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: Lane3 who wrote (130829)	2/13/2010 5:30:42 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542230

Sensible approach from the WaPo's Milbank. Global warming's snowball fight By Dana Milbank Sunday, February 14, 2010 The back-to-back snowstorms in the capital were an inconvenient meteorological phenomenon for Al Gore. "It's going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries 'uncle'," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) exulted on Twitter. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) posted photos on Facebook of "Al Gore's New Home" -- a six-foot igloo the Inhofe family built on Capitol Hill. "Where is Al Gore?" taunted Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). "He has not been seen since the snow and the arctic blast have pummeled the Eastern Seaboard in America, turning it into a frozen tundra," reported Fox News's Glenn Beck, who also tastefully suggested hari-kari for climate scientists. ad_icon As a scientific proposition, claiming that heavy snow in the mid-Atlantic debunks global warming theory is about as valid as claiming that the existence of John Edwards debunks the theory of evolution. In fact, warming theory suggests that you'd see trends toward heavier snows, because warmer air carries more moisture. This latest snowfall, though, is more likely the result of a strong El Niño cycle that has parked the jet stream right over the mid-Atlantic states. Still, there's some rough justice in the conservatives' cheap shots. In Washington's blizzards, the greens were hoisted by their own petard. For years, climate-change activists have argued by anecdote to make their case. Gore, in his famous slide shows, ties human-caused global warming to increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought and the spread of mosquitoes, pine beetles and disease. It's not that Gore is wrong about these things. The problem is that his storm stories have conditioned people to expect an endless worldwide heat wave, when in fact the changes so far are subtle. Other environmentalists have undermined the cause with claims bordering on the outlandish; they've blamed global warming for shrinking sheep in Scotland, more shark and cougar attacks, genetic changes in squirrels, an increase in kidney stones and even the crash of Air France Flight 447. When climate activists make the dubious claim, as a Canadian environmental group did, that global warming is to blame for the lack of snow at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, then they invite similarly specious conclusions about Washington's snow -- such as the Virginia GOP ad urging people to call two Democratic congressmen "and tell them how much global warming you get this weekend." Argument-by-anecdote isn't working. Consider the words of Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the energy committee, who told The Hill newspaper last week that the snow "makes it more challenging" to make the case about global warming's danger to people who aren't "taking time to review the scientific arguments." Scientific arguments, too, are problematic. In a conference call arranged Thursday by the liberal Center for American Progress to refute the snow antics of Inhofe et al., the center's Joe Romm made the well-worn statements that "the overwhelming weight of the scientific literature" points to human-caused warming and that doubters "don't understand the science." The science is overwhelming -- but not definitive. Romm's claim was inadvertently shot down by his partner on the call, the Weather Underground's Jeff Masters, who confessed that "there's a huge amount of natural variability in the climate system" and not enough years of measurements to know exactly what's going on. "Unfortunately we don't have that data so we are forced to make decisions based on inadequate data." The scientific case has been further undermined by high-profile screw-ups. First there were the hacked e-mails of a British research center that suggested the scientists were stacking the deck to overstate the threat. Now comes word of numerous errors in a 2007 report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including the bogus claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear in 25 years. For those concerned about warming, it's time for a shift in emphasis. Fortunately, one has already been provided to them by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has done more than any Democrat to keep climate legislation alive this year. His solution: skip the hurricanes and Himalayan glaciers and keep the argument on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on foreign oil, some of that going to terrorists rather than to domestic job creation. Al Gore, for one, seems to realize it's time for a new tactic. New TV ads released during last week's blizzards by Gore's climate advocacy group say nothing about climate science. They show workers asking their senators for more jobs from clean energy. That's a good sign. If the Washington snows persuade the greens to put away the slides of polar bears and pine beetles and to keep the focus on national security and jobs, it will have been worth the shoveling. danamilbank@washpost.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (130829)	2/14/2010 10:47:26 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 542230

OK--thanks. A lot of those are quite valid concerns. I will try to speak to them soon.

To: Lane3 who wrote (130829)	2/14/2010 12:14:10 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542230

