May 12 Reliable Sources - Global Warming Jokes

The funniest source this week is the Ecoenquirer. My bet is that many readers will not be amused, however. I also recommend An Improbable Cure for an Oil Addiction. Those of you who read what I write will see that this guy from generally liberal Brookings more or less agrees with me on oil prices.

Another interesting source is from NPR audio, America Against the World.

America Against the World
An Improbable Cure for an Oil Addiction
Countering Aggressive Rising Powers
Getting Old Ain’t What it Used to Be
I Was an Icelandic “War Criminal”
Iran’s Friends Fend off Security Council Action. Here is Why.
Pitying Darfur, Ignoring Iraq
The Problem of American Exceptionalism
What Place does Religion have in American Politics?
White Guilt and the War

Posted by Jack at May 12, 2006 11:21 PM
Comments
Comment #147812

Jack, the first article wasn’t very amusing… I much prefer the Onion.

And the second one… was it a joke as well?

Posted by: Zeek at May 12, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #147813

If you like the Onion, try this one.

But you could not have read much of in the 13 minutes between our postings. Maybe you read faster. I am slow.

The other article goes to show that liberals can sometimes also have good ideas. Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Posted by: Jack at May 12, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #147817

I found “I Was an Icelandic ‘War Criminal’” absorbing. How many on this site have used the same tactics to belittle and ignore opposing views… (…Yah! You. Your ideas are little slimeballs! Only perverts in pigs pajamas would think that way!) Oh, no personal attacks…

Posted by: Don at May 12, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #147822

Jack,

From the tone of the articles (I scaned through most of them), it seems that America isn’t getting out the message of what we are attempting to do.
Or, everybody else is right and we really are out of our minds.

How is it we are so out of touch with what is going on in the world around us?

Oh, and why is it that the worlds perception of us is what the liberals have been saying all along?

Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #147823

Rocky

Listen to the whole American Against the world and pay particular attention to what they say are the differences between blue and red states (they are not significant). You will aslo be interested in what they say about John Kerry. Recall that Pew is a generally liberal think tank and Konut seems to have been a Kerry supporter.

We are much more closely watched. I remember the gay marriage debate in Mass made us disliked all over the world. In much of W. Europe, they said that we were not going far enough. In the Middle East, the fact that we considered such a thing was an abomination. There was literally no action we could have taken that would have improved the situation.

Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #147830

Jack,

“In the Middle East, the fact that we considered such a thing was an abomination. There was literally no action we could have taken that would have improved the situation.”

Yes, I listened to a good bit of the audio.

The Europeans think we are silly and the muslums think we go too far.

Kind of a rock and a hard place.

We might want to think about which side our bread is buttered.

Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #147835

Jack:

There is no such thing as a Liberal ThinkTank. Unlike Conservatives, the Liberals never founded a Thinktank for the express purpose of releasing doctored results.

Nice Try.

Posted by: Aldous at May 13, 2006 3:26 AM
Comment #147847

I think that’s a great point, Aldous.

Posted by: gergle at May 13, 2006 5:51 AM
Comment #147850

Aldous,
The fact that you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they doctored their results.
Yes, there are liberal think tanks and they come up with some weird stuff sometimes.

Posted by: traveller at May 13, 2006 6:12 AM
Comment #147851

traveller, think tanks are supposed to come up with wierd stuff. Their mission is to think outside the box, else they would have nothing to sell.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 13, 2006 6:31 AM
Comment #147853

Aldous

Harvard University is the biggest liberal think tank in the world.They hire conservatives every once in a while simply to dissect them…kinda like what we did with frogs in high school biology class.

Jack

The weather piece was terrific.I bet if that piece was distributed widely to the ballot box people,they could have a meeting or something on the grassy knoll and have a good time.Maybe Elvis would moderate that debate.

By the way,I couldn’t get the second to last link to work.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 13, 2006 7:11 AM
Comment #147854

traveller:

When the Heritage Foundation was established, its stated mission was to pursue the Conservative agenda. ALL the Conservative Thinktanks were founded that way. Its like the tabacco industry financing research on the effects on smoking. Do you know how many of them said smoking was safe?

Did you think smoking was safe?

Posted by: Aldous at May 13, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #147856

Jack,

The often liberal Woody agrees with you also. That is to say, I think that high oil prices are good, or at least more good than bad. As many people have observed, that is the only way there is going to be sufficient incentive to invest in other technologies. (Global warming should provide sufficient incentive, but obviously doesn’t.)

The idea of a government-mandated floor is a political non-starter. Telling people they don’t pay enough for gas just doesn’t compute. (Un)fortunately, there is enough drama in the Middle East to keep prices high for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Woody Mena at May 13, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #147857

Aldous and Gergle

You don’t really believe that. If you do,I understand your problem and will be nicer to you and use simpler concepts.

