This shouldn't take too long: Quicken already works with Codeweaver's Crossover Office - except for the Internet connectivity bit. I have been told this is on their priority list, since so many people have been asking for it...
Oh well, at least we agree on a few things. I still think that businesses play an important role in Latin America corruption, and that global warming is a real (if somewhat delayed threat). It was nice discussing these things with you...I guess it's time to move on, though. I'm pretty sure we're the only ones left posting comments on this story. Until next time, I bid you adieu!
I probably won't respond to anything else you say on the politial part of this subthread since what I'm really interested in debating is the global warming part.
Agreed. Anyway, as much as I enjoy this challenging exchange (I do, really), it's probably time to move on. I would just like to say one last thing about the whole Chavez affair. While I agree with you that Latin America government are corrupt in general, that paints only half of the picture, i.e. that businesses in those area also tend to be corrupt. After all, to use an appropriate analogy, it takes two to tango. This is why sticking to due process (and in the case of Venezuela, the constitutional process) is essential, and should be encouraged. In my view Bush failed to encourage the constitutional process because his administration clearly dislikes Chavez. That was a blatant faux-pas on the government's part.
In other words, "Global warming is probably real. But if it isn't, we should act like it is since all it means is that it isn't happening now but will probably happen someday." I can't argue with that logic. If that's the way you see it then we might as well abandon all research--if our actions with or without global warming are the same, there's no reason to research it.
Well, that's not exactly what I meant. What I believe would go more along these lines: "Global warming is probably real. Until we know for sure that it isn't, we should act as if it was in order not to make the situation worse. It just so happens that in changing our habits in order to avert this probable catastrophe, we also solve another problem: our dependence on fossil fuels, which has dire economic and geopolitical consequences. So we kill two birds - or at least one and possible other one - with one stone (to use a non-politically correct saying...:-)
If the satellites and radiosondes for the last 23 (satellites) to 50 (radiosondes) years are showing a slight cooling and the surface record shows heating, the surface measurements are not reliable.
Read the stories again: radiosondes measure atmospheric, not surface, temperatures. In the NASA papers, they clearly show that the difference is not between recorded surface temperatures, but between recorded surface and atmospheric temperatures. The surface indeed is warming up, but the atmosphere is not warming up at the same rate, and parts of it are cooling instead. As I said, this shows that the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes are incorrect, which may mean that global warming is slower than expected (let's hope that's what it means). However, the radiosonde data does not invalidate surface temperature records, because it doesn't measure surface temperatures. The discrepancy is with the expected atmospheric warming and the actual recorded one, which is lower than expected. Thus the question of reliability does not apply to surface temperature measurements (save for the so-called "asphalt effect"), but rather to the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes.
In one section it talks about reducing emissions by 17% while in another part it says that it's emissions have increased by half the rate of growth of the economy.
Actually, the arctile says the country's energy consumption has increased by half the rate of growth of the economy, not its emissions. Those are two different things. Emissions did increase in the first part of the 90s, mind you, but they have been decreasing in the second half. A few more links about a piece of news that was quite underreported in the U.S.:
And here is an analysis by the US NGO that published the original report. In this analysis the researchers said they cross-examined their data a second time after the Washington Post claimed that China had underreported its actual emission figures while inflating its actual economic growth. The NRDC still found that China had in fact decreased its carbon emissions while enjoying a healthy economic growth. So the two are not irreconcilable, and the "China excuse" is not a valid reason for the U.S. to drop out of Kyoto...unless you are suggesting that americans are somehow less capable at taking on the environmental challenge than the chinese are...
Sure, there will be short-term costs, but these will be quickly recouped, and the goal is quite worthy of those small sacrifices (energetic independence and reducing the likelihood of a probable global warming).
Anyway, that's my opinion. We probably won't be able to see eye to eye on this, but still I respect your position.
If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear there would have been no positive impact to the environment. None. Since many developing countries--including China and India, which make up 1 of 3 people on this planet--were exempt.
That is conveniently ignoring the fact that China has actually reduced their carbon emissions while developing their economy, as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world. That excuse is getting old. It's not China and India that are polluting the planet, it's the U.S. But you're right, Kyoto won't change things, because the U.S. has pulled out of it using the fallacious "China" argument (how convenient) and therefore will keep on poisoning our atmosphere.
We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?
I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it. Meanwhile, it seems not everyone at NASA agrees with you (see also this for an alternate scenario). In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!). Still, as this NASA page indicates, "it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future." The thing is, satellites and radiosonde measure changes in the atmosphere, not the surface. The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!
At the risk of repeating myself: yes, we do not have complete, conclusive proof. So I'll be generous to your point of view (which seems to be entirely based on that surface/atmosphere discrepancy, which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing) and say that it's a 50-50 chance. Now, how much would you be prepared to risk on 50-50 chance? I know I'm not prepared to risk it, and fortunately policymakers are less and less inclined to do so. Sure, there will be some people on the fringe that believe that global warming isn't real, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (even if the computer models are not quite accurate). Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.
"Incentive" is just another way of saying "force." Sure, it's not made law, but taxes or tax breaks are made that essentially push people to do something they would not otherwise do. I'm not a believer in the benevolance nor the superior intelligence of government. I believe in the people.
Well, as faulty as it is, the government is the only representation the people as a whole have. Even if it's imperfect, it's better than nothing! Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them. No one is forcing you. Similarly, when a state puts tax incentives to draw a company to build a new factory, they are not forcing that company in any way. It may choose to go somewhere else instead. Another example: China forces people to have only one child (by punishing those who have more than one). India gives incentives so that people will have only one child. The fact is, a lot of people in India have more than one child, despite the incentives. They are not being forced, and it does not have the same impact. You're just playing on words to try to get out of a losing argument. Give it up.
When someone says "free market" it should be translated to "free people."
What a load of bull! You confuse companies with actual citizens. Case in point: capital is now much more free in its international movement than people are. Markets are freer than populations. You can have a dictatorship that has a free market and prosperous economy. There is absolutely no relationship between the two concepts! Either you're a businessman, or you're being very naive.
My government's job is NOT to herd me like a cow in the direction that someone else has decided my life should take.
No, but it is its job to balance the needs of individuals with the common good. In other words, to limit your freedom so that it does not go against those of others. Political Science 101. But anyway that's not what I was talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about incentives, like any government always use for a variety of purposes. I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.
>Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves!
So what? He hadn't stopped shipping oil to the U.S.
No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.
Probably not. That's not the point. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from the owner of the press. It's the right to report whatever needs to be reported.
Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so. Freedom of the press means freedom of the journalists to write what they think is true - if the journalists are pressured, either by the government or by the owners, into writing something they don't think is true, then the press cannot be said to be free. That's called editorial interference and it is frowned upon in any democratic society. Of course there are always the Op-Ed pages where one can say whatever he wants, as long as it is not slanderous. But we're talking about factual reporting here.
I know the press in Venezuela is controlled by a Chavez opponent. That's a GOOD thing. I'd much rather have a press that reports and criticizes the bad things about the government than just goes along and paints a pretty picture and covers up the truth.
That doesn't seem to be the case, here. Quite the opposite: the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.
But if the people of Venezuela were to decide that they've had enough and that they were going to overthrow their own government, that's their internal problem, as long as no-one external instigated it.
But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail. And if the people get tired of him they have a way to take him out of office: it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it. The people who organized the coup are part of a well-organized and well-funded minority. They do not represent the will of the majority...and in a democracy, the majority has the final say. Even though it can be wrong, even though it can elect a tyrant (or a Yale drop-out). That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.
And considering the satellite record coincides very well with the radiosonde record it's really hard to avoid the conclusion that they're pushing an agenda, not a pursuit of science.
