After five years of regular visitation, I no longer find this blog credible. You're On Drugs, drank the Kool-Aid.
If Hillary/Obama/Edwards is the best you have to offer, we are well and truly screwed.
Don't bother with a rebuttal, I won't be back.
Posted by Thomas Ware at October 12, 2007 04:50 PMwhat has happened to this web site?
Posted by exfan at October 12, 2007 04:56 PMWhat does Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize have to do with Al Gore running for president? That's what I don't get.
As for Edwards, I think you have to respond to things, no matter how ridiculous. John Kerry learned that the hard way when he tried to ignore the swiftboaters.
Posted by CG at October 12, 2007 04:59 PMIf you have a problem with people raising questions and claim to be a supporter of the Democratic party, then the party is in a sad state. We are supposed to be the party that always questions the establishment. What happened to you guys?
Jeff's question is not outrageous. It's a simple question. What does superlative work relating to global warming have to do with world peace? My answer is simple. It has to do with looking ahead to prevent manifest disasters that could seriously damage world peace. Traditionally, as far as I know, Peace prizes have been given for past work that helped bring peace and betterment to the world. Al Gore's work did not result in world peace last year. His work, and that of the IPCC's, lays the foundation for future peace by allowing mankind to understand a calamity ahead of time and respond to it proactively. That's why I think this prize is noteworthy and deserving. Prevention is always better than a cure.
Posted by eriposte at October 12, 2007 05:21 PMJeff, I agree with CG. If Edwards did not respond it would only feed the false rumors.
Posted by eriposte at October 12, 2007 05:23 PMWhat happened to you guys?
My question, too, eriposte. I thought we were looking for the truth, not creating a left-wing echo chamber to mirror the right's. I just heard Will Durst repeat the saying "The perfect is the enemy of the good," which reminded me of some of the arguments going on on the leftie blogs. I get frustrated a lot by people so busy holding out for perfect, they ignore a lot of the good that might be out there.
I liked your answer, eriposte. My son, who's a zen guy, used to scoff at my dream of a "Star Trek" world, saying "It'll never happen, because we'd need an outside enemy to force us to work together." Well, global warming may not be an alien invasion, but it can only be fought by a united world working together. Gore's contribution to peace is identifying the planet's enemy, even if it's ourselves, and his work to unite us in a consensus to try to save our home deserves recognition. Hokey, I know.
And yes, Edwards should fight back - firmly and decisively. He disappointed me with the Amanda Marcotte thing because he waited so long to respond, and here, he did it again. Not good.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 12, 2007 05:51 PMWhat exactly does educating people about global warming have to do with world peace?
Well, dealing with global warming now probably prevents future wars in the future, over oil, arable land, water, etc. And averting global catastrophe implies turning away from carbon fuels (emissions from burning said fuels, i.e greenhouse gasses). And, why is the U.S. really in Iraq?? Maybe, it has something to do with controlling the middle east's oil resources (And it would be nice to see some current Senators who are running for president to be more outspoken on the issue).
So, yes, EDUCATING FOLKS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING HAS A LOT TO DO WITH WORLD PEACE.
peace
After five years of regular visitation, I no longer find this blog credible.
snip
If you have a problem with people raising questions and claim to be a supporter of the Democratic party, then the party is in a sad state. We are supposed to be the party that always questions the establishment.
I can understand Thomas' frustration with the apparent pro-Hillary tilt this blog has taken in recent months. On the day that the Nobel committee officially recognized that somebody of prominence was doing something to raise world consciousness about climate change, pro-Hillary blogger tries to minimize this achievement, at least that's my perception of the purpose of his question. Would he have called this "a stretch" if the award had been given to someone who may be the only person between Senator Clinton and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? And is questioning this award akin to questioning the establishment? And did Thomas Ware ever claim to be a member of the Democratic Party? Why must it be assumed you are a "party member" to comment from a progressive/liberal standpoint here (I'm not talking about the trolls)?
I don't have a problem with people raising questions, but their motivations for raising a particular question with a given timing are fair game for discussion.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 12, 2007 06:21 PMI just got home and didn't have an earlier chance to respond to Jeff's complaints. I concur with eriposte entirely. He said it very well.
