Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-23-2008, 03:02 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Aw, Nuts

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-23-2008, 03:06 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Had to make a quick correction, just at the ouset: Jackson did not refer to Obama as a n*gger; he accused Obama of talking down to "n*ggers."

Anyway, can we talk about the weather now?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-23-2008, 08:38 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Anyway, can we talk about the weather now?
Agreed
Glenn and John, don't go changin' anything because of the comment section. The weather discussion is just fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Had to make a quick correction, just at the ouset: Jackson did not refer to Obama as a n*gger; he accused Obama of talking down to "n*ggers."
I heard the "talking down to the black people" quote, are you saying he made the same point earlier, and use the nword? or did he say something else? Just curious...
This brings me to what I consider the more disturbing and obvious point, which is what in the hell was he doing at Fox News in the first place? Entering the metaphorical lion's den?
Even if one is brave enough to walk through the valley of the shadow, TV is a media, especially when wielded by the crews at Fox News, that can make it look like you walked through a nursery school instead.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-24-2008, 02:24 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post


I heard the "talking down to the black people" quote, are you saying he made the same point earlier, and use the nword? or did he say something else? Just curious...
here's a link to satiate your curiosity, sir:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...WqirAD91VGLQG3

it appears that Mr. Mcworter (whom, of couse, I greatly respect), mischaracterized the Reverend's remarks.

Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-24-2008, 08:43 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
it appears that Mr. Mcworter (whom, of couse, I greatly respect), mischaracterized the Reverend's remarks.
Don't see how. John said that Jackson used the N-word in a different sentence before talking about cutting off the n-word. The article says essentially the same thing:

Quote:
In additional comments from that same conversation, first reported by TVNewser, Jackson is reported to have said Obama was "talking down to black people," and referred to blacks with the N-word when he said Obama was telling them "how to behave."
I've listened to the rest of the segment, and nowhere do I find any additional references by John to Jackson. Perhaps you could dingalink, or give a time code?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-24-2008, 04:47 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Don't see how. John said that Jackson used the N-word in a different sentence before talking about cutting off the n-word. The article says essentially the same thing:



I've listened to the rest of the segment, and nowhere do I find any additional references by John to Jackson. Perhaps you could dingalink, or give a time code?

um . . .seriously? in the clip the you just provided, John claims that Jackson called Obama an n*****. but the AP article makes it clear that this is not the case . . .
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-24-2008, 04:57 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
um . . .seriously? in the clip the you just provided, John claims that Jackson called Obama an n*****. but the AP article makes it clear that this is not the case . . .
Are we reading the same article? Here's the first sentence that I see when I follow your link:

Quote:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson used the N-word during a break in a TV interview where he criticized presidential candidate Barack Obama, Fox News confirmed Wednesday.
[added] Oh, wait. I think I see what you're saying now. You're drawing a distinction between Jackson just saying the word when discussing Obama and calling Obama that word directly. Uh, okay. If it's that important, I accept your distinction. But I'd hardly say that John "mischaracterized" Jackson's remarks. We're talking about a very small difference here.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 07-24-2008 at 05:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-24-2008, 05:23 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Are we reading the same article? Here's the first sentence that I see when I follow your link:



[added] Oh, wait. I think I see what you're saying now. You're drawing a distinction between Jackson just saying the word when discussing Obama and calling Obama that word directly. Uh, okay. If it's that important, I accept your distinction. But I'd hardly say that John "mischaracterized" Jackson's remarks. We're talking about a very small difference here.
It doesn't seem like a small distinction at all: if Jackson were to explicitly call out Obama, specifically, as a "n____", wouldn't it be a really barbed attack, probably worse than Jackson's threat of castration? This isn't what happened though; Jackson was referring to the entire black community, thus revealing that he did not mean the term in a hostile way.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-24-2008, 06:31 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

nikkibong:

Noted. We'll have to ATD on this one.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-23-2008, 03:25 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default bhtv, bleeping and free speech

Anyday is a nice day, regardless of the weather, when Glenn and John are featured guests. Thanks.
Thanks also to bhtv for not imposing arbitrary and silly "bleeping" or censorship:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/130...6&out=00:01:51
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-23-2008, 03:31 PM
otto otto is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 129
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

These guys just enjoy themselves so much. That's why they're such good bh.tvers.

