Try as I might, I can't find any consensus on that rate. Well of course, cause it's not even possible to find consensus on global warmings existence, cause and consequence. Then again Global warming has been said by even it's previous supporters to be wrong and Climate Change is the band wagon now.
Climate Change: For when the cause(global warming) you were previously touting to try and scare people and get what you want(more green environmental hippyness), can't hold it's own weight and needs to be altered to cover the huge wholes(things not getting warmer).
Hmm that could work for the war in Iraq - Bringing Democracy: For when the cause(weapons of mass destruction) you were previously touting to try and scare people and get what you want(less arabs, more more money & oil), can't hold it's own weight and needs to be altered to cover the huge wholes(no WMDs). ... oops slight tangent and by slight I mean huge. Sorry.
What it will come down to is a very large lack of connecting wilds for animals to migrate in order to escape the changes to each unique environment. What we have now are islands with pockets of interesting animals that simply cant survive going through a hundred miles of city or highway in order to get to a home. Its a little different in boreal forests where it stretches pretty far with connecting pathways for large scale movement, but in areas where the habitat is already fairly small unique and protected theres no room to move.
We then get in to the debate where these changes to the climate will make some animals explode replacing the large number of dieing out species and completely dominating an ecosystem. It wont be diverse but it could be even more lush. Biodiversity is a very interesting topic if you ever feel like looking at a few papers about fast changing climate papers you start seeing a larger picture of what happens to these quick changing areas with no natural bridges to the next.
Also what happens to that one dominating special after the climate change comes, when a specialized fungus that decimates it comes along? Biodiversity is one of natures only real defenses to some of these changes, without it everything is vulnerable.
You're quite right. The rate is anywhere from "maybe some" to "ZOPMG! ALL OF THEM!" depending on who you ask, over anything from centuries to years to "it's already too late". It's all very well for the doomsayers-de-jour to claim scientific consensus, but it's not really *much* of a consensus, is it?
The problem I have with that argument is that we don't know how many species have already gone extinct. This isn't something we've even been capable of charting for very long, as a species. We can suppose the number of extinctees and we can certainly assume that anything we've got bones for that isn't still around is extinct, but that doesn't tell us how many species were out there and living and going extinct before we started noticing. So to say that species are going extinct "faster" now...? Faster than what? Faster than the Victorian era, when biology was in its infancy? Faster than it was before Darwin? Faster than before Watson and Crick? Faster than before Gould and Dawkins?
I get home from my soul-grinding shit job and check in online, and I see another goddamn Barry Deutsch cartoon posted once again by goddamn hereville. I say to myself, "Self, I wonder why this dude only ever posts Barry Deutsch. Kinda odd. I wonder if he's a fanboy or something. ... Does Barry Deutsch have fanboys?" So I checked.
No, no. This isn't a joke about how your posting here was an evasion, because it clearly wasn't. I just didn't care enough to do my homework. See, I had no idea that you're the man, himself. All those things I said about you...man, I was totally justified. But it's kind of fucking hilarious that I was so goddamn mouthy without realizing you were in the room. As masochistic as it is, I love it when people catch me being truly candorous about them.
Anyway, Barry, as long as I'm motherfucking you, I'm Seph, heya, and on to your latest ill-informed joke square.
Here's the thing. I'm against global warming. I agree with you in premise. Global warming is bad, yes, but that's hardly a controversial statement among people who have a functioning frontal lobe. What you're doing, here, is using the presumed extinction of "a million species" as an apparent thrust on the whole "global warming = bad" riff.
It sounds pretty valid at first glance, until you check yourself and get some biospheric perspective. The truth is, the overwhelming majority of species that ever existed are fucking extinct. That's one of the things that species do. That's how this talon-red and bloody-toothed natural drama plays out; adaptive animals hack it and the shitty ones go the way of the dinosaur. There ARE several examples of times when humans have predated an animal to or nearly to extinction: the Dodo, the Tasmanian Wolf, the buffalo, etc. And that's bad. But aside from being the exceptions, let me ask a rather pointed and valid question that I don't think enough people ask: okay, so a species goes extinct. Why exactly is this bad? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's good. But I want to know why it's bad. Aside from individual aesthetic beauty, few animals serve some integral purpose or niche in their environment that could not be filled by a competing species. Agreed that if there were no more pandas, the world would be at a loss for the panda and all we could learn from it as well as the beauty of that particular creatures. But losing the panda wouldn't mean dick to the world. The world and the creatures on it would keep on like they always have.
