can't afford.
Human brains are starving and like the poor people of the world who boil the leather of their only pair of shoes for food so dose the starving brain stuff itself with nano-knowledge.
Free all knowledge and humanity will follow.”
No Difference Between President Obama and Candidate Obama
Commented Nov 06, 2009 at 08:57:31 in Politics
“I was for Kucinich, and he's not betraying me, he's betraying his own promises, and he's betraying an historical opportunity to save this country from dangerous right-wing myths that are destroying it.”
No Difference Between President Obama and Candidate Obama
Commented Nov 06, 2009 at 08:55:00 in Politics
“Are you serious? this is the rhetorical equivalnet to "So's your mother .."
It's irrelevant to the examples and arguments I used and it's baseless to boot.
Wow.”
It's irrelevant to the examples and arguments I used and it's baseless to boot.
Wow.”
The IMF and Our Increased Dependence on Faux-Experts
Commented Nov 06, 2009 at 08:49:08 in Business
“Nassim:
Insightful as always. The same could be said of EIA's projections on energy prices and supply. It is certainly true of Obama's economics team.
Very sad”
Insightful as always. The same could be said of EIA's projections on energy prices and supply. It is certainly true of Obama's economics team.
Very sad”
No Difference Between President Obama and Candidate Obama
Commented Nov 04, 2009 at 08:53:12 in Politics
“Mr. Plouffe:
Obama became increasingly progressive in his words as the campaign wore on and it became expedient to do so, but his deeds do not support that rhetoric.
Gitmo still exists; 130,000 troops still occupy Iraq; we are on the verge of building up in Afghanistan.
On the home front, he's cut a private deal with Pharma (so much for transparency) similar to Bush's sell out; he's undercutting Reed and Pelosi's attempt to get a Health care Bill (the Obama White House even adopted the Orwellian phrase "insurance reform" for a while -- goog grief); he's put Wall Street interests above those of Main street (there were many pathways to rcovery that didn't pass through Wall Street); He's enabled the too big to rail crowd to get even bigger.
Obama had a moment when he could have indeed eviscerated the special interests -- then health care lobby and the finaincial interests -- but he didn't. He didn't even try.
He had a chance to be Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt in one -- something this country desperately needed -- but he chose to channel Neville Chamberlain instead.
He had a chance to put the stake in the dead heart of Reaganism, a toxic brew of selfish jingoism and racism, when it failed yet again, but he didn't. He chose to chase Snowe and sing Kumbaya, instead.
That's why Arianna calls him timid.”
Obama became increasingly progressive in his words as the campaign wore on and it became expedient to do so, but his deeds do not support that rhetoric.
Gitmo still exists; 130,000 troops still occupy Iraq; we are on the verge of building up in Afghanistan.
On the home front, he's cut a private deal with Pharma (so much for transparency) similar to Bush's sell out; he's undercutting Reed and Pelosi's attempt to get a Health care Bill (the Obama White House even adopted the Orwellian phrase "insurance reform" for a while -- goog grief); he's put Wall Street interests above those of Main street (there were many pathways to rcovery that didn't pass through Wall Street); He's enabled the too big to rail crowd to get even bigger.
Obama had a moment when he could have indeed eviscerated the special interests -- then health care lobby and the finaincial interests -- but he didn't. He didn't even try.
He had a chance to be Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt in one -- something this country desperately needed -- but he chose to channel Neville Chamberlain instead.
He had a chance to put the stake in the dead heart of Reaganism, a toxic brew of selfish jingoism and racism, when it failed yet again, but he didn't. He chose to chase Snowe and sing Kumbaya, instead.
That's why Arianna calls him timid.”
Downwithidiots replied on Nov 04, 2009 at 10:32:40
“Let's not try to fool ourselves, Liberals have been screaming about him not being progressive enough since the general election. Remeber you guys were in Hillary's corner from the get go, so please don't try to make it seem like he is betraying you.”
nicole473 replied on Nov 04, 2009 at 09:31:31
“Or could it be because she is owned by the right? Gee, I bet that never occurred to you.”
Obama One Year Later: The Audacity of Winning vs. The Timidity of Governing
Commented Nov 04, 2009 at 08:11:48 in Politics
“"A sentry for corporate interests" Too true and nicely phrased!”
