I'm more than happy to debate global warming, Stossel's past or anything else. One thing I'm confused about, however, is why you never remove your blinders. Why bother typing so many tags if they all lead to fair.org?
But, to your points. Yes, I have read the letter written by the parents (and congratulations on reading a site other than fair.org). Were you aware that most of them were present *during* the original interviews and only protested after being cajoled by environmentalists?
Regarding Stossels record, of course I'm aware of the nonexistent test (it was not 'faked', as you claim, rather he was erroneously told by a producer that it had occurred). Furthermore, I find your line about 'just the one he got caught on' quite laughable. His every move is scrutinized by people such as you who don't believe any viewpoint other than their own should even be voiced. As for the resignations of the producers, have you considered that they are as politically biased as you and can't abide the airing of opinions that don't match their own?
If you are going to debate my points, look at my points. And you *still* have not addressed the point of my original article (find it yourself...I'm not as link-addicted as you), namely that the kids parrotted the opinions of the environmentalists, never acknowledging the merest possibility that alternative views exist.
You can attack all the messengers (me, Stossel, the kids, Bush, whomever), but you still can't tell me what temperature it will be on August 16th in Berlin, whether 2001 or 2101. And try adding some new bookmarks (sheesh! talk about living in a cave!).
I'm not talking about what Stossel says. If you read my post, I'm advising to listen to what the *kids* said. Their responses prove my point, not his reporting.
On a side note, he does not have a dubious track record, as you say, and there was no debunking. Rather, it's a load of leftist whining (e.g., your first link). Do you also not put much credence in network news and CNN, given their track records?
What Katz is missing is *why* it's such a hot (excuse the pun) issue. I would submit that one of the main reasons behind the awareness of global warming (momentarily disregarding its true impact), is the fact that it is taught to our children from an early age. Furthermore, it is taught not as some yet-to-be-proven subject, like human cloning, but as if it were established fact. See ABC's report by John Stossel for verification of this brainwashing.
The other view of the argument is held by those who are not only offended by the environmentalists' dire, premature predictions but appalled that our children are encouraged to accept them as gospel. Therefore, you have doomsayers relying almost completely on emotions arguing against otherwise logical people whose emotions are inflamed. Hence, the discourse is passionate, and not because there is some new melding of science and politics.
From my point of view, if you can't tell me what the temperature will be two weeks from Tuesday, don't tell me what it will be in 50 years. And remember, in the 70's we were warned about the global cooling that was soon to destroy the planet.
While his letter could easily be taken apart bit-by-bit for a case study in fuzzy, media-saturated political thinking, a couple of lines really drew my attention. Since other posters have admirably refuted his (Gore's?) 1% mantra, let's look at:
Get this -- in the USA, charitable giving by the rich is MORE THAN TEN TIMES as high as it is in Europe! Studies credit most of this difference to the inheritance tax, spurring the wealthy to use their money to buy fame and gratitude, rather than let Uncle Sam decide how it will be spent.
Now, assuming these studies are credible (unreferenced 'studies' are always dangerous quote generators), wouldn't this comment encourage us to repeal any taxes possible? If the 'wealthy' (conveniently undefined) would rather make their own decisions than let Uncle Sam do it, why not give them more money to do it with?
So long as most of the millionaires in each generation still have to earn it and their kids still go to college with our kids. In that case they'll keep intermarrying with us, instead of thinking themselves a different species.
What!?!?! No class warfare in this piece? What is this drivel? Elsewhere he claims to have no issue with people of wealth, yet his class bias clearly seeps through. It's like the guy at the bar who, when turned down by a beautiful woman, loudly proclaims her a lesbian. I don't have what it takes to belong to a certain group, so I must find a reason for their not including me. Besides, if I want to spoil my grandchildren with my wealth, that's my prerogative...IT'S MY MONEY!
People who have thrived immensely under the protection/support/subsidy of a great nation don't want to help pay to keep that nation prospering and growing, or to help poor kids rise up high enough to compete with them on an even playing field.
This is patently false. Even if you assume that such pure selfishness existed, if the wealthy want America to discontinue its prosperity, who would purchase the goods and services that reinforce their wealth?
Rather, the issue is the fairness of the tax cut itself. Gore's tax benefits are mostly credits, not cuts and are directed specifically to certain groups. This is blatant social engineering and allows him to claim that he is helping almost every person in the country. You're a one-eyed, peg-legged gay eskimo? Gore will design a tax credit for you. No, it won't make much difference in your life once you actually look at the details, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that Gore cares.