That said, the overwhelming majority of those species we might lose are insects, and in practical terms, I could hardly give a shit.
Again; most species that have ever existed are extinct, and species will continue to evolve and go extinct with or without us. I question the validity of that "million" figure and I think it's worth asking what species we'd lose, why we should give a damn, and whether we'd lose them to the vicissitudes of natural selection, anyway.
One last thing, for now. All my vitriol aside - because I do hate your cartoons and your goddamn views - if I were cartoonist and I was going to make such bold assertions in my comics, I'd find a place for a bibliographical reference in those borders. Because while I've heard this pretty specious bit of chicken little crap and I know some of the people who are positing it, for all most laypeople know, you could just be making shit up.
But it's kind of fucking hilarious that I was so goddamn mouthy without realizing you were in the room.
I certainly thought it was funny. More importantly, being loathed the way you loathe me is really encouraging to me, as a cartoonist. As long as you stop short of driving across the country and burning my house down, I encourage you to keep it up.
Is loathing the right word? Because if the fact that I hate your cartoons and take every shot at them that comes up motivates you to make better cartoons, do better research, or be smarter than your audience, good on you.
If it motivates you because you want to infuriate your detractors or the people who disagree with you, however, you might want to rope it in. On the majority of issues, we probably align pretty closely, provided your cartoons are an accurate representation of your own views. You just tend to take things either way too goddamn far (see your pathetic, groveling worship of everyone black or female) or you throw out very valid ideas because you find the attitude some people who hold that idea pernicious or because you disagree with one aspect of that idea (see your tired and completely ill-informed objections to Libertarianism).
My extreme dislike of your cartoons and my explosive attitude towards them is largely cartoon violence, a la Yosemite Sam. I tend to default to anger and violence with things I dislike because, hey, you work with what you've got and what you're good at. Also, you know, hippie pinko bullshit aside, violence tends to get the goods. Anyhow. Truth is, I've got legitimate things to be angry about. The sum of your cartoons makes me far less angry than a single airing of 'The 700 Club', so take heart. As familiar as I am with the Pacific Northwest (born and raised), I got no beef with you that can't be settled by screaming at the stars and telling you why I hate you.
Because if the fact that I hate your cartoons and take every shot at them that comes up motivates you to make better cartoons, do better research, or be smarter than your audience, good on you.
Well, believe it or not, I try to make my cartoons better all the time (although part of my effort is focused on things you don't seem to have much interest in, like the drawing aspects). I do sometimes take criticism into account (I just a few minutes ago made some revisions to this cartoon, in response to some criticism I got on another forum -- for comparison's sake, the original version can be viewed here (http://www.amptoons.com/livejournal_images/global_warming_old.png)). However, you're so extreme and over the top that you don't have any credibility with me.
It's telling that, in a thread following a cartoon including a fairly negative depiction of a black woman, you complain that I "worship... everyone black or female." A good example of why I can't take your comments seriously: the kindest interpretation I can think of is, you're responding to some image of me you've built up in your mind, rather than giving my cartoons an open-minded reading.
My extreme dislike of your cartoons and my explosive attitude towards them is largely cartoon violence, a la Yosemite Sam.
Well, believe it or not, I try to make my cartoons better all the time (although part of my effort is focused on things you don't seem to have much interest in, like the drawing aspects).
You're wrong, there. I just don't criticize your art. I don't care for it aesthetically, but I see technique in some of your more recent stuff, and just because your art style doesn't jibe with my tastes doesn't mean I need to bust your balls over how you draw your fuckin' cartoons.
However, you're so extreme and over the top that you don't have any credibility with me.
What, none? Seriously? Man. You're shooting yourself in the foot. Having me dress you down is the sort of thing that people would pay me six figures for and call it "life coaching" if I lived in southern California. I sure am a bastard, but I sure am right. Shit, at least I acknowledge that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
It's telling that, in a thread following a cartoon including a fairly negative depiction of a black woman, you complain that I "worship... everyone black or female." A good example of why I can't take your comments seriously
Well, I could get in to the rather complicated tapestry you seem to weave with your cartoons of depicting Americans of all shades and colors as the self-obsessed, benighted simpletons the rest of the world stereotypes us. But we're not talking about characters, Barry. The fact that you "depict" a black woman as this week's cartoon villain doesn't change anything about the message and tone of your comic work: that message and tone is to depict women and minorities as goddamn living saints whenever the mistreatment of said minority is the cause du jour of your comic. Oh, wait, let me back that up; minorities are okay to shit on if they disagree with you, right? It's not hip in the lib community to make fun of Muslims, but Libertarians are fair game.
the kindest interpretation I can think of is, you're responding to some image of me you've built up in your mind, rather than giving my cartoons an open-minded reading.