What agenda could they be pushing? It's not as if they were going to make money off this (if, like you said, they are not climatologists). So I fail to see what they would have to gain in this: no fortune, no fame (really, it's not as if they became rock stars). This doesn't make much sense. There is, however, plenty of incentive on the other side to say that global warming is just hogwash. And if the Big Oil companies have not funded so-called "scientific" studies to discredit the opponent's view, then they are just plain stupid. But you go ahead and show me a valid scientific study that gives me conclusive proof that global warming isn't happening, or that it isn't related to fuel fossil emissions. When the consequences are so grave for the collective people of the world, then the burden of proof is on the few who invoke privilege to make a profit as an excuse not to change their ways.
You might not agree (and I believe you are mistaken about that) but fortunately, that is becoming the prevalent view among policymakers, who now need only to stand up to the powerful industrial lobbies - who are much, much more powerful than the environmental lobbies, btw. If you believe otherwise you are either a) quite ignorant of the lobbying world or b) part of such an industry lobby who opposes regulation of fossil fuel emissions. However you put it, the truth is we are witnessing an increase in surface temperature (including oceanic temperature). Now you might be willing to risk the planet's future on the fact that there is no defnitive proof that this is linked to fossil fuel emissions. I say it's a foolish chance to take, given the possible repercussions, just to save a few bucks.
>Well, that's why we have a government, isn't it?
To force people to do what they don't want to do? Perhaps that's your vision of the role of government, it's not mine.
Not to force people, to give incentive. To lead. To act responsibly for the common good, not the privileges of the oil industry shareholders. But of course right now the U.S. government is made up of such shareholders, so I'm not hoping for much...
(About Chavez) But when a dictator-in-the-making that is threatening the freedom of the press is toppled, is it really surprising that the U.S. wouldn't be entirely displeased? I would agree, Chavez brought it on himself--it wasn't forced on Venezuela by any foreign country.
The Bush administration's hardly-concealed joy at Chavez' temporary overthrow had nothing to do with freedom of the press. Come on! Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves! (And Iraq had the second...do you see a pattern here?) For your information the press in Venezuela isn't free. It belongs to the richest South American media magnate, who happens to be an outspoken adversary of Chavez. Do you really believe these media have any editorial independence from their owner? Think again. If they did, they wouldn't have shown soaps on the television as massive pro-Chavez protests spontaneously took place in the capital - while they had extensively covered more modest (but anti-Chavez) protests the day before...The truth is, the Venezuelan media are just a mouthpiece for a corrupt, greedy business elite, nothing else. Even then, Chavez treats them with a lot more respect than some of the U.S. allies do theirs. Would the U.S. cheer if these regimes do theirs (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Colombia, Israel in its recent military operations, etc.) were overthrown? I don't think so...
Whether the Bush administration likes Chavez or not is irrelevant. He was elected, and if the people don't want him anymore they can vote him out during the next election. If he breaks the law they can try to impeach him. What happened, though, cannot be denied: while the entire world was condemning the coup, the U.S. didn't (at least not until it was clear that it failed). For a country that would like to see itself as a beacon of democracy, that is totally unacceptable behavior. I do hope it blows up in his face (figuratively speaking, of course). Bottom line is, a coup against an elected leader can never be democratic: it's a fundamental contradiction! If the people go and elect want to elect a left-leaning ex-airborne officer, then that's what they want. Nobody's saying that George Bush shouldn't be president even though he probably is an ex-alcoholic, ex-drug user who is quasi-litterate and has never been able to keep a job that wasn't handed out to him before...(he did steal the election, but that's another story, another debate...)
Show it to me. Good hard facts. I have seen no evidence whatsoever--and believe me, I've looked. Beyond smoke and mirrors and very science-lacking news reports I have found little in the way of evidence that carbon is doing anything drastic to the eath. Please show me to that data.
Are you an climatologist expert? What kind of data is needed to convince you? I personally doubt that you've been seriously looking for it. Anyway, here are a few links you should investigate:
IPCC 2001 Report (Note: these are links for "policy makers", so they're probably lighter in scientific data than the Technical Summaries also included on the site. Even then, the evidence is compelling.)
There is also a HTML summary here. However, I suspect you really don't want to be convinced, so you'll probably dismiss these studies as "environmalist propaganda". Or perhaps you can point to the factual errors in the studies...Well, the encouraging thing is that policymakers are slowly getting up to speed and starting to do something about it.
I'm not talking about companies that can amortize. I'm talking about individuals that are going to see a $15k gas-based car or a $35k cell-based car and say, "Screw that."
Well, that's why we have a government, isn't it? If they can heavily subsidize american industry through the Pentagon system, surely they can help automakers in making such cars affordable to the general public? Well, at least we both agree that research into making such cars cheaper and more available is a priority.
As far as Venezuela is concerned, the links between the White House and the coup leaders are becoming clearer: see this article for more info...btw, Newsweek has never been known as being a pro-left, conspiracy theory-prone media source. Anyway, we're not bound to agree on everything, but at least we do on the importance of affordable fuel cell technology. So I'll leave it at that for now - you're welcome to add more comments if you want, though.
Actually, oil is not the problem. It's WHERE we get it.
Ah, semantics. Gotta love it.
Sure, alternative energy is a good goal. But it doesn't help us today. For the time being we need to exploit our own oil reserves and reduce our dependency on unstable, Arab oil while we look for a good alternative.
It's not a question of "alternative" energy, it's about a "renewable" energy source. At least you agree that it is a good goal. But since it is a long-term goal, concrete action needs to be take now, not tomorrow! America's dependence on oil has caused enough political, economical and environmental damage (most of it outside of its borders) already.
I don't feel like getting into an environmental debate today; suffice it to say that not all of us are convinced that using carbon fuels is as bad as some environmentalists would have us believe
Despite ever-increasing scientific evidence to the contrary. Hey, even Bush and the oil companies acknowledge that burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment and that the reserves of fossil fuel are finite. Not only that, but new reserves will be costly to exploit, especially if environmentally-sensitive drilling is required (as it would in the ANWR). To believe otherwise is, I believe, wishful thinking fueled by an understandable (if dangerous) reluctance in changing energy-consumption habits.
Hello, McFly... You suggest that fuel cells aren't in use because it would help break the lucrative oil barons, then recognize that fuel cells would cost a lot of money up-front...
Yes, Biff, that is what I'm saying. There is no contradiction there. Of course it will be expensive to change to fuel cells. However, there is this great thing called a "to amortize" I believe ("amortissement" in french). That is, costs can be spread out over a couple of years, until the actual cost benefits start kicking in. So the transition wouldn't be as costly as they first seem. However, people who make a profit (and a hefty one at that) preserving America's addiction to oil will make less money, just as the dope dealer loses money when one of his addict goes clean. The fact that you (as a person) don't feel that the cost is worth it is irrelevant: this is something that will have to be done, and sooner than later. Those "cheap oil prices" won't stay that way, and getting them will carry and increasingly higher political and environmental cost as well.
Perhaps, but we'd rather spend our money on something else and that's our right. If you want to use fuel cells, go for it. I don't. Gas is currently cheaper and more efficient and I'm happy using it. Don't expect me, in those conditions, to be eager to switch to fuel cells that are going to cost me more...
Yes, you have the right to be irresponsible. But america does not have the moral right to destabilize the entire world just so it can get its oil fix. Also, as I said, you're being incredible near-sighted if you believe oil will stay cheap. For your own good, you should encourage the quick implementation of fuel cells and other renewable energy sources right now!
Much of that hatred and misunderstanding would go away if we'd just use our own domestic oil and oil from Mexico and maybe Venezuela.
Right, Venezuela...as long as a friendly president is in place. And if not, the Bush administration will try to topple him again, huh? See what I mean about the increasing political cost? The problem is, the world is beginning to be fed up with being there only to satisfy America's energy needs. You guys are going to have to start behaving more responsible very soon...
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason EVERY administration is a "big oil" administration is because the U.S. is a "big oil" country? News flash: Without oil our country would collapse. It's strategically important to our politics, military, and economy.
