I’ve had a more inclusive attitude towards our conservative friends here at BfAz than my colleagues. I try to distinguish between a troll (Thucky, for example) and someone with an opposing view who wants to engage in dialogue.
I even once restored our friend Steve’s ability to comment after an unintentional glitch caused his comments to be blocked.
But alas ole Steve has me thinking that maybe Donna’s and BlueMeanie’s harsher stance (i.e., they’re all trolls) is right after all.
At a minimum, Steve’s on double secret probation. Here’s why:
I was having a friendly debate with Steve about climate change in the comment section of BlueMeanie’s post, The epistemic closure of the conservative mind, when he decided to out-Thucky Thucky with this breathtaking comment:
You use the “per capita” measurement for CO2 output, and it is very clever that you do. That puts Canada and the United States at the top of the heap for polluting. But that is NOT the best way to measure CO2 output. If CO2 output matters, then it should be the total amount being spewed into air, regardless of population. The United States would still be #2 and would therefore be penalized harsher than countries with lesser outputs.
So, in Steve’s world, acceptable levels of carbon emission would be allocated per country, regardless of size. It reminds me of the early days of the income tax, when conservatives originally wanted to impose the tax on a per person basis (a “head tax,” it was called), rather than impose it based on the level of income. So, using today’s terminology, a McDonald’s worker would pay the same amount (not the same rate, but the same dollar amount) as a hedge fund manager. I’m guessing a few rich conservatives still have this view.
Thus, in Steve’s world, tiny countries like Uruguay and Israel would only be asked to limit their level of carbon emission to that of the United States. When Sudan split into two, its acceptable carbon emission level doubled. If the Koreas ever re-united, their acceptable carbon emissions would be halved.
And I’m sure China, with a population four times ours, would happily go along with the “Steve Doctrine.” The Chinese understand that Americans, in light of their “exceptionalism,” should not be required to conserve to the same degree as lowly Asians.
Ironically, the United States would not fare well under the Steve doctrine, as it would have to limit its per capita emissions to one-tenth that of the rest of the world.
One of my favorite Thucky comments was one in which he “explained” to me that the U.S. needed to grow its population going forward at the rate it had for the past 150 years in order to maintain a strong economy. The obvious problem, which I pointed out to Thuck, was that we’d one day have over 4 billion people living on the same, already crowded in parts, land mass if his advice were heeded.
Steve’s comment was on the same level as Thucky’s. But Steve, unlike Thucky, is a seemingly decent guy.
So, I wonder. What prompts a reasonably intelligent guy like Steve to make such an idiotic statement? I think it’s expedience. It suited Steve’s objective to counter my point in our mini-debate to dispute my reference to per capita CO2 emissions, so he did, despite how idiotic his argument was. I once wrote a post, Successfully Nailing Jell-O to a Wall, about a lengthy email exchange I had with a conservative friend who lost track of his expedient arguments and entirely contradicted himself. Ironically, Steve commented on that post, and here is my response regarding expedience:
I submit to you that the reason for the result was expedience. He said whatever he thought furthered his position at the time. He ultimately ran into a contradiction by doing so.
Which brings me back to Donna’s and BlueMeanie’s view. I like to engage in debate, but only if my debating partner is intellectually honest. And making arguments out of expedience is not intellectually honest. It’s what I think Donna and BlueMeanie consider trolling. And so do I.
This discussion makes me long for the good old days at BfA. I love writing on The Range at the Tucson Weekly, but the commenters! Some, of course, are terrific, and some argue against me with reason and facts, but the argument here is Plato-era-Agora quality compared to some of what goes on where I live these days.
It would be stupid of me to disagree with the straw man argument you created. It is precise, neat and very fair; none of which the real world is. And what do I think the Chinese would say to my proposal? I think they would respond the same way they did when the Kyoto protocols were first proposed…they would say (paraphrasing here for dramatic effect), “go pound sand where the sun don’t shine, we are not conforming to this crap”. And they would go on doing what they were doing. Of course, the Kyoto Protocols then exempted them from any goals or targets.