Don't flatter yourself. What "image of [you] built up in [my] mind" could I possibly have, Barry? What, you think I'm prejudiced against chubby white gamers from the Pacific Northwest? That rules out a quarter of my friends and myself. The truth is, I picked up 'Attitude 2' at a book store, read through the strips, laughed at some, didn't care for others, and when I got to yours, I nearly cried aloud "This guy is full of shit!"
There was no preconception. I hadn't heard your name before I picked up that otherwise very cool book. And not all of your cartoons are shit. But the ones I read there got me pretty angry, because I thought they were myopic, toadying to everyone who wasn't a white guy, and seemed to imply that as someone who isn't from a minority and doesn't have a vagina that I should somehow share in this feeling of societal guilt or responsibility for the injustices done to those people. Sorry, fucker, it's not happening. I've been on the fucking margins of society since I was born; I don't even have control over my life, let alone anyone else's. And I'll be damned if I'm going to feel guilty or ashamed or indebted to somebody because I happen to share a skin tint with the descendants of the people who did the descendants of the oppressed wrong. Most of my distant family on my mother's side died of fucking heatstroke in Barbados as indentured servants that were kidnapped and shipped on vessels no better than any slave ship to fucking die harvesting sugar can for fat landowners, so you can stick it up your ass.
Also, dude. I make dick, seriously. I'd have to, like, road trip to Oregon, and my truck probably wouldn't even make it, and I'd have to sleep in this shitty little tent I bought at a garage sale, and there's no fucking way I could make my rent if I took that much time off, and just...yeah, man. So not fucking worth it.
By the way, the "burning down my house" thing was intended as a tongue-in-cheek reference to this news story (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070726.wgtpsycho27/BNStory/Technology/home). I didn't mean to imply that I think you're violent.
Why shouldn't I give a damn? Because I'm hostile, and that somehow indicates that I'm some cocky kid who just doesn't give a shit about anything? Don't confuse the fact that my sense of self is unaffected by criticism with being totally unconcerned with how other people view me. Like most sentient meatbags, I get a sense of gratification from the praise of people I like and the scorn of people I hate, and the reverse from the opposite stimuli. Now, I don't know you, and certainly we've disagreed, but I'd hardly call you an idiot.
But now you've piqued my curiosity. In what way has your opinion of me changed? And why?
I had considered you to be another clever though ideologically hidebound right-wing loony. Thankfully bereft of the non-rational Christian fundamentalist stuff, but nevertheless rather tainted by the racial and sexual agendas that seem to govern American politics. It is becoming increasingly evident that you can and do think. And in your own confrontational way, you have a certain generosity.
I like most of the Americans I've met across this medium: though it sometimes takes me a little time to get beyond what I assume to be cliched and outrageous prejudice, and see the person behind the argument.
The reason why I thought you wouldn't care what other folk think is your persona is pretty confrontational: your debates open with a degree of vehemence that I would need months to work up to, if I could manage at all. I also think the race thing, as I understand it in America, seems completely alien to my way of thinking. But that could be contextual: I live in possibly the most cosmopolitan city in the English-Speaking world, with concomitant values. Black, white, blue or green: a Londoner is a Londoner. It's just not the same this side of the pond.
Prior to this exchange, I didn't think compromise was in your vocabulary: now I'm not quite so sure.
As for your compliment (for which I'm flattered), I'll have to correct you, alas: I'm an idiot sometimes, but hopefully with decreasing frequency.
I do believe I can honestly say that you're the first person to call me "right-wing". Let me make it crystalline that I am wingless: politically, I align as a strong Socialist with Libertarian leanings. I identify closely with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Noam Chomsky, and Harold Zinn.
I wonder where you get "tainted by the racial and sexual agendas that seem to govern American politics", but I think I can see how I might be misinterpreted that way, especially when I don't take the time to explain myself fully. Don't mistake my attitude towards all Americans with a specific animosity towards some minority group; the only groups I'm opposed to unilaterally are the wealthy (for practical reasons) and theists (for reasons that would take a long, long time to explain). You'll note, however, that the above two groups represent members who are categorized by choice, not fiat of determinism. As for the rest of us? To borrow your turn of phrase, "an American is an American is an American" in my eyes. My apparent problem is that I'm unwilling to acknowledge the elephant in the room of American culture. Of course, by my reckoning, I'm not so much ignoring the elephant as trying to convince everyone else it's a rhino.