Of course it would. So it seems to me that instead of messing up the whole world in order to secure its access to cheap oil, the U.S. should do the responsible thing and find ways to lessen dramatically its addiction to oil. America is pretty much the same as a heroin addict right now: ready to lie, cheat and steal to get its fix, instead of doing the responsible thing and checking in at a rehab center. You say that a president who doesn't have the "same level of concern" for oil shouldn't be president? Well I say: if he's not concerned about breaking America's dependency on the black gold, an only with providing her with it, then he's nothing more than a drug dealer.
It's not up to the rest of the planet to have a hard time just because the U.S. can cure its addiction.
And, finally, believe me, it IS possible for people to be invested in something and still do what's right for the country. It's also possible for people in power to do what's right for the country and also have their investments benefit.
Yeah, too bad it rarely happens, and when it does happen, it's to the benefit of HIS country, not the Earth and humanity as a whole. Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been known since the 70s, and they're still not in consumer vehicles. Why is that? Because they would help break the lucrative business of the new oil barons. Sure switching to fuel cells would cost a lot of money up front - so what? You guys are the richest, most powerful nation in the world! Surely you could afford this...
Before someone mods us as off-topic again, consider the headline: Technology: Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding. My point is that the technology that has "fueled" the most hatred and misunderstanding in the twentieth century is the modern car engine.
Regarding whether the millitary targeting of civilians is terrorism; Yes, I'd say that it was.
But then, (as I noted in another post) the millitaries of all nations (ex. the US firebombing of Dresden during WWII) have caused 'collateral damage' i.e. accedentally kill civilians when engaged in warfare.
According to one of the Geneva conventions (I can't remember which one), countries are required to try to minimize "collateral" civilian deaths - this should include not carrying out a specific operation if civilian casualties are expected to be high. Usually, however, it does not. Sometimes, terrorizing the population is the objective, such as when the U.S. bombarded the countryside indochina during the Vietnam war, in order to drive the population into camps. Why? To dismantle the large popular support base enjoyed by the Communist (which eventually caused the defeat of the U.S. anyway). Not all military intervention is unjustified. And the use of force always implies instilling some "fear" in your opponent, I'll grant you that. But there is a difference in liberating Europe from the Nazis (which Chomsky clearly doesn't consider terrorism, BTW) and conducting aggressive military interventions throughout the globe to serve America's national interests (which often involves "low intensity conflict", a euphemism for state terrorism). If the U.S. limited itself to playing the disinterested global policeman (as it likes to portray itself), then I would have no problem with that - however, it's anything but disinterested these days! Case in point: the tacit support for the (failed) overthrow of a democratically-elected regime in Venezuela. I don't care if Chavez is a good president or not: fact is, he was elected. People have the right to elect who they choose. If they don't like him, they can always vote him out when the next election comes around. This is one black eye for the Bush administration.
The Bush administration did nothing for Enron because it was too late (therefore too dangerous). However, when you look at the past history of Enron, it is closely entertwined with that of the Bushes. The Republicans are just mad at Clinton because he stole their program. But there's no question that the Bush administration is that of Big Oil - every aspect of the Bush foreign policy is dominated by this: the upcoming Desert Storm sequel, the non-condemnation of (and probable involvment in) the failed Venezuelan coup, Arctic Drilling, the privileged relation with the saudis, the many members of the cabinet who come from Big Oil companies, etc.
BTW, if the media were so liberal, then the liberals wouldn't complain about it being so pro-conservative. The fact is, most media are private corporations, and they follow a pro-corporate bias. For example, NBC never presented news reports of anti-nuclear demonstrations when it was owned by General Electric (who built the motors that powered cruise missiles). Also, a TV network that counts McDonald's as one of its major sponsor would be hard-pressed to run a story critical of McDonald's and risk to lose that account. It's pretty simple, really.
At best, the major media are centrist with a pro-corporate agenda, and at worst (like Fox) they are clearly right-wing. Of course, if you're to the right of them, then you'll find them "liberal", but that's only relative to your own point of view. Bernard Goldberg's book is itself a pretty biased text - for a better-written counterpart (which gives a lot more sources to prove its point), try Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.
You said, in speaking of the definition of terrorism found in the US Army manual (gosh, I wish I had one of these now!):
The actual use of the term recognizes the right of nations to conduct millitary operations, and the responsibility of nations for controlling terrorist organizations (read: non-government organizations which deliberatly target non-millitary structures to acheive their aims)
I find your definition of terrorism rather strange. So terrorism targets non-military structures? Do you consider civilians structures? That seems a bit dehumanizing, doesn't it?
Well, if we are going to have a serious debate, we should at least agree to this: technically, civilians targeting soldiers of an occupying force (what you would call military "structures") isn't considered terrorism. For example, members of the french resistance weren't terrorists, even though the nazis called them such. Clearly, civilians (such as members of a "non-government organizations") that deliberately target other civilians are terrorists. For example, suicide bombers, who commit atrocious acts against innocent targets. Those are Chomsky's words, by the way. Excerpts from this interview:
TONY JONES: Given what you're saying about the brutality of the occupation, do you think the Palestinian suicide bombers are freedom fighters or terrorists?
PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: Terrorists - they're both, actually. They're trying to fight for freedom, but doing it in a totally unacceptable immoral way. Of course they're terrorists and there's been palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it. I oppose it now. But it's very small as compared with the US-backed Israeli terrorism. Quite typically, violence reflects the means of violence. It's not unusual.
Your interpretation of the definition doesn't leave much room for non-civilians, i.e. the military, who target civilians. But isn't that a form of terrorism? Forget the official US Army definition for a second (which says it is). Remember, you don't have to anihilate to terrorize. You don't have to kill a man to destroy him. The truth is, violence can take many forms, from outright assassination to the simple humiliation of checkpoints, from not adequately protecting civilians in military operations to using them to pick up potentially booby-trap objects, from enforcing curfews for months to random beatings, and so on. State violence against civilians for political goals is state terrorism. Perhaps it doesn't fit in your own definition of what terrorism is. That does not make it less destructive nor despicable.
Ahem. As far as I can tell the definition is not by Chomsky, but by the US army. However, that does not cover the entirey of armed conflicts - neither does Chomsky proceeds to do claim that it does. For example, the calculated use of violence to prevent an opposing armed force from invading your country does not achieve its goals through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear...but by actual military action! There is a difference here: the implied meaning in that definition is that intimidation, coercion and fear are aimed at civilian populations, not opposing armies. Using violence or the threat of violence against civilians, intimidating or coercing them, is terrorism. That is Chomsky's point. And the fact is, the U.S. military has been guilty of this - though usually through proxies - numerous times over the last century. Only they don't call it terrorism - they call it "low intensity conflict".
As far as Afghanistan cooperating, did you really believe that the U.S. administration was interested in that? How much effort was put into a diplomatic solution, really? Meanwhile, after bombing the shit out of people who have already been bombed for the past 20 years, and replacing the Taliban with a loose coalition of warlords who don't have a much better human rights record, where is Bin Laden? That's quite a "victory" you have there...Face it, this war played right into Bush and co.'s hands. They want a friendly regime in Afghanistan so they can build that pipeline. The whole Bush administration's foreign policy is driven by one obsession: oil. This explains the renewed threats against Iraq, the welcomed (but ultimately failed) coup in Venezuela, and so on. But perhaps you think it's just a coincidence that Bush's cabinet reads out like a Who's Who of the oil industry? Yeah, right...and Enron had nothing to do with the power shortages in California, either!
Well, I would say I generally agree with you. However, my point is that true, deep meaning in film (or any other art form) is not always a conscious decision. Sometimes you do something because it just feels right - and you don't realize that you've it on a profound element of human nature. I think that SW:ESB did that, whether Lucas intended it or not. In fact, it's kind of irrelevant whether he intended it or not. I'll agree with you than trying to capitalize on it afterwards is kind of stupid - as you say, he's no Kubrick (Stone I'll pass - I don't like him that much). But to me it is essentially an aesthetic experience, not a rational one. And most "entertaining" films, at least the good ones, have that special quality, even if they don't brag about it. Somebody once made the remark that in nearly every Spielberg movie there is reference to religion and/or the oppression of a particular group, in such a manner that his jewish heritage and/or the suffering of his people are always present, even though they might not always be obvious...although I still can't see it in either Jaws or Duel!:-) I don't think it's a rational, conscious choice - well, except for his masterpiece, Schindler's List - but just part of who he is and thus shows up in the art he creates.