So Rielle Hunter can wait.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-23-2008, 04:44 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/130...1&out=00:60:43

The Professor did us all proud with a weighty and suspenseful closing question.
Hopefully they will explore it in full, later.
In case they don't, the forum exists for this reason.

I would add to John's quick reply, that the framing of Obama's candidacy is so entrenched in the conglomerated process of media, political operatives and special interest forces that to assign significance to Obama already implicates anyone in the juggernaut.

The historical Black candidate meme is inescapable. The media looking for hooks such as comparing and contrasting present speeches with MLK is guaranteed, whether warranted or not. John is right, history will tell.
But it doesn't follow that the candidate should be discredited just for the association. Geez, give a nigga a break... will ya.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-23-2008, 05:29 PM
hankporter hankporter is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 6
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

These guys are really remarkable. I've watched all of their vlogs and they just keep getting better. They clearly enjoy their talks, have immense substance and nuance, and take eachother's ideas seriously.

The younger bloggers who populate most of this vlogs would do well to watch every minute of this talk.

I guess a Ph.D. is worth something.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-23-2008, 05:41 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hankporter View Post
These guys are really remarkable. I've watched all of their vlogs and they just keep getting better. They clearly enjoy their talks, have immense substance and nuance, and take eachother's ideas seriously.

The younger bloggers who populate most of this vlogs would do well to watch every minute of this talk.

I guess a Ph.D. is worth something.

Totally totally totally agree. This pairing may be second only to Bob and Mickey in terms of the enjoyment and stimulation factor. Ana Marie Cox would do well to take note. (Yes, I'm aware that that's a gratuitous jab.)

Special props to Glenn for mentioning Krauthammer's excellent column from last week; he eloquently voiced a lot of the worries that I have been experiencing regarding The One.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-23-2008, 05:53 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Special props to Glenn for mentioning Krauthammer's excellent column from last week; he eloquently voiced a lot of the worries that I have been experiencing regarding The One.
And how are you dealing with those worries? Or has that hit piece sealed the deal for you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701839_pf.html
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:03 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
Or has that hit piece sealed the deal for you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701839_pf.html
Does it worry you a tad that Glenn raises these concerns? He brought up a Krauthammer article.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:16 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Does it worry you a tad that Glenn raises these concerns? He brought up a Krauthammer article.
Worry is not the mix for me. The clear cut choice is so obvious, that while I might overlook some "alleged" character flaws, what are we discussing?

Of course I agree that Obama is a subject for scrutiny and likely to be tarred by psychologizing. But I am not confident that it amounts to a hill of beans in the end. Yes, whether he is a secret Muslim or McCain is a Manchurian candidate are interesting and likely to inspire their detractors further.
Is picking wisely incumbent upon all good citizens (myself included, ha), yes.

What I can glean from tea leaf reading or an informed opinion by a man I respect greatly (Glenn Loury) is of limited value in this context.

I will be happy or frustrated to discuss it seriously to the extent that the questioner is in my mind sincere. You are among the sincere ones. Krauthhammer is one of the "One" crowd that use a shorthand meme to win political points, not to further our democracy or enlighten the electorate.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:42 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post

I will be happy or frustrated to discuss it seriously to the extent that the questioner is in my mind sincere. You are among the sincere ones. Krauthhammer is one of the "One" crowd that use a shorthand meme to win political points, not to further our democracy or enlighten the electorate.
Understood, the lesser of two evils concept. But it's not just Krauthammer; Sullivan had similar concerns recently. Just sayin'. *wink*
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:59 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
*wink*
Back at ya.
Lesser of two evils only in the sense that we are offered limited options.
But, I don't share the media generated disdain for either of the candidates. Isn't it simultaneously true that the media is engaged in Obama's coronation, while also pumping slander and innuendo?
Aren't they primping up McCain while also starting to enumerate the gaffes and the age meme?
The media and the candidates are flawed humans, can we let them join the club? The aura of the Presidency assigns impossible standards to the judgment process.
I'd rather have a beer with the candidate whom I will vote for. Not because he is just regular folks, but because I would like him to be accountable to the desires I have projected upon him. It isn't likely to happen.
But expecting them to meet my personal standards, while predictable, will likely fall somewhat short. But as John McWorther said:time will tell.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:52 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
Back at ya.
Lesser of two evils only in the sense that we are offered limited options.
But, I don't share the media generated disdain for either of the candidates. Isn't it simultaneously true that the media is engaged in Obama's coronation, while also pumping slander and innuendo?
Aren't they primping up McCain while also starting to enumerate the gaffes and the age meme?
The media and the candidates are flawed humans, can we let them join the club? The aura of the Presidency assigns impossible standards to the judgment process.
Don't try that fancy psychologizing on me...

