Well his closing "Let Freedom Grow!" is a bit weak. The speech could've used some work there.
All in all I found it to be a little self-serving (We're libertarian so what we think is right is what we "know"). Also as always a large misunderstanding of the invisible hand theory that runs rampant in the Lib. party. *shrug*
TDP is cool and all, but it doesn't do much for fixing climate change issues.
It does do a hell of a lot for landfilling and toxic waste disposal, not to mention the global social and economic benefits of free energy. Can't have it all.
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
Salvation122 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
It does do a hell of a lot for landfilling and toxic waste disposal, not to mention the global social and economic benefits of free energy. Can't have it all.
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
I agree. I think, for instance, that nuclear would be an excellent stopgap for our energy independence. To be fair, that's a larger problem with most idealistic groups.
I'd go along with public funding more TDP pilots, though it's hard to understand why venture capital hasn't moved in to the niche.
It does do a hell of a lot for landfilling and toxic waste disposal, not to mention the global social and economic benefits of free energy. Can't have it all.
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
I agree. I think, for instance, that nuclear would be an excellent stopgap for our energy independence. To be fair, that's a larger problem with most idealistic groups.
I'd go along with public funding more TDP pilots, though it's hard to understand why venture capital hasn't moved in to the niche.
They're still completely privately held. They're not courting investors.
TDP is cool and all, but it doesn't do much for fixing climate change issues.
It does do a hell of a lot for landfilling and toxic waste disposal, not to mention the global social and economic benefits of free energy. Can't have it all.
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't "embrace" half-measures as stepping stones because I cannot honestly believe they will be treated as stepping stones. There is to my mind no reason to believe we won't just languish there until the stone "sinks".
The same, incidentally, goes for nuclear power. Concerns about nuclear waste and all aside, I see no reason to believe we won't just come to rely on it until we start running out of fissionable materials, and then we'll just panic and come up with another stopgap that'll work for another 50 years.
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't "embrace" half-measures as stepping stones because I cannot honestly believe they will be treated as stepping stones. There is to my mind no reason to believe we won't just languish there until the stone "sinks".
The same, incidentally, goes for nuclear power. Concerns about nuclear waste and all aside, I see no reason to believe we won't just come to rely on it until we start running out of fissionable materials, and then we'll just panic and come up with another stopgap that'll work for another 50 years.[/quote]
You're aware that the alternative is to pretty much never do anything, and have shit a whole lot worse off, right? Your choices are:
A) Baby steps laced with compromises, or Doing nothing while bitching ineffectually that nothing is getting done.
There is no C) get exactly what you want with no compromises whatsoever, because not everybody wants the same things you do.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
TDP is cool and all, but it doesn't do much for fixing climate change issues.
It does do a hell of a lot for landfilling and toxic waste disposal, not to mention the global social and economic benefits of free energy. Can't have it all.
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
That's cool and all, but those other things aren't half the threat that global warming is?
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't "embrace" half-measures as stepping stones because I cannot honestly believe they will be treated as stepping stones. There is to my mind no reason to believe we won't just languish there until the stone "sinks".
The same, incidentally, goes for nuclear power. Concerns about nuclear waste and all aside, I see no reason to believe we won't just come to rely on it until we start running out of fissionable materials, and then we'll just panic and come up with another stopgap that'll work for another 50 years.
You're aware that the alternative is to pretty much never do anything, and have shit a whole lot worse off, right? Your choices are:
A) Baby steps laced with compromises, or Doing nothing while bitching ineffectually that nothing is getting done.
There is no C) get exactly what you want with no compromises whatsoever, because not everybody wants the same things you do.
And what I'm saying is that I choose A with extremely heavy reservations.
Especially because to me it's closer to "tortoise steps" than "baby steps".
TDP is cool and all, but it doesn't do much for fixing climate change issues.
It does do a hell of a lot for landfilling and toxic waste disposal, not to mention the global social and economic benefits of free energy. Can't have it all.
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
That's cool and all, but those other things aren't half the threat that global warming is?
No, dude. War and poverty are both often the result of the scarcity of energy. Free energy would greatly diminish both, and both are a far larger threat to humanity than global warming.
TDP is cool and all, but it doesn't do much for fixing climate change issues.
It does do a hell of a lot for landfilling and toxic waste disposal, not to mention the global social and economic benefits of free energy. Can't have it all.