Well, I certainly don't think he is...see this comment for proof. However, one does not need to consciously put deeper meaning into a movie - including references to classical work. I think these can work their way in by themselves; it's part of the creative process. IIRC, American Graffiti is a "coming of age" story...I'm sure you could find parallel with other such stories. As far as THX 1138 is concerned, it is more about the dehumanization of our society - a modern myth, but a myth nonetheless - than the way propaganda shapes our world (however dehumanizing that can be), which was the essential message of 1984.
To me, Empire was an appropriately "deep" story...it just so happens that it's also the best of the original 3 SW films.
Actually, Lucas has implied that Star Wars was based on Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress as well as eastern mysticism. Don't forget that he was a film student, and as such was exposed to a lot of film theory, literature, etc.
It seems to me that every great story has "deeper meaning", whether you like it or not, because it reaches for the "universal", that which is shared by all of us. In the best SW film to date, Empire Strikes Back, that deeper meaning was that each holds the seed to evil within itself, and that greed, ambition, wrath and general egotistical behavior lead the way to the dark side. That's actually very close to a buddhist viewpoint, and I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas consciously put that in - not to mention the fact that "the Force" as described by Yoda (the archetype of the old eastern sage) is strikingly similar to the Tao as described by Chuang Tzu.
I don't understand your hostility. The fact that there is some deeper meaning, one which has already been covered in ancient myths (they nearly all have!) to a work of art does not take away from it's entertainment value. I personally thing it adds to it, even when the filmmaker isn't consciously aware of its presence.
Lucas has an excellent track record. I still hold high hopes for the rest of the prequel trilogy.
Unfortunately Lucas does not have a good track record as a director, nor as a writer. Said simply, he is rather poor in those roles, though he is a great producer. Of the movies you mention, the only one he directed or wrote (the scenario, not story) was Episode IV, which holds a special place in my hard but is definetely not a cinematographic achievement. It did create a new genre, and there's no doubt in my mind that Lucas is (was) a visionary. But from an artistic point of view, the second one (Empire) is by far superior.
Why Lucas insists on writing and directing the new Star Wars is beyond me. By refusing to accept his shortcomings and play on his strenghts instead, he's wearing himself thin and turning out inferior films. Too bad...at least the geek AND film buff in me are totally satisfied by LOTR (now, that's some director!). I'll still go see AOTC, but I'm not expecting much. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.
Now that's not quite true, is it? I'd like you to quote the actual writing that led you to this erroneous conclusion. In fact, as I recall, Chomsky implies in one of his post-9/11 interviews that the war against Hitler was justified (and that he does not consider himself a pacifist):
"On the second point, I don't know exactly what the media means by pacifists. There are a small number of people, people who I very much respect and who I've known for year, who are true pacifists. They don't believe in violence. Yes there are such people. I don't happen to agree with them and never have, but I respect the position.
However, what's called the peace movement has never taken that view. I know very few people who were not in favor of fighting the war against Hitler if they'd been alive or in retrospect. What the serious peace movement has been asking for is pretty much what the Pope just asked for, openly. He said, and he's right, it [the attack on the WTC] was a terrible crime and when there is a crime, those who are responsible should be held accountable and brought to justice, but without harming great numbers of innocent people.".
That said, the U.S. did commit acts which by its own standards would be considered terrorism, IMO. Chief amongst them would be the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They could have just vaporized one of the many uninhabited islands surrounding Japan (after inviting some Generals to check out the actual drop) and the effect would have pretty much been the same. At least it would have given the Japanese a chance to think it over while sparing the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, including children and the elderly. Well, it still would have been terrorism (which is the use of force or violence to coerce a civilian population for political or military ends), but at least some civilian lives could have been spared.
I dunno, I think you and Chomsky ARE full of crap.
Boy, what an argument! I'm speechless!! If it makes you feel any better, I thing you're full of crap too. But, as usual with conservatives who badmouth Chomsky, you won't try to prove him wrong - just call him a liar or weak debater or whatever. But I never see anyone actually trying to challenge one of his arguments...strange...
And I really would like to see him ripped to shreds as he deserves in a fair and open and widely publicised debate.
Yesterday I was looking again at the interview dear old William F. Buckley did of him in the 60's. Someone got ripped to shreds all right, but it wasn't Chomsky. It's actually painful to watch. At some point I though that Buckley would just burst into tears and storm out of the studio. Pathetic.
And in the case of Chomsky - he may have a point, but it's weak, and supported by a lot of left wing propaganda and lies.
Actually, the great thing about Chomsky is that he always gives his sources to support his arguments (in his books, at least). So you can always go and check for yourself. And you know what? Often the sources are traditional, "respected" (and by that I mean "corporate") media. Again, it's not enough to say that it's based on "left-wing propaganda and lies", you have to prove it. Otherwise you're just indulging in propaganda yourself. As I said, if he is so full of crap - as you and about every other conservative like to say - then prove him wrong with the same diligence and seriousness as he uses in his political writing. Otherwise your argument won't carry much weight, I'm afraid.
So just that we all understand you, according to your logic, if you don't agree with Israel, if we criticize its politics or head of state, we are anti-semitic? And if you happen to be jewish and criticize Israel or Sharon (like Chomsky), you are a "self-hating jew" (even rabbis)? So no debate is possible, right? Boy, you're quite the reactionary! Putting David Duke, Farrakhan and Chomsky in the same boat...
Anyway, that has nothing to do with the current debate. First, Chomsky earns a living as a linguistics professor. Even though some of his theories have been questioned, there is no doubt that he remains one of the most influential person in the field. Second, about his political activism sideline (which has quite a following, notwithstanding your uneducated appraisal): I guess you've read some of his writing in order to talk about him with such assurance. Could you please give us an example (with links) of his anti-semitism (his words, mind you, not what some have said about him). You can find a lot of his writing online here. You can also show us an example of his hate for Western Culture, his racism and his "narrow-minded, hate-based dialogue." You should have no trouble identifying the latter if you find it, seeing as how you so aptly use it yourself.
BTW, Sharon was judged to be inderectly responsible for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila by his own government...so, if you're criticizing this, I guess this makes you an anti-semite too! Boy, this is fun!
I love this...(for those who read at above 0, an anonymous coward said that the reason Chomsky hasn't received any airtime is that he's a socialist and has an agenda that includes destroying america). Actually he is not a socialist but rather a left-leaning libertarian who promotes anarcho-syndicalism as an alternative social model. Even according to your biased standards, if news show can have G. Gordon Liddy as an "open-minded" guest, I don't see why they wouldn't have Chomsky (actually, yes I do: he represents a concrete threat to the establishment).
But since you seem to know so much about Chomsky, perhaps you can point us to one of his book or conference in which he advocates the "destruction" of the U.S. to you? Or perhaps advocating any kind of profound reform is wanting to "destroy the U.S. in it's current form"?
From a propagandist's point of view, your choice of word is quite telling, if a bit too obvious to be credible: "destroy" vs. "reform", "change" or even "improve". Pff...amateur!
The major news source in this case was the New York Times (something you would have known if you had actually followed the link instead of going into knee-jerk mode). But of course if I had linked to the New York Times, you wouldn't have seen the story which I was referring to, since they took it out and replaced it with another one. Which, I believe, was my point. What was yours, exactly?