In contrast, Bush's tax benefits are mostly cuts, and primarily distributed across ALL classes, not just the segments that Mr. Brin favors. That means that the eskimo will benefit, just as everyone else benefits. And it's only fair that the top 1% get 30-35% of the tax benefits since they pay 32% of ALL taxes. I can't imagine anything more fair than that. Or is Mr. Brin only interested in "social engineering" that serves his own purposes?
ENOUGH If you really want to vote against social engineering, vote against Gore.
Slashdot Mirror
But, to your points. Yes, I have read the letter written by the parents (and congratulations on reading a site other than fair.org). Were you aware that most of them were present *during* the original interviews and only protested after being cajoled by environmentalists?
Regarding Stossels record, of course I'm aware of the nonexistent test (it was not 'faked', as you claim, rather he was erroneously told by a producer that it had occurred). Furthermore, I find your line about 'just the one he got caught on' quite laughable. His every move is scrutinized by people such as you who don't believe any viewpoint other than their own should even be voiced. As for the resignations of the producers, have you considered that they are as politically biased as you and can't abide the airing of opinions that don't match their own?
If you are going to debate my points, look at my points. And you *still* have not addressed the point of my original article (find it yourself...I'm not as link-addicted as you), namely that the kids parrotted the opinions of the environmentalists, never acknowledging the merest possibility that alternative views exist.
You can attack all the messengers (me, Stossel, the kids, Bush, whomever), but you still can't tell me what temperature it will be on August 16th in Berlin, whether 2001 or 2101. And try adding some new bookmarks (sheesh! talk about living in a cave!).
On a side note, he does not have a dubious track record, as you say, and there was no debunking. Rather, it's a load of leftist whining (e.g., your first link). Do you also not put much credence in network news and CNN, given their track records?
The other view of the argument is held by those who are not only offended by the environmentalists' dire, premature predictions but appalled that our children are encouraged to accept them as gospel. Therefore, you have doomsayers relying almost completely on emotions arguing against otherwise logical people whose emotions are inflamed. Hence, the discourse is passionate, and not because there is some new melding of science and politics.
From my point of view, if you can't tell me what the temperature will be two weeks from Tuesday, don't tell me what it will be in 50 years. And remember, in the 70's we were warned about the global cooling that was soon to destroy the planet.
Get this -- in the USA, charitable giving by the rich is MORE THAN TEN TIMES as high as it is in Europe! Studies credit most of this difference to the inheritance tax, spurring the wealthy to use their money to buy fame and gratitude, rather than let Uncle Sam decide how it will be spent.
Now, assuming these studies are credible (unreferenced 'studies' are always dangerous quote generators), wouldn't this comment encourage us to repeal any taxes possible? If the 'wealthy' (conveniently undefined) would rather make their own decisions than let Uncle Sam do it, why not give them more money to do it with?
So long as most of the millionaires in each generation still have to earn it and their kids still go to college with our kids. In that case they'll keep intermarrying with us, instead of thinking themselves a different species.
What!?!?! No class warfare in this piece? What is this drivel? Elsewhere he claims to have no issue with people of wealth, yet his class bias clearly seeps through. It's like the guy at the bar who, when turned down by a beautiful woman, loudly proclaims her a lesbian. I don't have what it takes to belong to a certain group, so I must find a reason for their not including me. Besides, if I want to spoil my grandchildren with my wealth, that's my prerogative...IT'S MY MONEY!
People who have thrived immensely under the protection/support/subsidy of a great nation don't want to help pay to keep that nation prospering and growing, or to help poor kids rise up high enough to compete with them on an even playing field.
This is patently false. Even if you assume that such pure selfishness existed, if the wealthy want America to discontinue its prosperity, who would purchase the goods and services that reinforce their wealth?
Rather, the issue is the fairness of the tax cut itself. Gore's tax benefits are mostly credits, not cuts and are directed specifically to certain groups. This is blatant social engineering and allows him to claim that he is helping almost every person in the country. You're a one-eyed, peg-legged gay eskimo? Gore will design a tax credit for you. No, it won't make much difference in your life once you actually look at the details, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that Gore cares.
In contrast, Bush's tax benefits are mostly cuts, and primarily distributed across ALL classes, not just the segments that Mr. Brin favors. That means that the eskimo will benefit, just as everyone else benefits. And it's only fair that the top 1% get 30-35% of the tax benefits since they pay 32% of ALL taxes. I can't imagine anything more fair than that. Or is Mr. Brin only interested in "social engineering" that serves his own purposes?
ENOUGH If you really want to vote against social engineering, vote against Gore.