OK--thanks Lane. Here are my rebuttals. I have to add that yesterday my wife came home from the library and dumped a book on my lap "A More Perfect Constitution" by Political Science Professor Larry J. Sabato (Director of Center for Politics at UVA). The book's subtitle is "23 Proposals to Revitalize our Constitution and Make America A Fairer Country". Well, wouldn't you know, one of these proposals is for Universal National Service (UNS). Sabato is basically making the same arguments I've been making only more thoroughly, and he has incorporated into his arguments what I have not that is, some facts and figures about cost and manpower etc. So in my rebuttals here I am going to be borrowing Sabato's facts and figures where I think appropriate. I understand I've called in the heavy artillery in doing this, which I feel is a bit inequitable given that we've been just exchanging opinions up to now, but there is no way I know of to address issues of cost and workability without some data. So feel free to get your own data, also, in refutation of this. L: 1. There are other approaches for accomplishing the goal. This one seems relatively drastic. V: Agreed that it is relatively drastic. It is fundamental alteration of our young people's and national life style. Disagree about other approaches working inasmuch as they are, I assume, voluntary. This means only a portion of the population would participate in whatever the programs are (it would be helpful to have concrete proposals as to what these other means are). Additionally there is the moral argument: It is not about you--it is about we all have a shared obligation to defend and work for the country. Man and women both have to go with basically no exceptions unless you are flat on your back in a coma. We will find you a phone to answer in a non-profit organization if you are disabled. This puts the ideal in line with the reality. L: 2. It may accomplish the goal for some people but it wouldn't work for many others and would totally screw up yet others. I don't have a clue what the proportions of those groups are but I look at it as "first, do no harm." I see a lot of risk to the participants, particularly relative to the gain. And what would make some people appreciate their country's foundations more would turn off other people to various degrees. You could end up with a net decrease in foundation appreciation. V: No doubt there would be screwups and stockades and jails would be needed for those who refused to participate. However, the message has to be sent that the country is serious about requiring service. We would strive to make the experience as much as something for everyone as humanly possible, but in the end the message is sent: "The country is only as strong as its citizens willingness to support it." L: 3. What it might accomplished is utterly dwarfed by the cost. V: From Sabato's book pg 174. Approximately $16,000 per participant with 4.1 million participants per year or 65.7 billion annually or $220 per citizen. This based on estimates/projections from the Office and Management and budget as to what it would take to run the Americorps program on a required service basis. To put those figures into perspective Sabato cites the cost of the total spent on the Iraq War up through March 2007 as 378 billion or $1,267 per citizen. Total projected spending for the Iraq war in $750 billion or $2,517 per citizen. He also cites a higher estimate of 2 trillion or $6,711 per citizen. I know the cost of the required service doesn't include the increased costs to the military of having to accommodate more soldiers, but there are also offsets (less recruiting etc.) Sabato projects only about 10% of the participants choosing the military or meeting its qualifications, but also paying the military members current scale and benefits as opposed to something like minimum wage for participants in non-military programs. He also speaks of giving military participants choices of 3-4 year enlistments and/or 6 months training and then assignment to National Guard/Reserve Units for up to 6 years. L: 4. We don't need all those kids underfoot. They couldn't be used effectively. V: I agree that the vulnerability of this proposal is the effective use of the participants. It is not automatically a given that anyone will be underfoot--although initially it is easy to imagine some glitches. It would take some time to implement and surely there would be a learning curve. But that is not enough of a reason not to try. L: 5. It would place a drain on our military. They don't need any self-imposed problems. They have enough to do dealing with actual enemies. V: Open question. Basically it is my experience the military will do what it is asked to do. You want us to train our nation's young people we will train out nation's young people. The professional class of soldiers may bitch about it some because they don't really like having people in it who they can't intimidate because those people know more than them (about non- military stuff) and are often well connected and not afraid to write their congressmen (or have their Dad do it for them). This makes for a military that is much more cautious about trying anything that could rebound on their careers which I think is a very good thing. ON the positive side the military will have available to it a whole raft of skill sets and prior experiences that it is not getting now and can put to use. Plus the nation will be getting a deep reserve pool of talent that can go forth and be more effective leaders in all walks of civilian life because of this exposure. L: 6. You couldn't assemble enough trained troops quickly enough if we needed them, anyway. It would be too little, too late. V: Which is exactly why we need to do it gradually year by year so that skillset is already out in the population. L: 7. Lost opportunity. Some of those kids could, instead, be curing cancer or creating some breakthrough technology or building a business that employs lots of people. V: They will get there eventually. They could even use the service to get there. (You want to be a doctor, if you have a college degree and the grade point average the service will send you to its own Medical School if you agree to give it 2 years for every year in training.) Plus look at all the kids who will now go to college after having some real world experience. They will much more effective as students and in the civilian job markets. The program will be a "force multiplier" for skill sets and in doing so deepen the nations talent pool. L: 8. We can't afford it. The budget is already out of control. V: We can't afford not do it. The budget is out of control because we have become self-satisfied and self indulgent with the political class pandering to us and starting wars we basically don't care about because they don't touch us directly (unless one of our kids has volunteered). UNS would align our national interests with our economic interests. L: 9. The idea of such involuntary servitude is distasteful. If it isn't unconstitutional, it should be. V: E Pluribus Unum. United we are one. L: There are probably some more that will come to mind in the middle of the night... <g> V: Good. A healthy debate on this is desired. L: If we're going to pay all those kids for a few years, I'd rather pay to send them to college where they would, in return, be required to pass citizenship and character training in addition to their regular coursework. It would be cheaper and more productive with much less risk of harm to the participants or the culture. At least for our money they would have learned something useful to the country in addition to maybe coming to appreciate our foundations, your goal. V: If we are just requiring book work from them what message does that send?