Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (100275)	2/13/2005 9:14:13 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793640

The Friedman column was so bad I didn't post it. Instapundit - I DON'T BLOG MUCH on energy policy, leaving that to people like Lynn Kiesling. But a reader asks what I think about this column by Tom Friedman today. Excerpt: nytimes.com As a geo-green, I believe that combining environmentalism and geopolitics is the most moral and realistic strategy the U.S. could pursue today. Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax. What would that buy? It would buy reform in some of the worst regimes in the world, from Tehran to Moscow. It would reduce the chances that the U.S. and China are going to have a global struggle over oil - which is where we are heading. This is all fine with me -- I'd like to see big honking nuclear plants (possibly of the much-touted pebble-bed design) producing hydrogen to run clean cars. On the other hand, Friedman's own policy proposals are a bit less ambitious, involving a gas tax plus a bit of what looks like cultural warfare: I would like to see every campus in America demand that its board of trustees disinvest from every U.S. auto company until they improve their mileage standards. Every college town needs to declare itself a "Hummer-free zone." You want to drive a gas-guzzling Humvee? Go to Iraq, not our campus. And an idea from my wife, Ann: free parking anywhere in America for anyone driving a hybrid car. This sort of moralistic-but-ineffective posturing -- based more on hatred of SUVs and their owners than anything else -- is the 21st Century equivalent of Jimmy Carter's cardigan, and it's why most Americans roll their eyes when people say the words "energy policy." If Friedman wants to make a difference on this subject, he needs to look at technology -- and at what people actually want and will tolerate -- and try to put the two together. The "energy policy" discussion on The West Wing was better than this. OK, except maybe for the free-parking idea, which is actually not bad in a small-scale Clinton-initiative kind of way.

To: LindyBill who wrote (100275)	2/14/2005 5:50:35 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793640

This seems to be a major problem with you. Yes, it's an example of what is a major problem with me. Let me explain it one more time. The source you posted said: "Jordan had accused the U.S. military of systematically murdering journalists" I responded with: "Did he say that?" And you answered: "Yes, he did say it. He said American troops were targeting and killing journalists." The key word is "yes." You said "yes, he did say it" and then went on to restate "it" in a way that was different from and more moderate than the statement I questioned and much closer to what he actually is supposed to have said. So, the answer to my question, I think, would be "no, not quite, what he actually said was..." The "yes" flags the problem. My problem, in brief, has been and continues to be attribution to some target an exaggeration or outright distortion of what that person said making that person's statements a fatter target. This is done, I assume, either out of faulty cognition or deliberate demonizing or both. The reason I am concerned about this problem is because I think all the dramatizing, polarizating, and concomitant hostility that surround us are very unhealthy. The substance of the Eason Jordan scenario is not an issue with me. I speak to it only as an example of what is, yes, a major problem with me. Examples abound. This is just one of them. There were a couple of situations right here on this thread yesterday where my response was "where did I say that?" Same thing. There seems to be lot of this going around and I definitely do consider it a major problem for our society.