...are (admittedly controversial) articles that are posted on a major news web site, then taken off a few days later, like this one, or this other one. This is a dangerous trend, and asks a sensitive question: why "remove" stories instead of putting out counter-arguments? Freedom of speech has it that you can say anything (almost: libel and slander are not acceptable), but anyone can challenge what you say by bringing their own arguments to the discussion. Too often, though, the american media silences alternative viewpoints by excluding them from the debate, so that the public doesn't even know they existe. Case in point: how come Chomsky hasn't been invited to present his views about the 9/11 events on television? If his arguments are so weak as the conservative pundits claim, why not simply try to prove him wrong on the air? Well, there's a good answer to that: they can't, and they know it. So they just ignore his existence altogether, and immediately try to discredit him (without ever challenging his arguments) whenever he is mentioned. Quite revealing...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I do see him playing the UFOs (and, if he's playing Illuminati: New World Order, with a Science/Space/Computer themed deck).
Illuminati rocks! Now if someone would only make an online computer version...
This shouldn't take too long: Quicken already works with Codeweaver's Crossover Office - except for the Internet connectivity bit. I have been told this is on their priority list, since so many people have been asking for it...
Oh well, at least we agree on a few things. I still think that businesses play an important role in Latin America corruption, and that global warming is a real (if somewhat delayed threat). It was nice discussing these things with you...I guess it's time to move on, though. I'm pretty sure we're the only ones left posting comments on this story. Until next time, I bid you adieu!
Not to be a nitpicker, but Linux was actually a replacement for Minix...
I probably won't respond to anything else you say on the politial part of this subthread since what I'm really interested in debating is the global warming part.
:-)
Agreed. Anyway, as much as I enjoy this challenging exchange (I do, really), it's probably time to move on. I would just like to say one last thing about the whole Chavez affair. While I agree with you that Latin America government are corrupt in general, that paints only half of the picture, i.e. that businesses in those area also tend to be corrupt. After all, to use an appropriate analogy, it takes two to tango. This is why sticking to due process (and in the case of Venezuela, the constitutional process) is essential, and should be encouraged. In my view Bush failed to encourage the constitutional process because his administration clearly dislikes Chavez. That was a blatant faux-pas on the government's part.
In other words, "Global warming is probably real. But if it isn't, we should act like it is since all it means is that it isn't happening now but will probably happen someday." I can't argue with that logic. If that's the way you see it then we might as well abandon all research--if our actions with or without global warming are the same, there's no reason to research it.
Well, that's not exactly what I meant. What I believe would go more along these lines: "Global warming is probably real. Until we know for sure that it isn't, we should act as if it was in order not to make the situation worse. It just so happens that in changing our habits in order to avert this probable catastrophe, we also solve another problem: our dependence on fossil fuels, which has dire economic and geopolitical consequences. So we kill two birds - or at least one and possible other one - with one stone (to use a non-politically correct saying...
If the satellites and radiosondes for the last 23 (satellites) to 50 (radiosondes) years are showing a slight cooling and the surface record shows heating, the surface measurements are not reliable.
Read the stories again: radiosondes measure atmospheric, not surface, temperatures. In the NASA papers, they clearly show that the difference is not between recorded surface temperatures, but between recorded surface and atmospheric temperatures. The surface indeed is warming up, but the atmosphere is not warming up at the same rate, and parts of it are cooling instead. As I said, this shows that the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes are incorrect, which may mean that global warming is slower than expected (let's hope that's what it means). However, the radiosonde data does not invalidate surface temperature records, because it doesn't measure surface temperatures. The discrepancy is with the expected atmospheric warming and the actual recorded one, which is lower than expected. Thus the question of reliability does not apply to surface temperature measurements (save for the so-called "asphalt effect"), but rather to the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes.
In one section it talks about reducing emissions by 17% while in another part it says that it's emissions have increased by half the rate of growth of the economy.
Actually, the arctile says the country's energy consumption has increased by half the rate of growth of the economy, not its emissions. Those are two different things. Emissions did increase in the first part of the 90s, mind you, but they have been decreasing in the second half. A few more links about a piece of news that was quite underreported in the U.S.:
World Carbon Emissions Fall
Carbon Emissions Data | China
China and Climate Change
And here is an analysis by the US NGO that published the original report. In this analysis the researchers said they cross-examined their data a second time after the Washington Post claimed that China had underreported its actual emission figures while inflating its actual economic growth. The NRDC still found that China had in fact decreased its carbon emissions while enjoying a healthy economic growth. So the two are not irreconcilable, and the "China excuse" is not a valid reason for the U.S. to drop out of Kyoto...unless you are suggesting that americans are somehow less capable at taking on the environmental challenge than the chinese are...
Sure, there will be short-term costs, but these will be quickly recouped, and the goal is quite worthy of those small sacrifices (energetic independence and reducing the likelihood of a probable global warming).
Anyway, that's my opinion. We probably won't be able to see eye to eye on this, but still I respect your position.
If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear there would have been no positive impact to the environment. None. Since many developing countries--including China and India, which make up 1 of 3 people on this planet--were exempt.
That is conveniently ignoring the fact that China has actually reduced their carbon emissions while developing their economy, as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world. That excuse is getting old. It's not China and India that are polluting the planet, it's the U.S. But you're right, Kyoto won't change things, because the U.S. has pulled out of it using the fallacious "China" argument (how convenient) and therefore will keep on poisoning our atmosphere.
We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?
I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it. Meanwhile, it seems not everyone at NASA agrees with you (see also this for an alternate scenario). In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!). Still, as this NASA page indicates, "it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future." The thing is, satellites and radiosonde measure changes in the atmosphere, not the surface. The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!
At the risk of repeating myself: yes, we do not have complete, conclusive proof. So I'll be generous to your point of view (which seems to be entirely based on that surface/atmosphere discrepancy, which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing) and say that it's a 50-50 chance. Now, how much would you be prepared to risk on 50-50 chance? I know I'm not prepared to risk it, and fortunately policymakers are less and less inclined to do so. Sure, there will be some people on the fringe that believe that global warming isn't real, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (even if the computer models are not quite accurate). Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.
"Incentive" is just another way of saying "force." Sure, it's not made law, but taxes or tax breaks are made that essentially push people to do something they would not otherwise do. I'm not a believer in the benevolance nor the superior intelligence of government. I believe in the people.
Well, as faulty as it is, the government is the only representation the people as a whole have. Even if it's imperfect, it's better than nothing! Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them. No one is forcing you. Similarly, when a state puts tax incentives to draw a company to build a new factory, they are not forcing that company in any way. It may choose to go somewhere else instead. Another example: China forces people to have only one child (by punishing those who have more than one). India gives incentives so that people will have only one child. The fact is, a lot of people in India have more than one child, despite the incentives. They are not being forced, and it does not have the same impact. You're just playing on words to try to get out of a losing argument. Give it up.
When someone says "free market" it should be translated to "free people."
What a load of bull! You confuse companies with actual citizens. Case in point: capital is now much more free in its international movement than people are. Markets are freer than populations. You can have a dictatorship that has a free market and prosperous economy. There is absolutely no relationship between the two concepts! Either you're a businessman, or you're being very naive.
My government's job is NOT to herd me like a cow in the direction that someone else has decided my life should take.
No, but it is its job to balance the needs of individuals with the common good. In other words, to limit your freedom so that it does not go against those of others. Political Science 101. But anyway that's not what I was talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about incentives, like any government always use for a variety of purposes. I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.
>Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves!
So what? He hadn't stopped shipping oil to the U.S.
No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.
Probably not. That's not the point. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from the owner of the press. It's the right to report whatever needs to be reported.
Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so. Freedom of the press means freedom of the journalists to write what they think is true - if the journalists are pressured, either by the government or by the owners, into writing something they don't think is true, then the press cannot be said to be free. That's called editorial interference and it is frowned upon in any democratic society. Of course there are always the Op-Ed pages where one can say whatever he wants, as long as it is not slanderous. But we're talking about factual reporting here.
I know the press in Venezuela is controlled by a Chavez opponent. That's a GOOD thing. I'd much rather have a press that reports and criticizes the bad things about the government than just goes along and paints a pretty picture and covers up the truth.
That doesn't seem to be the case, here. Quite the opposite: the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.
But if the people of Venezuela were to decide that they've had enough and that they were going to overthrow their own government, that's their internal problem, as long as no-one external instigated it.