But I have to admire Obama's moxie. As they say at eucre, 'go big or stay at home.'
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:07 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
And how are you dealing with those worries?
Well, walking through downtown Portland yesterday, some green volunteer asked me if I have a "minute for Barack Obama." I responded that he should have a minute for me! That helped. (Full disclosure: I once canvassed for Obama, myself!)

Otherwise, if doing that doesn't fully disable my worries this does:

http://www.deschutesbrewery.com/BrewPub/OnTap/5830.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:26 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Well, walking through downtown Portland yesterday, some green volunteer asked me if I have a "minute for Barack Obama." I responded that he should have a minute for me! That helped. (Full disclosure: I once canvassed for Obama, myself!)

Otherwise, if doing that doesn't fully disable my worries this does:

http://www.deschutesbrewery.com/BrewPub/OnTap/5830.aspx
Agreed, fatigue sets in. Good brew helps.

"I responded that he should have a minute for me!"

The whole process does have built in gag reflex aspects. But we are stuck with it. I'll toast to our surviving it. Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:22 PM
hankporter hankporter is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 6
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

I think the difference between Loury/McWhorter, Wright/Kaus, and the Science Saturday guys is that there is a preexisting relationship and an expertise (exempting Kaus, who's a serves as effective foil for RW) that allows ideas to develop through the conversation. The Free Wills have an element of this too. The ideas gets teased out through the hour and into an ongoing series of conversations over months.

Too many of the blogger vs. blogger vlogs are like bad conversations with each person reviving some pre-prepared blog post, then a bit of disagreement, and then the other person offer some sort of canned idea, and repeat.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-23-2008, 05:41 PM
gwlaw99 gwlaw99 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 260
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

I am sure a lot of commenters won't like this analogy, but Al Gore's decent into post political rediculousness with sea levels rising 20 feet is similar to Jackson's.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:31 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post
I am sure a lot of commenters won't like this analogy, but Al Gore's decent into post political rediculousness with sea levels rising 20 feet is similar to Jackson's.
Where's the part where it becomes ridiculous? Ambitious? I'd say so. Do you have any data?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-23-2008, 07:27 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post
I am sure a lot of commenters won't like this analogy, but Al Gore's decent into post political with sea levels rising 20 feet is similar to Jackson's.
Good point, except for the fact that is made obvious by your post, and others like it, that Gore, remains one of the biggest thorns in your collective sides much to his credit IMHO.
<humor, maybe> Perhaps you could give the lefties the approximate altitude of the top of your dwelling so they will know when to reverse the imaginary effects of their imaginary phenomenon? </humor, maybe>
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-23-2008, 08:00 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post
I am sure a lot of commenters won't like this analogy, but Al Gore's decent into post political rediculousness with sea levels rising 20 feet is similar to Jackson's.
I don't agree that Gore has become ridiculous. You can quibble with some of his specific predictions, but I think he's had an enormous impact in raising awareness about AGW. You can disagree with the plausibility of his exhortations to change our energy base, but I think he has specified a goal that is worthy and helps to provide focus. Gore has moved from being a pragmatic, day-to-day politician into a new role that looks at a bigger picture and a longer time frame and talks about ideals more than is possible for an American officeholder.

By contrast, Jesse Jackson does not strike me as having contributed to consciousness-raising or as having acted as a spokesman for our better angels in quite some time. He seems lately to be mostly interested in keeping himself in the limelight, and if Glenn and John are to be believed, in feathering his own nest.