I'll try to explain my vehemence, as you call it, at a later date. It would be a lie to say that I do not have anger issues; it would be equally untrue to say that my 'cowboy' style of debate isn't calculated. Tell you what; I'll add you to the list. Check out my Journal sometime, and maybe you'll understand, some, where I'm coming from.
That's about $1.6 TRILLION in real (U.S.) dollars, just for Europe. America would surely be more--say $2-3 TRILLION dollars. 300 million Americans, $3 trillion dollars--how does $10,000 per PERSON sound? That's $60,000 for my family. How about yours?
And don't forget that every one of those dollars going to carbon taxes is a dollar not going to local restaurants, clothing stores, computer services, lawyers, doctors, hookers, etc., etc. That's why the minimum cost to the US economy is 1 million jobs.
One million unemployed people. $3 trillion in new taxes. And--here's the punchline--the warming kooks themselves say all this effort will theoretically reduce future warming by less than 0.1 degrees. If they're right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
hereville.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2007-09-05 01:44 pm
no subject
Well of course, cause it's not even possible to find consensus on global warmings existence, cause and consequence. Then again Global warming has been said by even it's previous supporters to be wrong and Climate Change is the band wagon now.
Climate Change: For when the cause(global warming) you were previously touting to try and scare people and get what you want(more green environmental hippyness), can't hold it's own weight and needs to be altered to cover the huge wholes(things not getting warmer).
Hmm that could work for the war in Iraq -
Bringing Democracy: For when the cause(weapons of mass destruction) you were previously touting to try and scare people and get what you want(less arabs, more more money & oil), can't hold it's own weight and needs to be altered to cover the huge wholes(no WMDs). ... oops slight tangent and by slight I mean huge. Sorry.
no subject
no subject
We then get in to the debate where these changes to the climate will make some animals explode replacing the large number of dieing out species and completely dominating an ecosystem. It wont be diverse but it could be even more lush. Biodiversity is a very interesting topic if you ever feel like looking at a few papers about fast changing climate papers you start seeing a larger picture of what happens to these quick changing areas with no natural bridges to the next.
Also what happens to that one dominating special after the climate change comes, when a specialized fungus that decimates it comes along? Biodiversity is one of natures only real defenses to some of these changes, without it everything is vulnerable.
All of this is Imho :P
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I get home from my soul-grinding shit job and check in online, and I see another goddamn Barry Deutsch cartoon posted once again by goddamn hereville. I say to myself, "Self, I wonder why this dude only ever posts Barry Deutsch. Kinda odd. I wonder if he's a fanboy or something. ... Does Barry Deutsch have fanboys?" So I checked.
No, no. This isn't a joke about how your posting here was an evasion, because it clearly wasn't. I just didn't care enough to do my homework. See, I had no idea that you're the man, himself. All those things I said about you...man, I was totally justified. But it's kind of fucking hilarious that I was so goddamn mouthy without realizing you were in the room. As masochistic as it is, I love it when people catch me being truly candorous about them.
Anyway, Barry, as long as I'm motherfucking you, I'm Seph, heya, and on to your latest ill-informed joke square.
Here's the thing. I'm against global warming. I agree with you in premise. Global warming is bad, yes, but that's hardly a controversial statement among people who have a functioning frontal lobe. What you're doing, here, is using the presumed extinction of "a million species" as an apparent thrust on the whole "global warming = bad" riff.
It sounds pretty valid at first glance, until you check yourself and get some biospheric perspective. The truth is, the overwhelming majority of species that ever existed are fucking extinct. That's one of the things that species do. That's how this talon-red and bloody-toothed natural drama plays out; adaptive animals hack it and the shitty ones go the way of the dinosaur. There ARE several examples of times when humans have predated an animal to or nearly to extinction: the Dodo, the Tasmanian Wolf, the buffalo, etc. And that's bad. But aside from being the exceptions, let me ask a rather pointed and valid question that I don't think enough people ask: okay, so a species goes extinct. Why exactly is this bad? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's good. But I want to know why it's bad. Aside from individual aesthetic beauty, few animals serve some integral purpose or niche in their environment that could not be filled by a competing species. Agreed that if there were no more pandas, the world would be at a loss for the panda and all we could learn from it as well as the beauty of that particular creatures. But losing the panda wouldn't mean dick to the world. The world and the creatures on it would keep on like they always have.