But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail. And if the people get tired of him they have a way to take him out of office: it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it. The people who organized the coup are part of a well-organized and well-funded minority. They do not represent the will of the majority...and in a democracy, the majority has the final say. Even though it can be wrong, even though it can elect a tyrant (or a Yale drop-out). That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.
And considering the satellite record coincides very well with the radiosonde record it's really hard to avoid the conclusion that they're pushing an agenda, not a pursuit of science.
What agenda could they be pushing? It's not as if they were going to make money off this (if, like you said, they are not climatologists). So I fail to see what they would have to gain in this: no fortune, no fame (really, it's not as if they became rock stars). This doesn't make much sense. There is, however, plenty of incentive on the other side to say that global warming is just hogwash. And if the Big Oil companies have not funded so-called "scientific" studies to discredit the opponent's view, then they are just plain stupid. But you go ahead and show me a valid scientific study that gives me conclusive proof that global warming isn't happening, or that it isn't related to fuel fossil emissions. When the consequences are so grave for the collective people of the world, then the burden of proof is on the few who invoke privilege to make a profit as an excuse not to change their ways.
You might not agree (and I believe you are mistaken about that) but fortunately, that is becoming the prevalent view among policymakers, who now need only to stand up to the powerful industrial lobbies - who are much, much more powerful than the environmental lobbies, btw. If you believe otherwise you are either a) quite ignorant of the lobbying world or b) part of such an industry lobby who opposes regulation of fossil fuel emissions. However you put it, the truth is we are witnessing an increase in surface temperature (including oceanic temperature). Now you might be willing to risk the planet's future on the fact that there is no defnitive proof that this is linked to fossil fuel emissions. I say it's a foolish chance to take, given the possible repercussions, just to save a few bucks.
>Well, that's why we have a government, isn't it?
To force people to do what they don't want to do? Perhaps that's your vision of the role of government, it's not mine.
Not to force people, to give incentive. To lead. To act responsibly for the common good, not the privileges of the oil industry shareholders. But of course right now the U.S. government is made up of such shareholders, so I'm not hoping for much...
(About Chavez) But when a dictator-in-the-making that is threatening the freedom of the press is toppled, is it really surprising that the U.S. wouldn't be entirely displeased? I would agree, Chavez brought it on himself--it wasn't forced on Venezuela by any foreign country.
The Bush administration's hardly-concealed joy at Chavez' temporary overthrow had nothing to do with freedom of the press. Come on! Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves! (And Iraq had the second...do you see a pattern here?) For your information the press in Venezuela isn't free. It belongs to the richest South American media magnate, who happens to be an outspoken adversary of Chavez. Do you really believe these media have any editorial independence from their owner? Think again. If they did, they wouldn't have shown soaps on the television as massive pro-Chavez protests spontaneously took place in the capital - while they had extensively covered more modest (but anti-Chavez) protests the day before...The truth is, the Venezuelan media are just a mouthpiece for a corrupt, greedy business elite, nothing else. Even then, Chavez treats them with a lot more respect than some of the U.S. allies do theirs. Would the U.S. cheer if these regimes do theirs (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Colombia, Israel in its recent military operations, etc.) were overthrown? I don't think so...
Whether the Bush administration likes Chavez or not is irrelevant. He was elected, and if the people don't want him anymore they can vote him out during the next election. If he breaks the law they can try to impeach him. What happened, though, cannot be denied: while the entire world was condemning the coup, the U.S. didn't (at least not until it was clear that it failed). For a country that would like to see itself as a beacon of democracy, that is totally unacceptable behavior. I do hope it blows up in his face (figuratively speaking, of course). Bottom line is, a coup against an elected leader can never be democratic: it's a fundamental contradiction! If the people go and elect want to elect a left-leaning ex-airborne officer, then that's what they want. Nobody's saying that George Bush shouldn't be president even though he probably is an ex-alcoholic, ex-drug user who is quasi-litterate and has never been able to keep a job that wasn't handed out to him before...(he did steal the election, but that's another story, another debate...)
Show it to me. Good hard facts. I have seen no evidence whatsoever--and believe me, I've looked. Beyond smoke and mirrors and very science-lacking news reports I have found little in the way of evidence that carbon is doing anything drastic to the eath. Please show me to that data.
Are you an climatologist expert? What kind of data is needed to convince you? I personally doubt that you've been seriously looking for it. Anyway, here are a few links you should investigate:
IPCC 2001 Report
(Note: these are links for "policy makers", so they're probably lighter in scientific data than the Technical Summaries also included on the site. Even then, the evidence is compelling.)
"Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis"
"Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"
"Climate Change 2001: Mitigation"
There is also a HTML summary here. However, I suspect you really don't want to be convinced, so you'll probably dismiss these studies as "environmalist propaganda". Or perhaps you can point to the factual errors in the studies...Well, the encouraging thing is that policymakers are slowly getting up to speed and starting to do something about it.
I'm not talking about companies that can amortize. I'm talking about individuals that are going to see a $15k gas-based car or a $35k cell-based car and say, "Screw that."
Well, that's why we have a government, isn't it? If they can heavily subsidize american industry through the Pentagon system, surely they can help automakers in making such cars affordable to the general public? Well, at least we both agree that research into making such cars cheaper and more available is a priority.
As far as Venezuela is concerned, the links between the White House and the coup leaders are becoming clearer: see this article for more info...btw, Newsweek has never been known as being a pro-left, conspiracy theory-prone media source. Anyway, we're not bound to agree on everything, but at least we do on the importance of affordable fuel cell technology. So I'll leave it at that for now - you're welcome to add more comments if you want, though.
Actually, oil is not the problem. It's WHERE we get it.
Ah, semantics. Gotta love it.
Sure, alternative energy is a good goal. But it doesn't help us today. For the time being we need to exploit our own oil reserves and reduce our dependency on unstable, Arab oil while we look for a good alternative.
It's not a question of "alternative" energy, it's about a "renewable" energy source. At least you agree that it is a good goal. But since it is a long-term goal, concrete action needs to be take now, not tomorrow! America's dependence on oil has caused enough political, economical and environmental damage (most of it outside of its borders) already.
I don't feel like getting into an environmental debate today; suffice it to say that not all of us are convinced that using carbon fuels is as bad as some environmentalists would have us believe
Despite ever-increasing scientific evidence to the contrary. Hey, even Bush and the oil companies acknowledge that burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment and that the reserves of fossil fuel are finite. Not only that, but new reserves will be costly to exploit, especially if environmentally-sensitive drilling is required (as it would in the ANWR). To believe otherwise is, I believe, wishful thinking fueled by an understandable (if dangerous) reluctance in changing energy-consumption habits.
Hello, McFly... You suggest that fuel cells aren't in use because it would help break the lucrative oil barons, then recognize that fuel cells would cost a lot of money up-front...
Yes, Biff, that is what I'm saying. There is no contradiction there. Of course it will be expensive to change to fuel cells. However, there is this great thing called a "to amortize" I believe ("amortissement" in french). That is, costs can be spread out over a couple of years, until the actual cost benefits start kicking in. So the transition wouldn't be as costly as they first seem. However, people who make a profit (and a hefty one at that) preserving America's addiction to oil will make less money, just as the dope dealer loses money when one of his addict goes clean. The fact that you (as a person) don't feel that the cost is worth it is irrelevant: this is something that will have to be done, and sooner than later. Those "cheap oil prices" won't stay that way, and getting them will carry and increasingly higher political and environmental cost as well.
Perhaps, but we'd rather spend our money on something else and that's our right. If you want to use fuel cells, go for it. I don't. Gas is currently cheaper and more efficient and I'm happy using it. Don't expect me, in those conditions, to be eager to switch to fuel cells that are going to cost me more...
Yes, you have the right to be irresponsible. But america does not have the moral right to destabilize the entire world just so it can get its oil fix. Also, as I said, you're being incredible near-sighted if you believe oil will stay cheap. For your own good, you should encourage the quick implementation of fuel cells and other renewable energy sources right now!