But you inadvertently point out one of the big problems with liberalism today. You really believe that liberal ideas represent THE truth and that it requires no modification, even in the face of charge or evidence to the contrary. Liberals have not adapted to the new world and their thought has not progressed since the 1960s. There is none so blind as he who will not see. And then you take refuge in the self righteous attitude that others are narrow minded.

Sicilian

Here is the new and improved link.

Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #147886

Jack,

“Liberals have not adapted to the new world and their thought has not progressed since the 1960s.”

There is no “new world”. World powers come and world powers go. That hasn’t changed much since before the pyramids were built.

How much of conservitive thought has progressed since the 1800’s?

What’s your point?

How can we expect the rest of the world to agree with America if we can’t even agree within America?

The only thing that hasn’t remained constant in America since the ’60s is the continual expansion of the polorization in America. The love it or leave it, my country right or wrong crowd is still here as well as those that would have us swords into plowshares.

It would appear that the only real change is the world’s view of America, from benevolent to malevolent, cowboy.

Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #147899

The point exactly is that conservative thought has developed remarkably since 1960. There are better understanding of markets, not only for good, but also for information and the effacacy of micro incentives. We also understand better why simple minded government interventions don’t work. It is a whole way of systems thinking and analysis that was unavailable to decision makers a generation ago.

This whole thing has passed most over- not all certainly - liberals. They still think in terms of the 19th century. We have moved on.

Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #147905

Jack,

“There are better understanding of markets, not only for good, but also for information and the effacacy of micro incentives.”

Sort of a rob from the poor give to the rich thing, right?

Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #147935

Rocky

No. That is the old fashioned view.

These sorts of systems allow more people to get what they want. They recognize that not everyone wants the same things and/or not in the same proportions. A system of free exchange and choices helps this happen. It is the difference between command and control of hierarchies and the flexibility of networks. It spreads decision making.

I think there is one major drawback - and I say this not facetiously. These systems that involve choices require a much more active consumer. Smart well informed people do very well when they have more choices because they tend to make better ones. People who are not as smart or have less information suffer relatively. This is exactly what has happened to exacerbate inequality in recent years.

Inevitably, greater choice for individuals leads to greater inequality. To the extent that markets create alternatives and allow choice, inequality will grow. I don’t know how to deal with that, although the liberal ideal, which leads defacto to lowering the general welfare to create more equal incomes, is unacceptable.

I will quickly point out that inequality has been growing since about 1970. It grew rather FASTER during the Clinton period and actually reversed a little in the early Bush years, so it is not particularly affected by tax policies.

Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #147941

Jack,

With the need for an ever expanding economy, I fear for the American consumer.

Just how many pairs of $200 dollar sneakers is enough?

We all decry the conspicuous consumption but we just need to keep on buying crap, in the hope that we will someday be sated?

When will enough be enough?

And when will our “gotta have it all” lifestyle crash down upon us?

Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #147950

Rocky

You and I don’t have to participate. I still wear suits I bought during the Reagan Administration. My bike is ten years old. I buy what I want and I am glad to have the choice.

If you give people choices, some will make bad ones. In some ways we have too many options, but I don’t know how to limit choice w/o limiting liberty and I don’t know who should make the decisions.

I don’t like the consumer society. All the hedonists offend my sense of decency. I consider it a character flaw. (For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul) But when I consider the alternative is to control and regulate behavior, I have to go with the consumer. Smart people can get along very well.

It is very easy to live off the fat of the consumer society if you make decent (not even optimal) choices. Let the hedonists have their crap.

Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #147968

Aldous,
If you don’t believe liberal think tanks like Brookings were established to pursue the liberal agenda I heard there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap. I’ll be happy to broker the deal for you.

Posted by: traveller at May 13, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #148238

Yeah - we’d better Firebomb the Brookings Institute to stop their dastardly plans…

[Hint: search the Link Page for the word “firebomb”]

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 15, 2006 5:13 AM
Comment #148254

Betty Burke,
That doesn’t make sense.

Posted by: traveller at May 15, 2006 7:43 AM
Comment #148272

Jack,

Smart well informed people do very well when they have more choices because they tend to make better ones. People who are not as smart or have less information suffer relatively.

Like the free market never retain “good” information when its required to protect an industry. Isn’t lobbying about pushing the wanted information above the good one?
Free market don’t protect consumers from lies they’re told everyday: this drug will make you younger, stronger and sexier. And it’s safe!
Yeah, sure…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 15, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #148490

Traveller: yeah, History doesn’t make a lot of Sense to you NeoCons, does it?

*snicker*

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 15, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #151562

Neocon. The fact you use such a word shows you know nothing of history, or should I say History.

Posted by: Henry Hnyellar at May 26, 2006 10:39 AM
Post a comment