Democrats cannot ignore noise machine accusations, even if denial itself will be attacked. Everything will be mindlessly attacked. Echoes are a better medium for such tripe to fester than firm responses. We need to attack back as loudly and vigorously as is possible. And, future peace is even more important than peace that may have been facilitated in the past. Saving lives is always worth celebrating.
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 12, 2007 06:26 PMTake it for what it's worth from this new mexican, Richardson is totally full of political bullshit! cleve
Posted by cleve at October 12, 2007 06:31 PMPooh, Jeff's just jealous that Hillary didn't win the Nobel for something....er.....um....well...ahhh.... innovative that she's done sometime, somwhere that proves she's a leader.
Posted by Julie at October 12, 2007 07:01 PMJeff, you are so extremely biased for Hillary that you sound kind of unhinged. Talk to us, won't you? What's behind this that you're not telling us OH, MY GAWD, YOU AND HILLARY ARE HAVING AN AFFAIR!!! Quick, everybody, spread the word!!!!
Posted by Julie at October 12, 2007 07:16 PMAsking questions is fine.
Linking to the Inquirer story is not.
Posted by snark at October 12, 2007 07:20 PMAsking questions is fine.
Seems to me some of the subjects in recent posts--not just Jeff's-- might have been more appropriately handled in the comment section.
Posted by Julie at October 12, 2007 07:29 PMAnd Al Gore did not win an Oscar for that documentary.
Posted by snark at October 12, 2007 07:35 PMJulie, I can firmly deny that accusation and still be able to sleep tonight. In fact, I wasn't thinking of Hillary at all with this post, these are two questions that have been bugging me all day. Info on global warming doesn't equal striving for peace, in my opinion. I sort of see TrainWreck's point, that we're fighting over oil right now, alternative forms of energy would be helpful, but most wars are fought over religion. Would everyone be fawning over a leader who was attempting to end all religion? I'm actually glad he got it, I just....no comprende.
And this Edwards rumor has been hinted at for at least a month, now, I'm pretty sure I first heard about it reading Daily Kos. I was in agreement with MyDD (bullshit story) UNTIL Edwards commented on it today. There are no names attached to any sources in the article (snark, I have to link to it if I write something like that, don't I?), I was shocked he didn't just say something like, "I'm not going to comment on total innuendo coming from some tabloid, sorry. I only deal in reality." But by making this statement, next thing you know the AP picks it up today, it becomes a news story. And I don't want this happening to one of our candidates. I really don't.
I had two questions haunting me all day and I had to throw them out there for discussion. Some of the stuff here has been instructive, I appreciate it.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 12, 2007 07:46 PMTrainWreck,
You said:
On the day that the Nobel committee officially recognized that somebody of prominence was doing something to raise world consciousness about climate change, pro-Hillary blogger tries to minimize this achievement, at least that's my perception of the purpose of his question.
We have bloggers who support every major candidate blogging here and I never attribute ulterior motives to any one of them.
You said:
And is questioning this award akin to questioning the establishment?
Of course! The Nobel committee is the very personification of Establishment, with a capital E. They are rich, elite, secretive and no one has a clue what they do behind the scenes. A committee that picks Henry Kissinger for the Nobel Peace Prize must be questioned every time.
You said:
And did Thomas Ware ever claim to be a member of the Democratic Party? Why must it be assumed you are a "party member" to comment from a progressive/liberal standpoint here (I'm not talking about the trolls)?
You are absolutely right and I apologize. I should not have written my response in haste. I usually try not to respond immediately, without collecting my thoughts properly - but see my comment below for why I responded rather quickly. Again, my apologies because everyone regardless of party affiliation is welcome here and are welcome to ask any questions.
You said:
I don't have a problem with people raising questions, but their motivations for raising a particular question with a given timing are fair game for discussion.
The reason I reacted immediately is that I felt the entire blog was essentially being blamed for a post by one blogger. We have various bloggers here and we believe in free speech and different views. Also, readers are free to question the motivations of bloggers just as we are free to respond to those questions.