Much of that hatred and misunderstanding would go away if we'd just use our own domestic oil and oil from Mexico and maybe Venezuela.
Right, Venezuela...as long as a friendly president is in place. And if not, the Bush administration will try to topple him again, huh? See what I mean about the increasing political cost? The problem is, the world is beginning to be fed up with being there only to satisfy America's energy needs. You guys are going to have to start behaving more responsible very soon...
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason EVERY administration is a "big oil" administration is because the U.S. is a "big oil" country? News flash: Without oil our country would collapse. It's strategically important to our politics, military, and economy.
Of course it would. So it seems to me that instead of messing up the whole world in order to secure its access to cheap oil, the U.S. should do the responsible thing and find ways to lessen dramatically its addiction to oil. America is pretty much the same as a heroin addict right now: ready to lie, cheat and steal to get its fix, instead of doing the responsible thing and checking in at a rehab center. You say that a president who doesn't have the "same level of concern" for oil shouldn't be president? Well I say: if he's not concerned about breaking America's dependency on the black gold, an only with providing her with it, then he's nothing more than a drug dealer.
It's not up to the rest of the planet to have a hard time just because the U.S. can cure its addiction.
And, finally, believe me, it IS possible for people to be invested in something and still do what's right for the country. It's also possible for people in power to do what's right for the country and also have their investments benefit.
Yeah, too bad it rarely happens, and when it does happen, it's to the benefit of HIS country, not the Earth and humanity as a whole. Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been known since the 70s, and they're still not in consumer vehicles. Why is that? Because they would help break the lucrative business of the new oil barons. Sure switching to fuel cells would cost a lot of money up front - so what? You guys are the richest, most powerful nation in the world! Surely you could afford this...
Before someone mods us as off-topic again, consider the headline: Technology: Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding. My point is that the technology that has "fueled" the most hatred and misunderstanding in the twentieth century is the modern car engine.
Regarding whether the millitary targeting of civilians is terrorism; Yes, I'd say that it was. But then, (as I noted in another post) the millitaries of all nations (ex. the US firebombing of Dresden during WWII) have caused 'collateral damage' i.e. accedentally kill civilians when engaged in warfare.
According to one of the Geneva conventions (I can't remember which one), countries are required to try to minimize "collateral" civilian deaths - this should include not carrying out a specific operation if civilian casualties are expected to be high. Usually, however, it does not. Sometimes, terrorizing the population is the objective, such as when the U.S. bombarded the countryside indochina during the Vietnam war, in order to drive the population into camps. Why? To dismantle the large popular support base enjoyed by the Communist (which eventually caused the defeat of the U.S. anyway). Not all military intervention is unjustified. And the use of force always implies instilling some "fear" in your opponent, I'll grant you that. But there is a difference in liberating Europe from the Nazis (which Chomsky clearly doesn't consider terrorism, BTW) and conducting aggressive military interventions throughout the globe to serve America's national interests (which often involves "low intensity conflict", a euphemism for state terrorism). If the U.S. limited itself to playing the disinterested global policeman (as it likes to portray itself), then I would have no problem with that - however, it's anything but disinterested these days! Case in point: the tacit support for the (failed) overthrow of a democratically-elected regime in Venezuela. I don't care if Chavez is a good president or not: fact is, he was elected. People have the right to elect who they choose. If they don't like him, they can always vote him out when the next election comes around. This is one black eye for the Bush administration.
The Bush administration did nothing for Enron because it was too late (therefore too dangerous). However, when you look at the past history of Enron, it is closely entertwined with that of the Bushes. The Republicans are just mad at Clinton because he stole their program. But there's no question that the Bush administration is that of Big Oil - every aspect of the Bush foreign policy is dominated by this: the upcoming Desert Storm sequel, the non-condemnation of (and probable involvment in) the failed Venezuelan coup, Arctic Drilling, the privileged relation with the saudis, the many members of the cabinet who come from Big Oil companies, etc.
BTW, if the media were so liberal, then the liberals wouldn't complain about it being so pro-conservative. The fact is, most media are private corporations, and they follow a pro-corporate bias. For example, NBC never presented news reports of anti-nuclear demonstrations when it was owned by General Electric (who built the motors that powered cruise missiles). Also, a TV network that counts McDonald's as one of its major sponsor would be hard-pressed to run a story critical of McDonald's and risk to lose that account. It's pretty simple, really.
At best, the major media are centrist with a pro-corporate agenda, and at worst (like Fox) they are clearly right-wing. Of course, if you're to the right of them, then you'll find them "liberal", but that's only relative to your own point of view. Bernard Goldberg's book is itself a pretty biased text - for a better-written counterpart (which gives a lot more sources to prove its point), try Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.
The actual use of the term recognizes the right of nations to conduct millitary operations, and the responsibility of nations for controlling terrorist organizations (read: non-government organizations which deliberatly target non-millitary structures to acheive their aims)
I find your definition of terrorism rather strange. So terrorism targets non-military structures? Do you consider civilians structures? That seems a bit dehumanizing, doesn't it?
Well, if we are going to have a serious debate, we should at least agree to this: technically, civilians targeting soldiers of an occupying force (what you would call military "structures") isn't considered terrorism. For example, members of the french resistance weren't terrorists, even though the nazis called them such. Clearly, civilians (such as members of a "non-government organizations") that deliberately target other civilians are terrorists. For example, suicide bombers, who commit atrocious acts against innocent targets. Those are Chomsky's words, by the way. Excerpts from this interview: Your interpretation of the definition doesn't leave much room for non-civilians, i.e. the military, who target civilians. But isn't that a form of terrorism? Forget the official US Army definition for a second (which says it is). Remember, you don't have to anihilate to terrorize. You don't have to kill a man to destroy him. The truth is, violence can take many forms, from outright assassination to the simple humiliation of checkpoints, from not adequately protecting civilians in military operations to using them to pick up potentially booby-trap objects, from enforcing curfews for months to random beatings, and so on. State violence against civilians for political goals is state terrorism. Perhaps it doesn't fit in your own definition of what terrorism is. That does not make it less destructive nor despicable.
Ahem. As far as I can tell the definition is not by Chomsky, but by the US army. However, that does not cover the entirey of armed conflicts - neither does Chomsky proceeds to do claim that it does. For example, the calculated use of violence to prevent an opposing armed force from invading your country does not achieve its goals through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear...but by actual military action! There is a difference here: the implied meaning in that definition is that intimidation, coercion and fear are aimed at civilian populations, not opposing armies. Using violence or the threat of violence against civilians, intimidating or coercing them, is terrorism. That is Chomsky's point. And the fact is, the U.S. military has been guilty of this - though usually through proxies - numerous times over the last century. Only they don't call it terrorism - they call it "low intensity conflict".
As far as Afghanistan cooperating, did you really believe that the U.S. administration was interested in that? How much effort was put into a diplomatic solution, really? Meanwhile, after bombing the shit out of people who have already been bombed for the past 20 years, and replacing the Taliban with a loose coalition of warlords who don't have a much better human rights record, where is Bin Laden? That's quite a "victory" you have there...Face it, this war played right into Bush and co.'s hands. They want a friendly regime in Afghanistan so they can build that pipeline. The whole Bush administration's foreign policy is driven by one obsession: oil. This explains the renewed threats against Iraq, the welcomed (but ultimately failed) coup in Venezuela, and so on. But perhaps you think it's just a coincidence that Bush's cabinet reads out like a Who's Who of the oil industry? Yeah, right...and Enron had nothing to do with the power shortages in California, either!
