Monday, October 15, 2007

Why Does the Right Hate Gore? Because He's Right

I’m not one to pass along a straight regurg, but today's New York Times op-ed by Paul Krugman’s is superb. He asks the simple question, “Why do Republicans hate Al Gore?”. The simple answer is because he’s right, despite all right-wing attempts to convince people otherwise.

Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed.


Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Good stuff.

20 comments:

anitablake said...

Many of us are aware that we need to do more for our environment and many of us are aware of how to help our environment. However, it seems that very few of us practice this knowledge for we like how convient our lives have been made by disposable cleaning products, prepackage foods, disposable diapers, and more. Also, too few of us give away unwanted items such as old furniture or baby clothes because they can't be troubled to drop them off at one of the many donation operations. Just take a look curbside on garbage day. I was astounded when I recently learned that the HRM is reducing the number of garbage bags per household to six. Six! We have a family of four, one still in diapers, and we usually only have one bag every two weeks. What is everybody else doing?

INK Atbp. said...

Hi there Odiyya! How are you? You have a very organized blog and very informative too. How you were able to have all those "feeders" and ads on your blog? Do you earn money from those ads? Just curious.

Julian's blog said...

Hi there!
Oh, I lived in Vancouver for about 10 years and wrote for the morning newspaper...The Province.
Glad to stumble across your site.
Check out my own blog action project...with animated clips, award-winning short documentaries, music videos, etc.
Julian
www.ijulian.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Odiyya,
I just don't understand why there is so much ire directed at the idea of climate change and to those who want educate the public on the subject. Westerners so often deride pararational viewpoints as backward, that it's hard to see how and why deniers cling to the "because I said so" arguement.
National Geographic's cover article on Pakistan a couple of months ago included a professor recounting that many of his graduate students reject the scientific explanation for earthquakes, instead contending that geological events are simply the will of their Creator. How is the average climate change-denier any different?

Odiyya said...

You hit the whole story right on the head anon. None of the denier arguments make an ounce of sense, and that is the prime reason why this blog has adopted a firm policy of non-cooperation with their view point (a previous anonymous comment to this post was rejected out of hand already).

If people want to argue about adult issues, they need to present adult arguments. This is something the denier camp fails at through each turn. I feel your frustration.

Chris Bassoo said...

Posted by Christopher Bassoo, Canada

I wanted to thank you for the informative and enjoyable read. I have been sitting here with my coffee and laptop enjoying a Bassoo family evening. Again many thanks, warmest of regards Chris Bassoo, Toronto, Canada

kitebrdr said...

Not being a republican or democrat, I felt u were still describing me. I feel the Govt already gets way, way too much of my money. Why would I continue to send more money to an organization that I have to give $3 to for $1 of benefits. The govt is woefully inefficient. Of all the problems they have been addressing with all the gizzillions of tax dollars they have collected since the great society, what has been solved. Education, poverty, anything. All still there, all we need it to throw more money at it. Sure.

As for bombing enemies. You be the chief negotiator with the radical terrorists. I suggest a kevlar turtle neck.

As for global warming, or should I say global climate change (a recent change to try to ensure they cover both sides since they really don't know if it will get warmer or cooler). What happened to the going into the next ice age talk of 1970 to 1980. 1978 these same scientists were in front of congress bemoaning the fact that they had not heeded the warnings of 1970 and the ice age was here. Global warming is a money issue. Scientists make money from grants, they get grants by creating a crisis. The grant money on global warming is up a hundred fold, so I guess they were successful.

Politically global warming is how the govt seeks to further reduce freedom. This year the Supreme Court found that CO2 is a pollutant. That means the govt can regulate it. The govt is beginning the limitation of companies carbon emmissions. We as individuals will not be far behind. That means limited electricity usage and gasoline. U can have more than the limit, u will just have to buy acceptions from the govt.

As for Algore. I don't hate him. He is just a lifelong politician that has never done anything. He is an incredible hipocrite that gobbles up resources while tell us we should not. I just hope he runs for president again cuz he makes me laugh...