Obama One Year Later: The Audacity of Winning vs. The Timidity of Governing
Commented Nov 03, 2009 at 09:34:03 in Politics
“The presence of Summers and Geithner told me the campaign was just that -- a campaign. It's important to remember that Obama the candidate was a centrist who tacked left only when Edwards began to get traction with his progressive message. We progressives mistook a tactical maneuver for an intrinsic moral stance.
I like Obama. He's smart, he's charismatic, he's articulate, and he is principled.
But I never expected him to share my progressive politics, Plouffe's book notwithstanding.
And Summers is doing in this administration what he did in Clinton's -- killing the spirit of progressivism and environmentalism every time he has an opporunity to.
So, not to get too cynical, but I beleive Obama candidate would say, "We did and said what we had to to win."”
I like Obama. He's smart, he's charismatic, he's articulate, and he is principled.
But I never expected him to share my progressive politics, Plouffe's book notwithstanding.
And Summers is doing in this administration what he did in Clinton's -- killing the spirit of progressivism and environmentalism every time he has an opporunity to.
So, not to get too cynical, but I beleive Obama candidate would say, "We did and said what we had to to win."”
The Audacity of Greed
Commented Oct 14, 2009 at 17:06:56 in Politics
“I was wondering whether anyone would pick up on this -- hoisted on their own petard!”
Public Health Before Wall Street Wealth
Commented Oct 14, 2009 at 16:27:15 in Politics
“Exactly what "balance" are you refering to?
The one where CEO profits are balanced against providing health care?
Look, corporations have a fiduciary -- and primary -- responsibility to their shareholders first. The rest is secondary.
If you believe that "balance" in any way optimizes health care, then you, sir, are ignorant.”
The one where CEO profits are balanced against providing health care?
Look, corporations have a fiduciary -- and primary -- responsibility to their shareholders first. The rest is secondary.
If you believe that "balance" in any way optimizes health care, then you, sir, are ignorant.”
Why Joe Biden Should Resign
Commented Oct 14, 2009 at 16:15:04 in World
“Insightful, as always, Arianna, although it is too early to urge Biden to resign. Someday, maybe soon, that may make sense, but right now, we need him there as a counterweight to Axelrod, Summers, and the rest of Obama's centrist mafia. If and when it becomes clear that he cannot be, then and only then would resigning on principle make sense. But at 9 months, that's still an open question.
Three things to add -- first, if we do get rational and focus on Pakistan, let's realize that confronting terrorism is not solely, or even primarily, a military mission -- it must be a diplomatic, economic, political and social effort first, and military last.
Second, if Feinstein is worried about women, she must advocate invading Saudi Arabia immediately, or be exposed as a hypocrite of the first degree.
Finally, when will we realize that domestic insurgencies and revolutions cannot be dealt with through occupations -- particularly when the country is a pastiche of cultures, ethnic origins and religious schisms?
When has if ever worked, anywhere?
As for McChrystal: he's in charge of trying to win wars, not deciding which wars ought to be fought, so of course he wants more troops. He should, of course, be ignored. Obescience to generals is yet another poisonous legacy from that ethical infant -- Bush.”
Three things to add -- first, if we do get rational and focus on Pakistan, let's realize that confronting terrorism is not solely, or even primarily, a military mission -- it must be a diplomatic, economic, political and social effort first, and military last.
Second, if Feinstein is worried about women, she must advocate invading Saudi Arabia immediately, or be exposed as a hypocrite of the first degree.
Finally, when will we realize that domestic insurgencies and revolutions cannot be dealt with through occupations -- particularly when the country is a pastiche of cultures, ethnic origins and religious schisms?
When has if ever worked, anywhere?
As for McChrystal: he's in charge of trying to win wars, not deciding which wars ought to be fought, so of course he wants more troops. He should, of course, be ignored. Obescience to generals is yet another poisonous legacy from that ethical infant -- Bush.”
lakeqi replied on Oct 14, 2009 at 16:32:56
“"Still an open question"? Thats the funniest thing I've read all day.”
Public Health Before Wall Street Wealth
Commented Oct 14, 2009 at 10:20:44 in Politics
“You are so right. Trying to build a rational health care program on top of this irrational hodge-podge was tantamount to building skyscrapers on sand.