That said, the overwhelming majority of those species we might lose are insects, and in practical terms, I could hardly give a shit.
Again; most species that have ever existed are extinct, and species will continue to evolve and go extinct with or without us. I question the validity of that "million" figure and I think it's worth asking what species we'd lose, why we should give a damn, and whether we'd lose them to the vicissitudes of natural selection, anyway.
One last thing, for now. All my vitriol aside - because I do hate your cartoons and your goddamn views - if I were cartoonist and I was going to make such bold assertions in my comics, I'd find a place for a bibliographical reference in those borders. Because while I've heard this pretty specious bit of chicken little crap and I know some of the people who are positing it, for all most laypeople know, you could just be making shit up.
no subject
I certainly thought it was funny. More importantly, being loathed the way you loathe me is really encouraging to me, as a cartoonist. As long as you stop short of driving across the country and burning my house down, I encourage you to keep it up.
no subject
If it motivates you because you want to infuriate your detractors or the people who disagree with you, however, you might want to rope it in. On the majority of issues, we probably align pretty closely, provided your cartoons are an accurate representation of your own views. You just tend to take things either way too goddamn far (see your pathetic, groveling worship of everyone black or female) or you throw out very valid ideas because you find the attitude some people who hold that idea pernicious or because you disagree with one aspect of that idea (see your tired and completely ill-informed objections to Libertarianism).
My extreme dislike of your cartoons and my explosive attitude towards them is largely cartoon violence, a la Yosemite Sam. I tend to default to anger and violence with things I dislike because, hey, you work with what you've got and what you're good at. Also, you know, hippie pinko bullshit aside, violence tends to get the goods. Anyhow. Truth is, I've got legitimate things to be angry about. The sum of your cartoons makes me far less angry than a single airing of 'The 700 Club', so take heart. As familiar as I am with the Pacific Northwest (born and raised), I got no beef with you that can't be settled by screaming at the stars and telling you why I hate you.
no subject
Well, believe it or not, I try to make my cartoons better all the time (although part of my effort is focused on things you don't seem to have much interest in, like the drawing aspects). I do sometimes take criticism into account (I just a few minutes ago made some revisions to this cartoon, in response to some criticism I got on another forum -- for comparison's sake, the original version can be viewed here (http://www.amptoons.com/livejournal_images/global_warming_old.png)). However, you're so extreme and over the top that you don't have any credibility with me.
It's telling that, in a thread following a cartoon including a fairly negative depiction of a black woman, you complain that I "worship... everyone black or female." A good example of why I can't take your comments seriously: the kindest interpretation I can think of is, you're responding to some image of me you've built up in your mind, rather than giving my cartoons an open-minded reading.
Understood. :-)
no subject
You're wrong, there. I just don't criticize your art. I don't care for it aesthetically, but I see technique in some of your more recent stuff, and just because your art style doesn't jibe with my tastes doesn't mean I need to bust your balls over how you draw your fuckin' cartoons.
However, you're so extreme and over the top that you don't have any credibility with me.
What, none? Seriously? Man. You're shooting yourself in the foot. Having me dress you down is the sort of thing that people would pay me six figures for and call it "life coaching" if I lived in southern California. I sure am a bastard, but I sure am right. Shit, at least I acknowledge that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
It's telling that, in a thread following a cartoon including a fairly negative depiction of a black woman, you complain that I "worship... everyone black or female." A good example of why I can't take your comments seriously
Well, I could get in to the rather complicated tapestry you seem to weave with your cartoons of depicting Americans of all shades and colors as the self-obsessed, benighted simpletons the rest of the world stereotypes us. But we're not talking about characters, Barry. The fact that you "depict" a black woman as this week's cartoon villain doesn't change anything about the message and tone of your comic work: that message and tone is to depict women and minorities as goddamn living saints whenever the mistreatment of said minority is the cause du jour of your comic. Oh, wait, let me back that up; minorities are okay to shit on if they disagree with you, right? It's not hip in the lib community to make fun of Muslims, but Libertarians are fair game.
the kindest interpretation I can think of is, you're responding to some image of me you've built up in your mind, rather than giving my cartoons an open-minded reading.