That is what I think they are going to do with any treaty that attempts to limit them and I don’t blame them; they are a developing industrial nation, after all. But I then think the United States and the UN will go along with it and we will absorb a large part of their share of pollution.
But I do have to wonder, Bob, why does it matter if I am skeptical that man is the cause of climate change? Or that it bothers me how the breakout for the reduction of greenhouse gases is made? I have lost the argument already and your side is moving forward in success. Is it really necessary that I be convinced as to the rightness of your cause, as well? I already agree that it is likely climate change is occurring; I am just not convinced that man is the cause of the change. But even in holding that opinion, I am like Demosthenes standing at the seashore with a mouth full of pebbles shouting his oratory above the crash of the waves…it makes a great way to exercise debate skills, but it pointless otherwise.
Getting back to your example, if everything were equal, dividing the burden equally would make sense. But as I said, things are not equal. You and I have been talking about the big guys at the top of heap, but I would like to switch gears and talk a little about the countries at the bottom. From first hand experience I can tell you that countries like Chad, Somalia, and Niger can not afford to reduce anything. I assume you would agree with me that they – and countries like them – should be exempted from reductions because their industrialization is virtually non-existant. I have even heard discussions that they should even be granted some sort of credits so that big nations could pay them for their “share” of world pollution giving that country a source of income and allowing the big country to pollute a little more. What do you think of that?
As to whether I would prefer the United States be respected or hated, of course I would prefer respected. But – again from personal experience – you might be surprised at how much we are respected, even loved, on a person-to-person basis. You wouldn’t know that from the news, but I found it to be true even in nations that were supposedly hostile to us. I would like it to stay that way. If anything, I am more concerned about our need to wage war than our stance on climate change in destroying that connection. I know – again from personal experience – that we have a very powerful and well trained military that we seem too easy to use in situations where diplomacy is more appropriate.
“But I do have to wonder, Bob, why does it matter if I am skeptical that man is the cause of climate change? Or that it bothers me how the breakout for the reduction of greenhouse gases is made?”
Steve, I suppose if it matters at all it’s that the more people that get climate change and mankind’s role in causing it, the more likely corrective action will be taken on time to avert complete disaster. In all likelihood, however, it’s likely too late. But my objective in my posts and these mini-debates in the comment section just that I enjoy the back and forth. I don’t think I’m actually accomplishing anything.
We are alike in that way. I enjoy the back and forth, but I never for an instant think I changing anything. You, at least, can claim credit for changing my mind about the income tax. Not that it matters to anyone, but I can be pretty intransigent at times. ;o)
As A person who has been banned by both right wingers and liberals I am reluctant to support banning. Conservatives ban me because I tell them the truth they don’t want to here. Liberals ban me even though I am one because I ask well what are you going to do about it besides whine!
Well, it was their loss, Captain. I find your postings to range from extremely literate to incomprehensible, but always interesting.
Whatever the posting, our friend Captain consistently speaks of the need to include young Latinos in political discourse, and those are voices that are very important in political discourse.
I agree.
I personally never read comments by anyone who isn’t using their real name. I’ve assumed for many years that there is a factory somewhere with young conservatives that spits out about 90% of comments.
That’s called a conspiracy theory, Jim, and they can drive you insane.
But, Jim, think of all the fun we had by reading comments from a certain elected official who wasn’t using his real name. It got me 5 televisions interviews, and even a mention in the international press!
Gosh! I wish I had known about this site back when that little kafuffle was going on. It would have been cool to see you on TV. As it is all I can remember about that event is what an idiot he was for doing what he did.
Thanks, Steve. It would be easy enough to find the video clips online if you were interested. I was on all 5 local stations. Channel 3 was the one that came out the best, IMHO.
I will check it out!
The conservative talking points are delivered with few critical thinking skills, just the old and warn out talking points from Fixed News and the conservative bloggers who all receive their primary remuneration from billionaires like the Koch Brothers through their network of libertarian institutes.
The purpose of the institutes is to confuse public discussions with misleading information and cognitive dissonance.