You propose a number of interesting models -- I still prefer the simple singel payer system, modeled on Britians'. Doctors on generous salaries, complete universal care to all, profit not part of the plan.
Some things don't lend themselves to the free-market system. It creates wealth, not health. If you cede control of health to captial markets they will always make trade-offs between maximizing profits and providing health, no matter how rational the delivery framework. Always.”
You propose a number of interesting models -- I still prefer the simple singel payer system, modeled on Britians'. Doctors on generous salaries, complete universal care to all, profit not part of the plan.
Some things don't lend themselves to the free-market system. It creates wealth, not health. If you cede control of health to captial markets they will always make trade-offs between maximizing profits and providing health, no matter how rational the delivery framework. Always.”
overd0g1 replied on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:35:00
“To not recognize there is a balance there, is to be ignorant.”
Public Health Before Wall Street Wealth
Commented Oct 14, 2009 at 10:10:57 in Politics
“Mr. Sheer, you note that the media -- including the "liberal" NPR -- is reporting this as some kiind of breakthrough, yet it doe little but make the now voluntary fleecing by the insurance industry mandatory.
You rightly compare it to Bush's Pharma deal, in which Bush gave up the opportunity to lower drug prices by as much as 70% through negotiation.
Here's the thing: Obama did the same deal with big Pharma to get them on-side. As for praising Snowe? It's a crime. And because Obama has sacrificed principles for the hollow victory of a Bill -- any Bill -- and the mediaereports on the food fight and not the meal, no one really understands how much of a rip off this bill is.
Look, bi-partisanship is not an end , health is-- with the majorities we have, we should be able to deliver a good bill that helps people, not corporations.
And yes, this probably is a three card monty scam to keep our eyes off something far more pernicsious -- the corporatization of American governance.
Say goodbye to Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison. That's so old school.”
You rightly compare it to Bush's Pharma deal, in which Bush gave up the opportunity to lower drug prices by as much as 70% through negotiation.
Here's the thing: Obama did the same deal with big Pharma to get them on-side. As for praising Snowe? It's a crime. And because Obama has sacrificed principles for the hollow victory of a Bill -- any Bill -- and the mediaereports on the food fight and not the meal, no one really understands how much of a rip off this bill is.
Look, bi-partisanship is not an end , health is-- with the majorities we have, we should be able to deliver a good bill that helps people, not corporations.
And yes, this probably is a three card monty scam to keep our eyes off something far more pernicsious -- the corporatization of American governance.
Say goodbye to Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison. That's so old school.”
Thank You, Mr. President
Commented Oct 03, 2009 at 10:37:52 in Media
“Thanks for saying this, Joe.
But at the risk of being partisan, equating the eight year Republican witch hunt that marked Republican response to Clinton's election with the Bush years is a false equivalency.
Republicans spent $50 million hounding Clinton and then impeached him on a minor pecadillo -- one that many of the sanctimonious accusers shared with him.
Democrats were very supportive of Bush until he hounded us into a war based on lies, subverted the first and fourth amendments, authorized torture (violating the Genva convention -- a law of the land) and basically turned the White House into a 24 hour a day political machine. Despite all this, no impeachment proceedings were brought against him, beacuse the speaker thought it would be disruptive and not in the best interests of the country.
I raise this because we must first undersand the problem before we can solve it. And the problem is, the Republicans have been putting Party over country for more than10 years now.
And the problem is, Republicans”
But at the risk of being partisan, equating the eight year Republican witch hunt that marked Republican response to Clinton's election with the Bush years is a false equivalency.
Republicans spent $50 million hounding Clinton and then impeached him on a minor pecadillo -- one that many of the sanctimonious accusers shared with him.
Democrats were very supportive of Bush until he hounded us into a war based on lies, subverted the first and fourth amendments, authorized torture (violating the Genva convention -- a law of the land) and basically turned the White House into a 24 hour a day political machine. Despite all this, no impeachment proceedings were brought against him, beacuse the speaker thought it would be disruptive and not in the best interests of the country.
I raise this because we must first undersand the problem before we can solve it. And the problem is, the Republicans have been putting Party over country for more than10 years now.