Don't flatter yourself. What "image of [you] built up in [my] mind" could I possibly have, Barry? What, you think I'm prejudiced against chubby white gamers from the Pacific Northwest? That rules out a quarter of my friends and myself. The truth is, I picked up 'Attitude 2' at a book store, read through the strips, laughed at some, didn't care for others, and when I got to yours, I nearly cried aloud "This guy is full of shit!"
There was no preconception. I hadn't heard your name before I picked up that otherwise very cool book. And not all of your cartoons are shit. But the ones I read there got me pretty angry, because I thought they were myopic, toadying to everyone who wasn't a white guy, and seemed to imply that as someone who isn't from a minority and doesn't have a vagina that I should somehow share in this feeling of societal guilt or responsibility for the injustices done to those people. Sorry, fucker, it's not happening. I've been on the fucking margins of society since I was born; I don't even have control over my life, let alone anyone else's. And I'll be damned if I'm going to feel guilty or ashamed or indebted to somebody because I happen to share a skin tint with the descendants of the people who did the descendants of the oppressed wrong. Most of my distant family on my mother's side died of fucking heatstroke in Barbados as indentured servants that were kidnapped and shipped on vessels no better than any slave ship to fucking die harvesting sugar can for fat landowners, so you can stick it up your ass.
no subject
no subject
Well, there's something we have in common. :-)
By the way, the "burning down my house" thing was intended as a tongue-in-cheek reference to this news story (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070726.wgtpsycho27/BNStory/Technology/home). I didn't mean to imply that I think you're violent.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But now you've piqued my curiosity. In what way has your opinion of me changed? And why?
no subject
It is becoming increasingly evident that you can and do think. And in your own confrontational way, you have a certain generosity.
I like most of the Americans I've met across this medium: though it sometimes takes me a little time to get beyond what I assume to be cliched and outrageous prejudice, and see the person behind the argument.
The reason why I thought you wouldn't care what other folk think is your persona is pretty confrontational: your debates open with a degree of vehemence that I would need months to work up to, if I could manage at all.
I also think the race thing, as I understand it in America, seems completely alien to my way of thinking. But that could be contextual: I live in possibly the most cosmopolitan city in the English-Speaking world, with concomitant values. Black, white, blue or green: a Londoner is a Londoner. It's just not the same this side of the pond.
Prior to this exchange, I didn't think compromise was in your vocabulary: now I'm not quite so sure.
As for your compliment (for which I'm flattered), I'll have to correct you, alas: I'm an idiot sometimes, but hopefully with decreasing frequency.
Think well: it's better than the alternative.
no subject
I wonder where you get "tainted by the racial and sexual agendas that seem to govern American politics", but I think I can see how I might be misinterpreted that way, especially when I don't take the time to explain myself fully. Don't mistake my attitude towards all Americans with a specific animosity towards some minority group; the only groups I'm opposed to unilaterally are the wealthy (for practical reasons) and theists (for reasons that would take a long, long time to explain). You'll note, however, that the above two groups represent members who are categorized by choice, not fiat of determinism. As for the rest of us? To borrow your turn of phrase, "an American is an American is an American" in my eyes. My apparent problem is that I'm unwilling to acknowledge the elephant in the room of American culture. Of course, by my reckoning, I'm not so much ignoring the elephant as trying to convince everyone else it's a rhino.
I'll try to explain my vehemence, as you call it, at a later date. It would be a lie to say that I do not have anger issues; it would be equally untrue to say that my 'cowboy' style of debate isn't calculated. Tell you what; I'll add you to the list. Check out my Journal sometime, and maybe you'll understand, some, where I'm coming from.
no subject
I added you too.
no subject
no subject
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/hjenkins/?id=110009914
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2711600320070327
That's about $1.6 TRILLION in real (U.S.) dollars, just for Europe. America would surely be more--say $2-3 TRILLION dollars. 300 million Americans, $3 trillion dollars--how does $10,000 per PERSON sound? That's $60,000 for my family. How about yours?
And don't forget that every one of those dollars going to carbon taxes is a dollar not going to local restaurants, clothing stores, computer services, lawyers, doctors, hookers, etc., etc. That's why the minimum cost to the US economy is 1 million jobs.
One million unemployed people. $3 trillion in new taxes. And--here's the punchline--the warming kooks themselves say all this effort will theoretically reduce future warming by less than 0.1 degrees. If they're right.
These are the facts.