I suspect that you do not share Gore's beliefs or ideals, and therefore, would like to diminish him. Certainly, that is the clear objective of many on the right. Dislike puts it too strongly, because I've become inured to this ad hominem approach of debating AGW. Let's just say that I don't buy your analogy.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-24-2008, 10:49 AM
gwlaw99 gwlaw99 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 260
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I suspect that you do not share Gore's beliefs or ideals, and therefore, would like to diminish him. Certainly, that is the clear objective of many on the right.
I would hope that no serious person believes in a 20 foot rise in sea level or that the US could possibly be close to 100% reliant on renewable sources of energy in 10 years (20% would be an achievement of astounding porportion). But then again, religion can make anyone believe anything despite the fact that the world hasn't warmed in 10 years, sea levels have stopped rising and that cloud cover inputs in predicitve global warming models have been proven incorrect and the American Physical Society is opening debate over the flawed data used by IPCC to reach it's conclusions.

Last edited by gwlaw99; 07-24-2008 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-24-2008, 12:21 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post
I would hope that no serious person believes in a 20 foot rise in sea level or that the US could possibly be close to 100% reliant on renewable sources of energy in 10 years ...
You can hope all you want. You can also pick your own definition of serious.

I will invoke the same privileges and say that I hope that the marginalization of AGW deniers and their can't-do attitude continues.

Also, I don't know if you saw it, but we just finished a long discussion of many of the same points you raise. See the thread under "The Skinny on Obesity," beginning here. Here's the executive summary:

o Cherry-picking short time series of contradictory data does not disprove the larger theory or deflate the validity of the entire database. The global climate is a noisy system.

o You're misrepresenting the position of the APS. What's really happening is that one of their publications is devoting one issue to the debate, and the denialist perspective so far appears to be represented by one person.

o You're right about the uncertainty of modeling long-term outcomes. No one disputes that. On the other hand, your side fails to consider the reality that we have to make decisions based on incomplete understanding, and your side also fails to consider the costs if the best predictions that we're able to make are correct.

Your side also fails to admit that it's not a once-and-for-all decision that's being made here, and that many of the steps that we could be taking right now would not be economically crippling, and in fact, could well turn out to be beneficial in the long run. You're not acknowledging that it's a process that can be tuned as time progresses and information and understanding improves. Instead, all you want to do is cling to the attitude of "All is well. Do nothing."

I'm done debating AGW for a while. Reasonable people, in my view, start by admitting the existence of the problem and then talk about how best to address it. You're welcome to have the last word.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-24-2008, 02:36 PM
gwlaw99 gwlaw99 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 260
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
You can hope all you want. You can also pick your own definition of serious.

I will invoke the same privileges and say that I hope that the marginalization of AGW deniers and their can't-do attitude continues.
I don't deny that AGW exists any more than you deny that scientific method exists when you make world changing claims based on incomplete flawed computer models that can not accurately predict the extent of the problem. And let me put it bluntly, it is literally impossible to design a way for 100% use of renewable energy in 10 years. I DARE you to show me a plan on how it could be done in any realistic way and prove that Al Gore isn't anything but a bufoon.

Quote:
o Cherry-picking short time series of contradictory data does not disprove the larger theory or deflate the validity of the entire database. The global climate is a noisy system.
Of course it doesn't, but you don't have to disprove something that hasn't yet been proven and is based on a theory whose assumptions are continuously falling apart.

Quote:
o You're misrepresenting the position of the APS. What's really happening is that one of their publications is devoting one issue to the debate, and the denialist perspective so far appears to be represented by one person.
I never said it was the position of APS. I said they are having a debate over it. Calling me a denialist is no less childish than someone calling you an adherent to a religous cult. No one should be denying or declaring scientific certainty on any subject in which the models are so poor and the computer based projections do not comport with data. What we need is science and what we have now is flawed speculation.

Quote:
o You're right about the uncertainty of modeling long-term outcomes. No one disputes that. On the other hand, your side fails to consider the reality that we have to make decisions based on incomplete understanding, and your side also fails to consider the costs if the best predictions that we're able to make are correct.