And the problem is, Republicans”
PaleMail replied on Oct 03, 2009 at 11:39:55
“Thank you jbatch.”
btinc replied on Oct 03, 2009 at 11:19:13
“jbatch, I have to agree with you. It's a trick to put both parties on the table and say "They both have behaved badly." The level that the Republican party is willing to go simply to make a Democratic President look bad seems to always override what is best for the country. The same cannot be said of what the Democrats do. The Republican glee over Chicago losing the Olympics cannot illustrate it better.
I'm sick of both parties. The Democrats will not get another dollar from me: Obama hasn't lived up to any of his important promises: Gitmo will continue in January, there will be no public option because the Democrats and Republicans are bought and paid for by the insurance companies and big pharma, and gays and lesbians were thrown under the bus months ago.”
I'm sick of both parties. The Democrats will not get another dollar from me: Obama hasn't lived up to any of his important promises: Gitmo will continue in January, there will be no public option because the Democrats and Republicans are bought and paid for by the insurance companies and big pharma, and gays and lesbians were thrown under the bus months ago.”
random100 replied on Oct 03, 2009 at 11:17:32
“I'd go with 30 years. Otherwise I couldn't agree more.”
DEJM replied on Oct 03, 2009 at 11:12:31
“Joe is right. we need to stop backsliding into the blame game. Where ever you stand on other issues, we have to prioritize
focused on name-calling than getting anything done, regardless who is President.
It doesn't matter who is President, it is Congress who passes the laws. They need to hear that
we don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, Indep., etc.
I don't want to hear childish name-calling from grown men and women. We pay them a lot of money for the privilege of representing us. People are suffering and nothing is getting done.
It's not that difficult a job to be a US Senator or Representative. I''m sure there are a lot of well-qualified people out there who could do a better job than what is being done now.”
focused on name-calling than getting anything done, regardless who is President.
It doesn't matter who is President, it is Congress who passes the laws. They need to hear that
we don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, Indep., etc.
I don't want to hear childish name-calling from grown men and women. We pay them a lot of money for the privilege of representing us. People are suffering and nothing is getting done.
It's not that difficult a job to be a US Senator or Representative. I''m sure there are a lot of well-qualified people out there who could do a better job than what is being done now.”
Chill Out: An Economic Triage for Global Climate Change
Commented Sep 28, 2009 at 13:29:42 in Green
“Saying that Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, is well-reasoned and bi-partisan is tantamount to calling Glenn Beck the supreme rationalist. Lomborg has been debunked so often and so well it's astounding -- and revealing -- that you would resort to him as a source for your call to skepticism. The Scientific American devoted two issues to debunking his first book, it was so riddled with errors, lies and sophistry.
It's also revealing that you endorse the mid-level IPCC projections -- since virtually all the scientists involved now say they were way too conservative and that global warming is coming sooner and going to be worse than even the worst-case IPCC projections.
Indeed, most of the IPCC now say sea-level will be several meters (not a foot) by 2100, and that temperatures will rise by about 10 F (not 4.7).
As for Nordhous? He's basically a laughing stock among serious economists for his foolishness.
Skepticism is healthy, and valuable. But your dependence upon totally discredited sources smacks more of denier ignorance than real skepticism.”
It's also revealing that you endorse the mid-level IPCC projections -- since virtually all the scientists involved now say they were way too conservative and that global warming is coming sooner and going to be worse than even the worst-case IPCC projections.
Indeed, most of the IPCC now say sea-level will be several meters (not a foot) by 2100, and that temperatures will rise by about 10 F (not 4.7).
As for Nordhous? He's basically a laughing stock among serious economists for his foolishness.
Skepticism is healthy, and valuable. But your dependence upon totally discredited sources smacks more of denier ignorance than real skepticism.”
realpolitic replied on Sep 28, 2009 at 15:51:33
“Yes, why do deniers ask to be taken seriously then recommend discredited hacks like Lomberg. The Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty looked into his his book. They found it scientifiically dishonest, but that he lacked the scientiifc credentials to avoid a finding of gross negligence. In other words, he would not be expected to know what he was talking about. Some recommendation!
"Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. They reached a conclusion that..."
"Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."
http://en.
"Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. They reached a conclusion that..."
"Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."
http://en.
1 - 25 of 423
