Al Gore wins Nobel

[simba]

<p>“Do you like houseboats?”</p>

<p>Only if they are parked on the solid ground (can’t swim).</p>

[mini]

<p>You really are in a pickle. Maybe prayers to Vishnu are the best you can do. ;)</p>

<p>(Giving condoms to 11-year-olds…or to polar bears…might also help.)</p>

[simba]

<p>“Polar Bears”</p>

<p>Won’t touch that. That is funding father and uncle Mitch’s territory.</p>

<p>Vishnu? No. I am counting on Krishna. He will touch his right toe and dry land will appear.</p>

[mini]

<p>Well, one incarnation is as good as another. ;)</p>

[Keshira]

<p>I’m a liberal, kluge, and I am disgusted.
Please don’t paint everything in party lines.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House, according to two sources familiar with the documents.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302056.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302056.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[simba]

<p>keshira: what did kluge do to disgust you?</p>

[simba]

<p>“A CDC official familiar with both versions said Gerberding’s draft “was eviscerated,” cut from 14 pages to four. The version presented to the Senate committee consisted of six pages.”</p>

<p>I am sure the goal was nobel. Reduce the amount of paper needed - less tree chopping. But those damn liberals, they increased the size by 50%.</p>

<p>“The deletions directed by the White House included details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels, according to one official who had seen the original version.”</p>

<p>Agains what is the fixation on rising sea levels?</p>

<p>disgusted</p>

[Christcorp]

<p>Some excellent reading. However, I feel that many don’t want to hear certain truths, so they won’t read any of it. But for those interested in some of the global warming debate going on here, as well as the opinion that there are a lot of alarmists, here’s some reading.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml[/url]”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html[/url]”>http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html&lt;/a&gt; (Especially this portion on gore’s nobel price: <a href=“http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/10/behind-gores-nobel-peace-prize.html[/url]”>http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/10/behind-gores-nobel-peace-prize.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization”>Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization;

[simba]

<p>^ very nice.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Tommybill wrote:

hypocrisy of the right wing </p>

<hr>

<p>Post #155 by FF…. “If only the allied powers of the 1930’s had acted to thwart the growth of fascim, 50-60 million people would have been spared.”</p>

<p>When the anti-fascists of the 1930’s tried to warn the USA/west of the growth of fascim, the right wing called them communists, and sent goons to beat them up, and in some cases kill them. </p>

<p>I am never surprise by the hypocrisy of the right wing, but I am disappointed in the number of people who don’t recognize it.

</p>

<p>and also:

I do understand what hypocrisy is, your claim otherwise not withstanding. An example of hypocrisy would be lamenting the fact that the USA/West didn’t opposed the fascists in the 1930’s while not crediting those who did oppose the fascists because you disagree with other elements of the political beliefs.

</p>

<p>FF wrote:

But, it is still clear to me that you have no clue regarding the definition of hypocrisy and its applicability to this situation.

</p>

<p>to which Tommybill responded:

So explain it to me so that I will understand what you are taking about.

</p>

<p>OK, since on another thread you are intent on giving lessons on use of the English language, let me tell you where you are going wrong with your use of the term “hypocrisy”.</p>

<p>First, hypocrisy is generally tied to an individual act or thought. For example, it is blatant hypocrisy for Al Gore to tell people that they need to cut back on their carbon footprint while he himself has a footprint resembling Big Foot. </p>

<p>However, if one of Gore’s fellow liberals drives a hummer and/or owns a 20,000 square foot house but who has not made any personal pronouncements concerning how others should cut back, he would not be guilty of hypocrisy just because he is a liberal or fellow member of the “left wing”. It is not sufficient to just have some common beliefs with a group or person who may exhibit hypocritical behavior to be branded as a hypocrite. In your attempt to smear all of the “right wing” you make the faulty conclusion that the “right wing” marches in lock step on all issues. Now, if noted current day isolationists like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanon had made a statement about how the non-fascist countries should have been more proactive in preventing WW II then a possibly valid argument could be made that they were speaking hypocritically. However, since I hold their views on this issue with disdain (even though I may agree with some of their other views), a charge of hypocrisy is ludicrous.</p>

<p>A second key ingredient for hypocrisy to exist is for the hypocritical “act” to occur in the same general time frame of the stated belief. For example, if Al Gore were to do more study and talk to more scientists or perhaps just wait another 10 years and see that his current alarmism was unfounded and if he comes out with this new belief, then he would no longer be a hypocrite for having a huge energy-wasting house and flying around in a private jet. </p>

<p>As another example more related to your allegation of hypocrisy, consider the case of Arthur Vandenburgh. In the 1930’s he was a leading proponent of isolationism and fought to keep the US out of any involvement with foreign countries. Yet, after seeing the result of isolationism that resulted in the most devastating war the world has ever seen, he changed his tune completely and became a leading internationalist and was instrumental in forming the United Nations. Was that hypocrisy? Of course not, it was learning by one’s mistakes - something that should be praised.</p>

<p>Using your example of hypocrisy being that of “not crediting” those who had the opposing and ultimately correct view is quite interesting. By that measure, every time a Democrat speaks out against slavery or decries civil rights abuses against African Americans in the days of Jim Crow he would be a hypocrite unless he in the same breath says something like, “Thank God for the Republicans who were on the right side of those issues.” So, for you to hold the “right wing” to a standard that you don’t also hold the “left wing” is … hypocritical.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>Thanks ff…. I appreciate your efforts at explaining what you think hypocrisy is and how you would have it defined. </p>

<p>So am I to assume you agree with me that we should look back on the Lincoln Brigade as heroes, which was and is my only point. Or are those who claim: the Lincoln Brigade was made up of un-American left wingers, who were rightfully denied honest work by American capitalists when they returned home from Spain, correct in their reading of history?</p>

<p>So what is it Lincoln Brigade……Heroes or un-American left wingers?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Maybe a little of both. To the extent that some were there not to defeat fascism but rather to instill Marxism with it brutal treatment of civilians and priests and nuns, they can hardly be treated as heroes. Others may have legitimately fought to defeat fascism and deplored the brutality of the communists.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>“Maybe a little of both. To the extent that some were there not to defeat fascism but rather to instill Marxism with it brutal treatment of civilians and priests and nuns, they can hardly be treated as heroes. Others may have legitimately fought to defeat fascism and deplored the brutality of the communists.”</p>

<p>Actually the most sense you have made in this whole exchange. Although I don’t think the Lincoln brigade was anywhere near as brutal as the right wing claims or as innocent as the left wing claims. I do know that almost all of the men who returned to the US returned as anti-communists because of what they witnessed the communists do while they were in Spain. </p>

<p>Some of the most interesting conversations I have ever had were with a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade. He was a very hard left wing anti-communist, and a modest man who could tell great stories. I have always assumed the details were inflated, but I knew enough to know the stories were true.</p>