Well, I would say I generally agree with you. However, my point is that true, deep meaning in film (or any other art form) is not always a conscious decision. Sometimes you do something because it just feels right - and you don't realize that you've it on a profound element of human nature. I think that SW:ESB did that, whether Lucas intended it or not. In fact, it's kind of irrelevant whether he intended it or not. I'll agree with you than trying to capitalize on it afterwards is kind of stupid - as you say, he's no Kubrick (Stone I'll pass - I don't like him that much). But to me it is essentially an aesthetic experience, not a rational one. And most "entertaining" films, at least the good ones, have that special quality, even if they don't brag about it. Somebody once made the remark that in nearly every Spielberg movie there is reference to religion and/or the oppression of a particular group, in such a manner that his jewish heritage and/or the suffering of his people are always present, even though they might not always be obvious...although I still can't see it in either Jaws or Duel! :-) I don't think it's a rational, conscious choice - well, except for his masterpiece, Schindler's List - but just part of who he is and thus shows up in the art he creates.
;-)
Hey, can you tell I was a film student, once?
Well, I certainly don't think he is...see this comment for proof. However, one does not need to consciously put deeper meaning into a movie - including references to classical work. I think these can work their way in by themselves; it's part of the creative process. IIRC, American Graffiti is a "coming of age" story...I'm sure you could find parallel with other such stories. As far as THX 1138 is concerned, it is more about the dehumanization of our society - a modern myth, but a myth nonetheless - than the way propaganda shapes our world (however dehumanizing that can be), which was the essential message of 1984.
To me, Empire was an appropriately "deep" story...it just so happens that it's also the best of the original 3 SW films.
Actually, Lucas has implied that Star Wars was based on Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress as well as eastern mysticism. Don't forget that he was a film student, and as such was exposed to a lot of film theory, literature, etc.
It seems to me that every great story has "deeper meaning", whether you like it or not, because it reaches for the "universal", that which is shared by all of us. In the best SW film to date, Empire Strikes Back, that deeper meaning was that each holds the seed to evil within itself, and that greed, ambition, wrath and general egotistical behavior lead the way to the dark side. That's actually very close to a buddhist viewpoint, and I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas consciously put that in - not to mention the fact that "the Force" as described by Yoda (the archetype of the old eastern sage) is strikingly similar to the Tao as described by Chuang Tzu.
I don't understand your hostility. The fact that there is some deeper meaning, one which has already been covered in ancient myths (they nearly all have!) to a work of art does not take away from it's entertainment value. I personally thing it adds to it, even when the filmmaker isn't consciously aware of its presence.
Lucas has an excellent track record. I still hold high hopes for the rest of the prequel trilogy.
Unfortunately Lucas does not have a good track record as a director, nor as a writer. Said simply, he is rather poor in those roles, though he is a great producer. Of the movies you mention, the only one he directed or wrote (the scenario, not story) was Episode IV, which holds a special place in my hard but is definetely not a cinematographic achievement. It did create a new genre, and there's no doubt in my mind that Lucas is (was) a visionary. But from an artistic point of view, the second one (Empire) is by far superior.
Why Lucas insists on writing and directing the new Star Wars is beyond me. By refusing to accept his shortcomings and play on his strenghts instead, he's wearing himself thin and turning out inferior films. Too bad...at least the geek AND film buff in me are totally satisfied by LOTR (now, that's some director!). I'll still go see AOTC, but I'm not expecting much. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.
Heh. I never said I thought they were reliable. I just said they were a "major" news media. There's quite a nuance there.
That said, the U.S. did commit acts which by its own standards would be considered terrorism, IMO. Chief amongst them would be the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They could have just vaporized one of the many uninhabited islands surrounding Japan (after inviting some Generals to check out the actual drop) and the effect would have pretty much been the same. At least it would have given the Japanese a chance to think it over while sparing the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, including children and the elderly. Well, it still would have been terrorism (which is the use of force or violence to coerce a civilian population for political or military ends), but at least some civilian lives could have been spared.
I dunno, I think you and Chomsky ARE full of crap.
Boy, what an argument! I'm speechless!! If it makes you feel any better, I thing you're full of crap too. But, as usual with conservatives who badmouth Chomsky, you won't try to prove him wrong - just call him a liar or weak debater or whatever. But I never see anyone actually trying to challenge one of his arguments...strange...
And I really would like to see him ripped to shreds as he deserves in a fair and open and widely publicised debate.
Yesterday I was looking again at the interview dear old William F. Buckley did of him in the 60's. Someone got ripped to shreds all right, but it wasn't Chomsky. It's actually painful to watch. At some point I though that Buckley would just burst into tears and storm out of the studio. Pathetic.
And in the case of Chomsky - he may have a point, but it's weak, and supported by a lot of left wing propaganda and lies.
Actually, the great thing about Chomsky is that he always gives his sources to support his arguments (in his books, at least). So you can always go and check for yourself. And you know what? Often the sources are traditional, "respected" (and by that I mean "corporate") media. Again, it's not enough to say that it's based on "left-wing propaganda and lies", you have to prove it. Otherwise you're just indulging in propaganda yourself. As I said, if he is so full of crap - as you and about every other conservative like to say - then prove him wrong with the same diligence and seriousness as he uses in his political writing. Otherwise your argument won't carry much weight, I'm afraid.
So just that we all understand you, according to your logic, if you don't agree with Israel, if we criticize its politics or head of state, we are anti-semitic? And if you happen to be jewish and criticize Israel or Sharon (like Chomsky), you are a "self-hating jew" (even rabbis)? So no debate is possible, right? Boy, you're quite the reactionary! Putting David Duke, Farrakhan and Chomsky in the same boat...
Anyway, that has nothing to do with the current debate. First, Chomsky earns a living as a linguistics professor. Even though some of his theories have been questioned, there is no doubt that he remains one of the most influential person in the field. Second, about his political activism sideline (which has quite a following, notwithstanding your uneducated appraisal): I guess you've read some of his writing in order to talk about him with such assurance. Could you please give us an example (with links) of his anti-semitism (his words, mind you, not what some have said about him). You can find a lot of his writing online here. You can also show us an example of his hate for Western Culture, his racism and his "narrow-minded, hate-based dialogue." You should have no trouble identifying the latter if you find it, seeing as how you so aptly use it yourself.
BTW, Sharon was judged to be inderectly responsible for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila by his own government...so, if you're criticizing this, I guess this makes you an anti-semite too! Boy, this is fun!
I love this...(for those who read at above 0, an anonymous coward said that the reason Chomsky hasn't received any airtime is that he's a socialist and has an agenda that includes destroying america). Actually he is not a socialist but rather a left-leaning libertarian who promotes anarcho-syndicalism as an alternative social model. Even according to your biased standards, if news show can have G. Gordon Liddy as an "open-minded" guest, I don't see why they wouldn't have Chomsky (actually, yes I do: he represents a concrete threat to the establishment).
But since you seem to know so much about Chomsky, perhaps you can point us to one of his book or conference in which he advocates the "destruction" of the U.S. to you? Or perhaps advocating any kind of profound reform is wanting to "destroy the U.S. in it's current form"?
From a propagandist's point of view, your choice of word is quite telling, if a bit too obvious to be credible: "destroy" vs. "reform", "change" or even "improve". Pff...amateur!
The major news source in this case was the New York Times (something you would have known if you had actually followed the link instead of going into knee-jerk mode). But of course if I had linked to the New York Times, you wouldn't have seen the story which I was referring to, since they took it out and replaced it with another one. Which, I believe, was my point. What was yours, exactly?
...are (admittedly controversial) articles that are posted on a major news web site, then taken off a few days later, like this one, or this other one. This is a dangerous trend, and asks a sensitive question: why "remove" stories instead of putting out counter-arguments? Freedom of speech has it that you can say anything (almost: libel and slander are not acceptable), but anyone can challenge what you say by bringing their own arguments to the discussion. Too often, though, the american media silences alternative viewpoints by excluding them from the debate, so that the public doesn't even know they existe. Case in point: how come Chomsky hasn't been invited to present his views about the 9/11 events on television? If his arguments are so weak as the conservative pundits claim, why not simply try to prove him wrong on the air? Well, there's a good answer to that: they can't, and they know it. So they just ignore his existence altogether, and immediately try to discredit him (without ever challenging his arguments) whenever he is mentioned. Quite revealing...