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
That's cool and all, but those other things aren't half the threat that global warming is?
No, dude. War and poverty are both often the result of the scarcity of energy. Free energy would greatly diminish both, and both are a far larger threat to humanity than global warming.
Only if you don't believe scientists.
Also, everyone seems to think the SotU was really good.
Did they watch a different speech than the one I saw, or were they just viewing it in a vacuum?
Thanatos on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Also, everyone seems to think the SotU was really good.
Did they watch a different speech than the one I saw, or were they just viewing it in a vacuum?
The NPR reports I heard today pretty much agreed that it was pretty terrible and were reading all sorts of things about Bush being a lame duck into it.
The NPR reports I heard today pretty much agreed that it was pretty terrible and were reading all sorts of things about Bush being a lame duck into it.
That wasn't a report, it was an editorial from one of the more liberal opinionators that they ever bring on the news. And even he gave it "1 cheer" for progress on health care.
Yar on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
The NPR reports I heard today pretty much agreed that it was pretty terrible and were reading all sorts of things about Bush being a lame duck into it.
That wasn't a report, it was an editorial from one of the more liberal opinionators that they ever bring on the news. And even he gave it "1 cheer" for progress on health care.
Yeah, the one on All Things Considered was, but there was also a panel on On Point. I'm not sure if it's carried widely outside of New England.
Also, everyone seems to think the SotU was really good.
Did they watch a different speech than the one I saw, or were they just viewing it in a vacuum?
The NPR reports I heard today pretty much agreed that it was pretty terrible and were reading all sorts of things about Bush being a lame duck into it.
I heard something like 41% of those polled thought it was "very good" and 37% thought it was "good," or something like that.
Also, everyone seems to think the SotU was really good.
Did they watch a different speech than the one I saw, or were they just viewing it in a vacuum?
The NPR reports I heard today pretty much agreed that it was pretty terrible and were reading all sorts of things about Bush being a lame duck into it.
I heard something like 41% of those polled thought it was "very good" and 37% thought it was "good," or something like that.
The road to mediocrity is built on low expectations.
Also, everyone seems to think the SotU was really good.
Did they watch a different speech than the one I saw, or were they just viewing it in a vacuum?
The NPR reports I heard today pretty much agreed that it was pretty terrible and were reading all sorts of things about Bush being a lame duck into it.
I heard something like 41% of those polled thought it was "very good" and 37% thought it was "good," or something like that.
I would submit that there is sample bias. Those who support the president were more likely to tune in and watch than those who didn't.
Posts
Like most Libertarian screeds, I agree with the content of about 50% of it, and the tone of about none of it.
Well his closing "Let Freedom Grow!" is a bit weak. The speech could've used some work there.
All in all I found it to be a little self-serving (We're libertarian so what we think is right is what we "know"). Also as always a large misunderstanding of the invisible hand theory that runs rampant in the Lib. party. *shrug*
That's really what irritates me most about environmental policy: nothing is ever, ever good enough. No one's willing to embrace half-measures as stepping stones.
I'd go along with public funding more TDP pilots, though it's hard to understand why venture capital hasn't moved in to the niche.
The same, incidentally, goes for nuclear power. Concerns about nuclear waste and all aside, I see no reason to believe we won't just come to rely on it until we start running out of fissionable materials, and then we'll just panic and come up with another stopgap that'll work for another 50 years.
The same, incidentally, goes for nuclear power. Concerns about nuclear waste and all aside, I see no reason to believe we won't just come to rely on it until we start running out of fissionable materials, and then we'll just panic and come up with another stopgap that'll work for another 50 years.[/quote]
You're aware that the alternative is to pretty much never do anything, and have shit a whole lot worse off, right? Your choices are:
A) Baby steps laced with compromises, or
There is no C) get exactly what you want with no compromises whatsoever, because not everybody wants the same things you do.
That's cool and all, but those other things aren't half the threat that global warming is?
Especially because to me it's closer to "tortoise steps" than "baby steps".
Also, everyone seems to think the SotU was really good.
Did they watch a different speech than the one I saw, or were they just viewing it in a vacuum?
The road to mediocrity is built on low expectations.
I would submit that there is sample bias. Those who support the president were more likely to tune in and watch than those who didn't.