Odiyya said...

kitebrdr - your commentary is so incredibly bizarre on so many levels i don't even know where to start.

re: government. If you're going to be this naively exclusive in your view then i can't help you. Government suffers inefficiencies in the same way way corporations suffer greed. In Government money may get wasted, in corporations any form of social concern is plowed over for profit. The key is balance between two massively faulty institutions.

RE: bombing enemies. i'm not going to dignify that with a response.

RE: climate change and freezing. This was one small group of scientists with one take three decades ago that skeptics throughout the world harp on because they have no real argument. You can read the real deal here.

RE: global warming and freedom. see comments above. You're ignoring the benefits we all enjoy through free government to harp on the faults. Problems with education etc? yeah we have them. We also have the best education and social systems in the history of human race because of our systems of government.

Meanwhile you categorically ignore the serious faults of the private sector. The most relevant of which is the outstanding job they've done creating runaway levels of greenhouse gases.

kitebrdr said...

Odiyya,

Lets agree to disagree on Global Warming, Diplomacy, and algore. But ur trust in the govt and loathing of the private sector.

I don't think I ever stated that I thought the private sector was pristine. I do however like the fact that at least I understand their motives...profit. The same as ur motive by the way and mine too.

Ur separation of govt and private sector is curious. The govt takes my money, pisses away 70% on red tape and beaurocrats, then gives it to corporations they deem worthy or who they owe for campain contributions. Example:

Ethanol in the US. Corn is already the most subsidised crop in the US. Grown mostly by large corp. own farms. Now the govt is subsidising ethanol production, even building a $20 mil ethanol plant in Columbia. Interesting that at least one expert, Tad W. Patzek claims that ethanol takes 6 times the energy to produce it than it provides. According to Tad each acre provides only about 1 watt. There are some predictions that as the cost of corn rises to produce the levels of ethaol mandated by the US govt, clear cutting of the rain forrest will increase to fill the need for corn. The US govt at work.

U have such utter contempt for the private sector...so r u against a market based economy? U don't believe in the law of supply and demand and prices driven by them? Would you rather have a state controlled ecomomy?

One last thing...Dignify my comment with a response? You suggest negotiation with a group that sanctions cutting off innocent human beings heads, suicide bombing civilians, and flying plane into buildings. Do you really think rational discussion is the solution?

Anuj said...

Well you certainly have a point, climate change implies that people will have to change their viewpoints in order to combat the problem. However the sad thing is that several people know about it but don't understand it or why we have to take steps now and why is it such a big problem in the first place.

Something even more disappointing was the fact that nobody was even trying to get the public aware in a proper manner,until Gore. I am happy that he had the courage to step onto the plate and challenge people into changing their views and creating allies not enemies out of them. Hat's off to such a courageous man...

Odiyya said...

Your very good at putting words in others mouths kitebrdr, but unfortunately no assertion you made reflects my opinions on the matter. If you'd like to hear those then feel free to read further into this blog.

I have no loathing of the private sector. Any dedicated environmentalist will tell you that the way to solve our ecological problems is through market mechanisms.

you're building your argument on your own loathing of government and an single minded focus on ethanol subsidies. Neither of which have anything to do with anything i'm saying here.

Militant Agnostic said...

I don't think Gore is right. As an American citizen, I certainly wouldn't want him running my country and making big decisions. I think there are more serious issues to be dealth with right now

Steven Chen said...

Hi kitebrdr,

I think the nature human had was as good as human could get. It is not good if human try to take things away from nature, put things into the nature, or move things around within the nature in big quantity. Burning fossil fuel puts huge amount of CO2 into the nature. That is not good.

The government is not perfect. However, you can not depend on the private sector to clean their own problem. People, especially the people who have children to protect, have to speak out.

For the sake of our children, please vote for good environment policy and good leader.

Fitness By Marilyn said...

We Don't! You are quoting a very biased Liberal news media. Conservatives applaud Gore for his work regarding global warming and awareness issues. We are very happy that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Most feel that he wasn't the choice candidate due to the many heroes who have given their lives for their country and world peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are against the movie due to untruths that are in the movie. Also Gore also does not "Walk The Walk" as he has a very extravagant lifestyle and is very rich being able to afford to be more careful of his own environment. You are only hearing one side of the story...... A long time political activist and news junkie!