Posted by eriposte at October 12, 2007 07:58 PMWhat exactly does educating people about global warming have to do with world peace?
We have been fighting a war in Iraq for five years over oil, and you have to ask that?
Posted by bob at October 12, 2007 08:24 PMYour concern for Edwards and Gore is touching.
Posted by kaleidescope at October 12, 2007 08:34 PMHeffe, I guess I'm rather amazed at your lack of understanding about the connectedness between food and war, and between food and climate change. You're serious, aren't you, that you don't get it?
Posted by Julie at October 12, 2007 09:03 PMI don't belong to any organized political party,
I'm a Democrat. ; )
A committee that picks Henry Kissinger for the Nobel Peace Prize must be questioned every time.
Eriposte,
Touché, good point. I stand corrected.
But it still seems like certain elements of the establishment i.e. the Republican Party, Fox News, are doing all in their power to discredit the sciences of climate change. Also see how CNN covered Gore's award.
Then there are Democrats like Representative John D. Dingell (D - MI), the chair of the Energy & Commerce committee, who might be alright about "voluntary" efforts to deal with climate change, especially if it will shut up the environmentalists.
See this 2006 interview of Dingell where he displays, as one of the commenters so aptly described "a mindset of deliberate obtuseness and inflexible certitude." This is a powerful guy. An "establishment" figure, and a Democrat at that, who's idea of energy conservation is taking a "navy shower" (his words), and who seems most interested in the automotive industry's short term profits.
When I hear John McCain questioning Gore's award, I am not hearing a maverick politician questioning the "establishment" but rather an "establishment" politician trying to please "the base."
We have bloggers who support every major candidate blogging here and I never attribute ulterior motives to any one of them.
Well maybe his question is totally unrelated to his pro-Hillary position. I haven't read all his posts but I can't remember him saying anything negative about Senator Clinton (votes, strategy, speeches), so that affected my response/impression. And yes, I'm all for NOT having a left-wing echo chamber too.
...but most wars are fought over religion
Jeff, I don't know if that's really true, or really that simple. Often religion plays a role in motivating the population to fight a war which may have underlying economic causes. There seems to be a whole body of academic literature devoted to the subject. Even the Crusades may been more about who would control trade routes, i.e. economics, with religion used to stir the passions of those doing the killing. Bigger point here is economics, ecological catastrophe and warfare are inextricably linked. Of course some wars happen because of some leader's EGO, too. Maybe that had something to do with the current mess but I'm sure, in spite of what Thomas Friedman said (how many Friedmans ago?) that oil has a lot to do with the current crap.
If Hillary/Obama/Edwards is the best you have to offer, we are well and truly screwed.
While I don't think a President Hillary Clinton would have invaded Iraq, I cannot forgive and forget her votes (and those of her Democratic colleagues) enabling this president to carry out his murderous policies. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BACK IN 2002 THAT THIS WOULD BE THE DISASTER IT IS.
I will vote for whoever is the Dem nominee because there IS a difference vs. the Repubs. I just wish the difference was bigger than it seems to be. And being all idealistic and voting 3rd-party or sitting out in protest is high and mighty but in the end self-defeating if we end up with another Repub president. It's not always about the candidate. Keeping someone else out of office is a legitimate reason to vote for a flawed candidate. There could come a time to boycott the whole election but I don't think it's 2008.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 12, 2007 10:36 PMRaising awareness about global warming, to tie a few threads together and introduce another, has to do with world peace because ...
The destabilization of our climate will tamper with the reliability of growing seasons and hence, our ability to feed ourselves. Weather patterns are already shifting and both droughts and unpredictable flooding are already more common in areas that were formerly reliable crop growth regions.
Both increased drought and the projected rise in sea levels will displace tens of millions of people, maybe more. This has already begun in regards to droughts. With the rapid melting of the Arctic this year and the continued destabilization of the Greenland ice shelf, a massive sea level rise could put quite a lot of the world's heavily inhabited coastline under water. Where will those people go? What will they eat?
