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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (22883)	7/5/2006 12:40:02 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542946

Seems like most "real" political issues nowadays end up in a logjammed muddle, like this discussion.

To: JohnM who wrote (22883)	7/5/2006 12:46:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542946

If you go back to the Samuelson piece, which started this conversation, the general mood one gets from it is to simply give up. I didn't get that at all. Sure, give up on the current approach, about which, to put it gently we disagree, a less gentle way being that you are wrong. <g> Not give up on solving the problem. The message is that only once we've given up on the current approach can we begin to solve the problem. As long as you irrevocably equate solving the problem with following the Gore tack, you will think that giving up on his approach is giving up on global warming. I think this is the same thing as thinking of those who don't favor a welfare state as being heartless re the poor. Or thinking that those who don't favor the Iraq war aren't patriots. Same thing. Support for the approach and for the objective are not the same thing.

To: JohnM who wrote (22883)	7/5/2006 4:16:07 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542946

But, as I have repeated many times, those smaller scale things won't do the job. Anyone who gets that is left to infer unpalatable things left unspoken. What you get is your classic avoidance/avoidance conflict, which psych 101 tells us causes such distress that people just throw up their hands. Ironic, that, for a strategy that's intending to gather political support. Well, it actually won't matter how many times you repeat since a gentle way to put it is we disagree, a less gentle way to put it is you are simply wrong. You are right and she is wrong. Your proposed solution will most likely work if enough people sign on. She is right in that many people will not sign on and she may be right in that not enough will sign on to solve the problem and that your solution has a high liklihood to fail. Her conclusion therefore is to do nothing and wait for some authoritative entity to come up with a definitive statement of the problem and a definitive solution. Your solution is rational. Let's act on what we know now and act now to do what we can. From what we know about the problem most scientists believe it will work. It is not definitive. Not all scientists are on board. If a definitive solution comes along you will of course follow that course. If we had to choose which course to take, hers or yours, we have to take the course you advocate. Your solution has a chance to work. She offers nothing. You are right. She is wrong.