I read all these posts, blogs, and comments every morning. I know most of you as personal friends. This is the first time I have taken to my keyboard. I concur 100% with the deduction that the right wing have all become Thucky. I attribute it emanating from two specific things: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE and FAUX NEWS. The former comes as a result of being religious (ANY RELIGION) as being religious requires cognitive dissonance to succeed; the latter because that news channel made outright lying not just acceptable but gave lying an equal and reverent seat at the table of serious discourse. These two things have made the USA a laughing stock in the educated WORLD, not just USA. Notice France and England are suing Fox News for lying about them in the Paris murders and the aftermath? Why can’t we sue them instead of giving them the aforementioned equal seat at the table of educated people?
I fear you are one of those people who confuse “educated” for “intelligent”. They are not the same thing. I have known some extraordinarily stupid people who held PhDs.
The reason we can’t sue Fox News is our Constitution provides for a right of Freedom of the Press. As a liberal, I am certain you would like to see that right curtailed to something you consider more appropriate, but that is EXACTLY why our Founders made a point of specifically including it in the Bill of Rights.
For a first posting, you did very well. There is just enough anti-religion, anti-Fox News and anti-free speech in it that you will receive a warm reception. Throwing in that tid-bit about “…laughing stock of the world…” just sweetened the pot. ;o)
Steve, as usual you’re dead wrong on every point you answered to on my post. Let me count the ways for you:
You say you know stupid PhDs. Of course, it depends on the discipline of said PhD. If you’ve a PhD in Divinity I laugh at them as they read ONE book and got a PhD. So, not all terminal degrees are the same. Let me enlighten you on the diminishing scale, from most revered and intelligent, to least: PhD, MD, DLitt, EdD, DPhil, DD. Got it, my suggestion to you is with me, don’t bring a knife to a gunfight and I can easily prove that to you in a public debate in person that you’re not even close to as smart as you think you are. Are you ready to accept that challenge? I will even allow your own friends to be the judges!!!
Second, you obviously don’t understand freedoms of speech and press as defined by the MAGNA CARTA from which the USA stole it’s constitution. YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MINE BEGINS. This is why you cannot have a Fixed News or people elected via lying in their ads, in Europe. Freedom of speech does not mean you can use it to libel people or blatantly lie and be taken seriously. You obviously think that’s ok. You won’t last ten seconds in any engineering class.
You are not the arbiter of the laughing stock comment because you’re obviously not a well educated or a well traveled person. Two weeks vacationing in Canada or France doesn’t count. Speaking or writing just one language doesn’t count either.
I suggest you accept the debate challenge and let me show you life in the fast lane and shut you up for good. Typing is easy, let’s see how you fare in person in a room full of people, even your own friends. I don’t like people who hide behind keyboards. Sorry, show me in person. The world of intellect has not really changed. It still exists in the REAL WORLD, NOT KEYBOARDS. LOOK FORWARD TO DEBATING YOU.
Ooh, a live debate! I love it. Can we record it and post it on the site for all to see?
Sorry, Bob. Not gonna’ happen in this lifetime. I much prefer to “…hide behind a keyboard…”. ;o)
I must tell you, DR. CHATTERJEE, this posting was one of the most enjoyable I have ever read on this site. It is one of only a few that made me laugh out loud as I read it because of the number of mistakes you made in describing me.
First of all, let’s get this little debate tripe out of way…I have no interest in debating you over anything. It is rather pompous of you to challenge me to a rooster like display of intelligence and wits, especially over something as simple as this blog. If it strokes your ego, I concede the floor to you in terms of intelligence. Feel better now?
What’s next? My overseas travel. Well, I spent 11 years of my first 19 years overseas with my Father who was a career Marine stationed overseas. When I joined the Army, I spent two years in Viet Nam (although you really can’t count that since most of my encounters with the Vietnamese were not social in nature). When I graduated College, I went back in the Army and spent 14 of the next 33 years overseas, mostly in the Middle East and North Africa.