Your side also fails to admit that it's not a once-and-for-all decision that's being made here, and that many of the steps that we could be taking right now would not be economically crippling, and in fact, could well turn out to be beneficial in the long run. You're not acknowledging that it's a process that can be tuned as time progresses and information and understanding improves. Instead, all you want to do is cling to the attitude of "All is well. Do nothing."
Sorry, I thought we were discussing Al Gore and his rediculous idea to have us use only renewable energy in 10 years. This would be completely and utterly economically crippling to the economy. So much so that it would be literally impossible to achieve.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-24-2008, 02:59 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post
I don't deny that AGW exists ...
Glad to hear that.

Quote:
... prove that Al Gore isn't anything but a bufoon.
Not so glad to hear that. If you don't want to be lumped in with the deniers, you might start by getting past this narrow obsession. It's impossible to take you seriously if it appears as though this is the first item on your agenda.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 07-24-2008 at 03:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-24-2008, 03:13 PM
gwlaw99 gwlaw99 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 260
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Glad to hear that.
Not so glad to hear that. If you don't want to be lumped in with the deniers, you might start by getting past this narrow obsession. It's impossible to take you seriously if it appears as though this is the first item on your agenda.
You will remember that this conversation was started because I was making a comparison to Jesse Jackson in regards to once serious politicians. It's not the top of my agenda regarding global warming; it's related to diavlog about which we are commenting.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-24-2008, 03:38 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post
You will remember that this conversation was started because I was making a comparison to Jesse Jackson in regards to once serious politicians. It's not the top of my agenda regarding global warming; it's related to diavlog about which we are commenting.
Sorry, gw, I did forget where we had started. My bad. Conservatives dissing Al Gore tends to provoke a pre-cached response from me. Not that I'm proud of that, but that's how the wiring has developed.

Ahhh, let's see. You think Al Gore's a buffoon and I think he provides vision. You think he's not worth listening to and I do. You support your claim that Gore is a buffoon by invoking standard AGW-denialist ... oops ... -skeptic talking points. I have a pre-cached reaction for those, too.

Guess there's not much to say beyond that. But I do apologize for my part in losing track of the conversational thread.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-24-2008, 03:53 PM
gwlaw99 gwlaw99 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 260
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Sorry, gw, I did forget where we had started. My bad. Conservatives dissing Al Gore tends to provoke a pre-cached response from me. Not that I'm proud of that, but that's how the wiring has developed.

Ahhh, let's see. You think Al Gore's a buffoon and I think he provides vision. You think he's not worth listening to and I do. You support your claim that Gore is a buffoon by invoking standard AGW-denialist ... oops ... -skeptic talking points. I have a pre-cached reaction for those, too.

Guess there's not much to say beyond that. But I do apologize for my part in losing track of the conversational thread.
Gore is a bufoon because he thinks the sea levels will rise 20 feet this century and that it's possible to switch to 100% renewable sources of energy in 10 years. It hurts to have a demogogue interjected in an important discussion about AGW, just as it impedes the important discussion of racism to have Jesse Jackson in the middle of it. Although, I am sure some people think he provides "vision" as well.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-24-2008, 03:59 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post
Gore is a bufoon because he thinks the sea levels will rise 20 feet this century and that it's possible to switch to 100% renewable sources of energy in 10 years. It hurts to have a demogogue interjected in an important discussion about AGW, just as it impedes the important discussion of racism to have Jesse Jackson in the middle of it. Although, I am sure some people think he provides "vision" as well.
I'd still like to know what data you base the first assertion on. Have you done any calculations? Do you know the volume currently bound in ice, and do you have any private projections for melt rate the rest of us should be aware of?

Also it seems pretty clear Gore is using space program rhetoric as a motivating device. Set an ambitious goal, and take it as far it'll go. Nobody's done more to push the GW debate forward, and most of the complaints about him don't rise above partisan nittering.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-25-2008, 12:47 PM
Richard from Amherst Richard from Amherst is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Western Massacchusetts
Posts: 123
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Sorry, gw, I did forget where we had started. My bad. Conservatives dissing Al Gore tends to provoke a pre-cached response from me. Not that I'm proud of that, but that's how the wiring has developed.

Ahhh, let's see. You think Al Gore's a buffoon and I think he provides vision. You think he's not worth listening to and I do. You support your claim that Gore is a buffoon by invoking standard AGW-denialist ... oops ... -skeptic talking points. I have a pre-cached reaction for those, too.
Brendan:

At the risk of carrying this thread a bit further from its original starting topic I'd like to talk about Al Gore a bit with you.

