I find the idea of Pentagon planners who think that bad infrastructure entices foreign investment a little hard to swallow. Exactly which document shows this?
If this is a distraction, it's of Dr. Cole's making. Greenwald asked a question concerning the above quote, and Dr. Cole only half answered it.
The real distraction is making chicken hawk arguments in the first place. They're ad hominem attacks that aim at the arguer and not at the argument being made.
This isn't some attempt at a gotcha' argument. As with Greenwald, it's a real question: does he believe that any sons, nephews, (male) students, etc. that believe as he does in the war against Libya but who don't enlist now are hypocrites?
"If NATO needs me, I'm there" isn't the standard you set in the part of your writings that Greenwald is quoting.
You wrote:
"Although I do not believe that everyone who advocates a war must go and fight it, I do believe that young men who advocate a war must go and fight it."
Leaving aside the issue of why females and older men get are excused from this obligation, for you to still hold the above view, then you must believe that any sons or (male) students you have who back the war are then obligated to go and sign up.
The key here is they built up new wind and hydro together. If there's no wind, hydro runs harder. If there is enough wind, hydro runs slower. If there's a lot of wind, they actually pump water back uphill and into the dam again. Obviously, for this to work, you need a lot of hydro. America has already built up most of its really good hydro locations. How much of a backstop can the current stock of dams provide? That is the question.
Take Washington State for example. It has the largest output of hydro power in the nation. Say, ten years from now, it's like Portugal and is producing a lot of wind power, backed up by their dams. That would be great, but would it make any sense to then turn around and suggest that New Jersey do the same thing?
The country you forget to include in your example is France. It gets 78% of its electricity from a carbon-free source. And this is a source that can be built anywhere, whether there are good dam sites or no. What' this source?
Nuclear.
Heinlein was right: there are no free lunches, and, barring a major breakthrough in algae biodiesel, nuclear cannot be excluded from our planning for the future.
Every person or organization is located somewhere. It takes a good deal more than that to demonstrate bias.
I mean, Juan Cole is located (most of the time) in the United States and teaches at a college that gets money from the US government. Does that make him biased?
If that isn't enough for you, look at Reporters Without Borders. It's a French organization that rates press freedom around the world. Out of the 178 countries they rank, the US comes in at #20. Tunisia rings in at #164.
If anything is "official" it's they've got a long, long way to go before they are a free people.
Do keep in mind that many of those "corporations" were merely political action committees that had incorporated.
While I can (at least kind of) see preventing GM and perhaps even unions from making large contributions, it's much harder to excuse doing so to NARAL or the Heritage Organization.
The issue of parking lots as free speech zones is a spurious one.
Such zones are for people with signs that have the potential to block the view of others.
Other than behaving in ways that interfere with the rights of others who have come to public events to enjoy them as well, I'm quite confident that you will find that the First Amendment applies just about everywhere.
Freedom of speech doesn't demands that one group be allowed to disrupt another (e.g, letting the Phelps' carry their "god hates fags" signs into the military funerals themselves, rather than being kept far enough away that they don't disrupt the services).
I find the idea of Pentagon planners who think that bad infrastructure entices foreign investment a little hard to swallow. Exactly which document shows this?
If this is a distraction, it's of Dr. Cole's making. Greenwald asked a question concerning the above quote, and Dr. Cole only half answered it.
The real distraction is making chicken hawk arguments in the first place. They're ad hominem attacks that aim at the arguer and not at the argument being made.
This isn't some attempt at a gotcha' argument. As with Greenwald, it's a real question: does he believe that any sons, nephews, (male) students, etc. that believe as he does in the war against Libya but who don't enlist now are hypocrites?
"If NATO needs me, I'm there" isn't the standard you set in the part of your writings that Greenwald is quoting.
You wrote:
"Although I do not believe that everyone who advocates a war must go and fight it, I do believe that young men who advocate a war must go and fight it."
Leaving aside the issue of why females and older men get are excused from this obligation, for you to still hold the above view, then you must believe that any sons or (male) students you have who back the war are then obligated to go and sign up.
Is that the case?
Upon further reflection, I take this back. The attack probably doesn't require congressional authorization.
link to nytimes.com
The key here is they built up new wind and hydro together. If there's no wind, hydro runs harder. If there is enough wind, hydro runs slower. If there's a lot of wind, they actually pump water back uphill and into the dam again. Obviously, for this to work, you need a lot of hydro. America has already built up most of its really good hydro locations. How much of a backstop can the current stock of dams provide? That is the question.
Take Washington State for example. It has the largest output of hydro power in the nation. Say, ten years from now, it's like Portugal and is producing a lot of wind power, backed up by their dams. That would be great, but would it make any sense to then turn around and suggest that New Jersey do the same thing?
The country you forget to include in your example is France. It gets 78% of its electricity from a carbon-free source. And this is a source that can be built anywhere, whether there are good dam sites or no. What' this source?
Nuclear.
Heinlein was right: there are no free lunches, and, barring a major breakthrough in algae biodiesel, nuclear cannot be excluded from our planning for the future.
Every person or organization is located somewhere. It takes a good deal more than that to demonstrate bias.
I mean, Juan Cole is located (most of the time) in the United States and teaches at a college that gets money from the US government. Does that make him biased?
If that isn't enough for you, look at Reporters Without Borders. It's a French organization that rates press freedom around the world. Out of the 178 countries they rank, the US comes in at #20. Tunisia rings in at #164.
If anything is "official" it's they've got a long, long way to go before they are a free people.
Do keep in mind that many of those "corporations" were merely political action committees that had incorporated.
While I can (at least kind of) see preventing GM and perhaps even unions from making large contributions, it's much harder to excuse doing so to NARAL or the Heritage Organization.
The issue of parking lots as free speech zones is a spurious one.
Such zones are for people with signs that have the potential to block the view of others.
Other than behaving in ways that interfere with the rights of others who have come to public events to enjoy them as well, I'm quite confident that you will find that the First Amendment applies just about everywhere.
Freedom of speech doesn't demands that one group be allowed to disrupt another (e.g, letting the Phelps' carry their "god hates fags" signs into the military funerals themselves, rather than being kept far enough away that they don't disrupt the services).
Let's wait and see what the next Freedom House publication of Freedom in the World says.
I dare say that the US will still have the better score.
Any takers?