As far as languages are concerned, in my early life, I learned to speak French, Russian and Japanese. Today, I couldn’t speak those to save my life, but I did at one time. Later in life, I learned to read, speak and write Arabic and Turkish. Although I am rusty with those today, with a little refresher, I could become fluent again. I agree with you that speaking more than one language is a good thing. We should require it in our schools as they do in India.
Let’s see…oh, yes, the education credentials. My BS is in Computer Technology, for which I sat in several engineering classes (sorry to disappoint you about that…I even received “A”s in the courses), from Arizona State. My MA is in Middle Eastern History from UCLA. And my PhD is in Middle Eastern Literature from Rutgers. But you don’t have to call me “Dr.” as I have always found that a little, well, pompous.
I probably am not as familiar with the Magna Carta as you are. I do know it was one of the document used to frame the Constitution, but I really like to think our Founders got it right. Of course you cannot defame or slander someone without the possibility of being sued, but the Government should NEVER have the right sue a citizen for defamation. Nor should the Government have the right to sue a news agency. That is the very definition of censorship the prevention of which was foremost in the minds of the Founders.
I don’t think I missed anything. I guess that since I hide behind a keyboard I am not one of those “friends” you mentioned in your first posting. That makes me sad…a person can never have too many friends. I have a little “tickle in my tummy” in anticipation of your spirited response. Please don’t disappoint me.
Dang! You saw right through me! I post here because of the generous remuneration I receive from the Koch Brothers.
Ow!! Those comments are going to leave a mark, Bob!! ;o)
You nailed me in a situation where I was not clear in stating what I meant and said something extremely stupid. That is what happens when you post a message at 3:00 in the morning after a hard day. It’s a poor excuse but there is no other way to explain it.
The point I was going after was if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gases, then we need to limit the output of those nations creating the most pollution. China and the United States are at the top of the list. What the UN repeatedly proposes in it’s treaties is that the curtailment of pollution be based on a “per capita” basis which moves the United States and Canada to top of the list and drops China (the most prolific polluter) to around 16, depending on the source. In other words, the UN is willing to let China and India (another big polluter) continue to pollute while we are penalized heavily. That doesn’t make sense to me if we are truly concerned about CO2 emissions.
In all honesty I feel bad that I have disappointed you. You did me a great favor in reinstating me after that glitch cut me off. I enjoy reading the blogs here because they provide me a different perspective. Some I agree with, most I don’t, but the chance to comment on them is very enjoyable. Thank you, again, for letting me return. Even though you now consider me a troll, I hope you won’t regret it too much.
P.S. – Even though it was a mistake, the term “the Steve Doctrine” sounded sort of cool… ;o)
Steve, here’s what you’re still missing. Even at number 16 in per capita emissions, China is up there near the top, which is the reason it needs to act. Being number 1 in total emissions is just besides the point. And, yes, those 15 countries higher on the list than China have to do more on a per capita basis than China does to address the problem.
Consider the following if you don’t believe me. Say the world had 101 countries, one huge one with 3.5 billion people and 100 small ones with 35 million people each. Say the small countries each emitted 25 times as much per capita as the big one, which means the big country would be #1 in total emissions, at 4% of the global total, and each small country would be at .96% of total emissions. Now, assume we needed a 4% reduction in total emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change. Would the global community say to the big country “you need to reduce your emissions by 100%, since you’re #1, by far, in total emissions, or would it say to each of the little countries “you each need to reduce your total emissions by 4.17% each, because it makes more sense for each of you to make modest improvements to the efficiency of your vehicle fleets (i.e., stop driving gas guzzling SUVs) than it does for the big country to shut down its economy entirely.”
Hopefully, this example drives home how irrelevant the total emissions of a given country are and why it has to be all about per capita emissions.
Now, consider the vehicle fleets in America and China. Although it’s come a long way, the rate of vehicle ownership in China remains way behind that of the US, and SUVs are a rarity there. How do you think a Chinese person would take to your stance on addressing climate change?
Do we as Americans want to be a welcomed member of the global community, or do we want to be a global bully who everyone else detests?
I posted a reply to this message, but it showed up as new message rather than a reply. I hope you will take the time to look through the responses to find it. Thanks!