Anonymous said...

Militant Ag,
What's more important than a debate that centers on national and international economies, fundamental characteristics of the industrial way of life, and questions about the credibility of Western science as a way of thinking?

Fitness,
Can you cite your assertions? Your comment sounds like you claim to speak for all conservatives. "Conservatives" does not describe a single group of people. Perhaps you should constrain your remarks to some particular group or groups who "applaud Gore for his work regarding global warming and awareness issues."

Steven Chen said...

Hi Odiyya,

I try to look at the environment issue from natural resources perspective. When people over use the natural resources, they cause environment problems. Part of global warming is caused by human activities. Burning fossil fuels and cutting down the forest are main part of that.

The global warming deniers will use all kind non-sense so that they can keep over use the natural resources for their selfish reason. Some of the “conservatives” do the same. There is no way to change the mind of those people, because they are just selfish. It is sad. I hope God could see that. Saving the Earth, God’s proud creation, is more important than anything else.

The good thing is that there are still a lot people care about their children. I try to get those people on board. I am telling those people that the deniers are trying to steal the natural resources from their children. By the way, a favorite climate is the most important natural resource.

daharja said...

It's not just the right who think Gore is less than credible.

Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" completely ignores the largest single contributing factor in climate change, which is the livestock industry.

The 390 page 2006 United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow" (link - http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm) notes that the livestock industry is responsible for a larger percentage of greenhouse gas emissions than the world's entire transport sector - cars, buses, trucks, trains, shipping combined.

Forget buying that expensive hybrid car. Serious environmentalists need to switch to a vegetarian diet, or at the very least considerably reduce their animal product consumption, as the UN report recommends an immediate halving of the world's livestock numbers.

The report is worth a read, but for those who are short on time, the link I have posted includes the short (page long) Executive Summary.

Odiyya said...

hi daharja,

i think your point is valid, but i've always had a problem with it from two standpoints.

first, it ignores the fact that there were once vast herds of large mammals roaming the earth. so when compared to the natural baseline level, i'm not sure livestock is contributing any more greenhouse gases than large herd animals have throughout history. For example, the bison herds in north america numbered 60 million before being decimated by european settlers. The total head of cattle in the states today? just 43 million, way less than historical.

Conversely, the only successful vegetarian culture is hindu india where there are more than 280 million head of cattle - way more per capita than the US - because vegetarians still consume milk products and cows that produce milk still produce methane.

I think there is a strong case for advocating increased vegetarianism because it reduces the carbon footprint in PROCESSING livestock, but based on the evidence i've seen to date BLAMING animal flatulence appears somewhat misguided.

I'm interested to read more if anyone has some further analysis available.

Steven Chen said...

Hi daharja,

I am not a vegetarian. However, I would consider to eat less meat or even became vegetarian in order to save the earth. At the same time, I would like to ask you and other vegetarians to support policies which will reduce the use of fossil fuel. Do you think that is fare request?

If you truly care about this Earth, do not trash Al Gore. Thank you.

E. R. Dunhill said...

daharja,
You raise an important point, that greenhouse gas emissions come from a variety of sources. But to say, “Forget buying that expensive hybrid car…” is thinking in the wrong direction. People do need to reduce their energy consumption from transportation, just as they do in their diets (which can be achieved by eating less meat, and by other means, like eating local produce), in their consumer goods, and in their homes.
There’s a good study in favor of dietary changes as part of a green lifestyle, in which the authors estimate the carbon savings of switching from a typical American diet to a vegan one as greater than the benefit of switching from an SUV to a hybrid. (I'll try to find said study.) But, the more lifestyle changes we realize, the greater the benefit.

Odiyya,
I think we also need to consider the implications of exporting agricultural practices, crops, and animals. For instance, Americans consume beef that is produced in places like Brasil, where there have not historically been herds of ruminant animals. Moreover, pasture land is achieved there (in part) by burning dense forest. This has a significant effect on the dietary carbon footprint.

-erd