You are not alone in your cached response to conservative (or other?) dising of Al Gore (the Gorical) I get in trouble all the time for not bowing to old Al.

However candidly GW has some points about Gore's use (one might say misuse) of scientific research and hyperbole in the face of what he (Gore) clearly views to be an environmental crisis.

In my opinion nearly everyone participating in the climate debate (on all sides) is guilty of cherry picking and hyperbole. The people I respect admit that much of the time they don't have a clue about what is really going on in climate system as a whole and have expertise on only a small piece of the puzzle.

Besides there is some question if we can keep world society going without major collapse if and make the stupendous changes he is calling for. It's a lot like changing the engines on the 747 we are riding in while it is flying at 35,000 feet. It may be a nice idea but not practical.

I have been diligently reading the research literature on this subject for a couple of years now and have the academic background in plant ecology going back to the work of Eugene P. Odum and Howard T. Odum in the 1970's (they had been working in the field since the 1950's). I am convicted that anthropogenic global warming is real and don't have a clue about how critical or trivial (or in between) it is when viewed as a factor in the warming of the entire world climate.

What rankles me about Al Gore is that he demigods and distorts the science to his own personal and political ends (in a manner not unlike a more polished version of Michael Moore). It is a bit like the "I invented the Internet" issue.
Yes Mr. Gore contributed to the birth of the Internet but it really started as ARPANET and if anybody can be individually credited with inventing the internet it was the Lincoln Laboratory scientist Larry and his packet switching design that made ARPANET possible.

All that being said he simply rubs me the wrong way when he speaks publicly because he is the political incarnation of "Eddie" Haskell (from "Leave it to Beaver") as if I recall correctly Maureen Dowd so aptly put it.

Candidly Senator Obama and his wife have a similar grating effect on me when they talk about "requiring" things of the American People (and now the European People) and not allowing the American People to do this or that.

My first reaction is "Not a chance fella" let the Germans follow him and elect him Prime Minister for all I care, I didn't vote for Clinton or Gore and I'm not going to be voting for Obama either. Admittedly that is a emotional response on my part, to a high level of what I read as pomposity that all of these guys share with at least a large part of the Left.

A bit like the Idea on the Web Roots that only the folks on the Upper West side can understand the New Yorker "Obama cover" and the rest of the rubes in "fly over country will think it is not satire but fact. That's just a bit condescending don't you think?

So I have now exposed my pre-cached reactions too. It appears we all have them. The nice thing about the forum is that we can get past them and talk civilly.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-25-2008, 01:33 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard from Amherst View Post
What rankles me about Al Gore is that he demigods and distorts the science to his own personal and political ends (in a manner not unlike a more polished version of Michael Moore). It is a bit like the "I invented the Internet" issue.
Yes Mr. Gore contributed to the birth of the Internet but it really started as ARPANET and if anybody can be individually credited with inventing the internet it was the Lincoln Laboratory scientist Larry and his packet switching design that made ARPANET possible.
Richard, you really ought to have Snopes'd this. The "Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet" meme is a smear. This is a big problem with all of the put-downs of Gore, specifically, from the right. First somebody tells a lie about him, then people line up and use the lies to denounce him.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 07-25-2008 at 01:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-25-2008, 01:45 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Actual Vice President Gore's quote
Quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999.
So you are right he doesn't take credit for "inventing" the internet just taking the initiative in it's creation. Silly me I thought that a bunch of creative scientists did that.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-25-2008, 01:49 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Actual Vice President Gore's quote So you are right he doesn't take credit for "inventing" the internet just taking the initiative in it's creation. Silly me I thought that a bunch of creative scientists did that.
Wow, most of the article was devoting to parsing that phrase and the distinction between taking responsibility as a legislator for having "created" and "inventing" in sense of having responsibility for the engineering. Did you miss that part?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-25-2008, 02:00 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Aw, Nuts

Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation. You like yours and the authors spin. If it takes an article to explain what Vice President Gore says to us ignorant gun loving rubes perhaps he should speak more clearly and then we won't need what he actually says interpreted for us so that we can understand what he meant.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.