These are the sorts of resource constraint challenges that wars are fought over. This is the sort of looming refugee crisis that could lead to the deaths of millions, and the sickening and impoverishment of millions more. Ethnic strife, international conflict, increased recruiting pools for violent jihad and guerrilla warfare, all these are what we can look forward to if the climate and water availability patterns on which we base our lives change dramatically for the worse.
Posted by natasha at October 13, 2007 05:48 AMHaving posed the question challenging the propriety of the award to Gore, and having seen the (excellent) responses, I'm curious if Jeff is now persuaded.
BTW, is the idea behind the individual Dem candidate bloggers going to be that each passionately "defends" their pick from the daily attacks of the others?
Posted by euzoius at October 13, 2007 06:31 AMGlobal warming will effect world peace as nations fight over water supplies. Don't be criticizing Al Gore and his work on global warming unless you're going to read/listen to at least a little bit of it to understand what he's talking about.
I agree - you are on drugs or stupid.
What happened to true journalism in this country? All I see are 13 year olds throwing out their opinions based on half truths and rumors. This is very, very sad.
Resource wars are already underway. Somalia, Sudan, Iraq. Connect the dot. Global warming promises to increase the resource problem, a peaceful, just, equitable approach to being an inhabitant of the planet is crucial. The commercialization, globalization, free trade approach to the planet is completely unsustainable, but since there is a big profit to be made on selling arms for resource wars, providing security to dignitaries visiting war zones to check on their assets even war has become part of the economic engine, the "rising tide" that raises all the boats.
If you believe that a rising tide of economic enterprise in war zones is good for all of us, you are going to love the rising tide of global warming.
Posted by angel at October 13, 2007 09:20 AMEuzoius, I have indeed been impressed by the arguments here for global warming harming the stability of the world as far as politics and human life and possible conflicts rising because of it. Very persuasive. That's why I threw the question out there. There's a lot of Gore love and I figured it would create an informative discussion. We have great readers.
As far as the campaign, I've taken a somewhat different tact with Obama since he's my Senator. I'm really disappointed in where he's gone with this run and could really criticize him more, but I try and wait until it relates to Hillary in some way, so I feel somewhat justified in writing something. I'm not going to defend Clinton from every negative thing said about her (I'd have to start my own blog), but I have different, personal reasons to call out Obama in his hypocrisy and negative bent. He's really let a lot of us from Illinois down, we expected better from him.
Good question, though. I'm certainly looking to write something a little more interesting than just linking to Hillary's website for some speech she makes every day.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 13, 2007 10:00 AMI'm certainly looking to write something a little more interesting than just linking to Hillary's website for some speech she makes every day.
Which is exactly what we're seeing from some of the other "campaign reporters/bloggers". Yeah, you know who you are.
And Al Gore did not win an Oscar for that documentary.
And that's why I think Jeff's asking a good question here. It's pretty clear that Al's getting much love from the academies of the world. He's winning all the prizes. Is the thing eligible for a Tony? He was on stage a lot in the movie. When they show it on TV, is it automatically guaranteed an Emmy?
I'm being silly, but it makes me wonder why there seems to be this momentum of Al Gore love. Where's it all headed?
The popular opinion is he's not gonna jump in the race, and I'm tempted to agree with that, but then I remember it's only October of 2007.
So where's it headed?
As for Edwards, it wasn't just that he denied the accusation. It was the way he did it that raises an eyebrow.
I would've replied: "No, I don't cheat on my wife. Never have. Sorry, Enquirer."
To respond along the lines of, "NO!! My wife is sexy and pretty and kind and sweet and she always smells good and she's the bestest person I've ever know and she's funny!"
Dude. Easy. It's the Enquirer. Who are you trying to convince?
The simple answer is international process - Gore has been very good at getting other countries involved in a cooperative effort, particularly on climate change. This was the virtue of the (otherwise kind of dopey) Kyoto treaty.
And if we want to beat the noise machine, my friends, we all have to respond to smears against the Democratic leaders. You can't trust campaigns that will jump in with the Republicans whenever they come up with a convenient lie that happens to be about an opposing Democrat. We all have to get their backs against smears.
Posted by Avedon at October 15, 2007 07:57 AM