Furthermore, baiting about Hitler is widely recognized as reprehensible. Nor is our government particularly controlling now compared to most other nations.
Matt, Prof. Cole titled this piece "five ways _____ resembles Pakistan's Taliban." The existence of shared traits does not imply either that the two groups must either be on average alike in *all* respects, or that all of their members are like each other (aside from the first question.) To pretend that the latter was implied, is the straw man fallacy. Are you aware of the logical and background to rational debate, and of the responsibilities expected of those who engage?
Some things forgotten about in the euphoria: 1. If peak oil was truly false, then oil would cost around $40/bbl instead of hovering up in 80-100. Demand is still outstripping supply, the true meaning of PO. 2. Shale etc oil costs more and more energy to extract, meaning less total "ROI" and worse, ROEI (return on energy investment.) It is less efficient. 3. The shale type deposits often run out in a few years, they aren't as robust as old style oil fields.
The philosophical driver behind this is the deceptive (IMHO) idea that spending money is "speech" - an idea not really supported by the original, more egalitarian concept of simple "communication" of thoughts themselves. One irony that saddens me, is that real conservatives logically ought to be opposed to influences that corrupt government and lead to more market distortion through lobbying etc.
The poll results are about what I would suspect - and indeed, many Israelis are likewise opposed to Likud policies and thinkstyle. Also what a supreme hypocritical irony, that the US Christian Right dotes on Bibi Netanyahu while he puts out propaganda against celebrating Christmas. That is a *true* "war on Christmas" but will right-wing outlets feature or condemn it ...
One of the complaints of skeptics is that we have cooler spells lately, or the flatter decade (debatable) but for sake of argument even if true: makes no more sense to consider that counting against influence of CO2, than to doubt the effect of Earth axial tilt because of cooler spell in late April than a few weeks earlier.
I was hoping but wary the FSA etc could be viable. This is really depressing and dangerous. The skeptics of helping rebels have the right to say, "we told you so." This needs further elaboration: "According to Al-Hammud, the hard-line Islamic brigades that constitute 30 percent of the opposition fighters do not suffer a problem in getting finances. On the contrary they pay salaries to their fighters and ensure a good life to their families ..." So who is paying them so well?
Juan, I don't think Obama is as isolated as you think, when the overall question of opposition to Syrian use of gas is considered instead of US military strike per se. As I gather, 10 nations wanted to do more to pressure Assad altho I confess to not being clear on details.
Prolongation etc could be the result of a strike, but not as likely an outcome if Assad is determined to hang on . He was getting the upper hand recently and was indeed, emboldened by new help. To tip things more against him could get things to move more clearly one way or the other. Instead of just asking "how long", also ask "who would win" considering Assad's presumable lack of interest (or is that so?) in a Yemen style negotiation. Of course there is the problem of the different rebel factions, what they want, and will they turn to fighting each other. In any case, simply asking whether doing X "will shorten or prolong" the conflict is worth asking as one question, but by itself is inadequate.
It's a shame, and ultimately perhaps more tragic than the more potentially ameliorable situation in Iraq. And no surprise, Karzai is (like Chalabi, a gravely distasteful might-have-been who ironically was near to being an Iranian agent) another Bush baby foisted on the world. But Juan, even if you're not convinced there's a danger of extremists advancing in AfPak, we need to appreciate that the question is there. Well, did we at least ever get the benefit of that pipeline etc. that Moore referenced in F9/11?
In general: the strange irony of Iraq as well, now more friendly to Iran and not the balancer it was and could have been, as Iran is supposed to be our major threat in the world. As for Wikileaks, note the harm to small fry (well, they seem to be trying to lighten that) added to the debatable question of the big picture.
Furthermore, baiting about Hitler is widely recognized as reprehensible. Nor is our government particularly controlling now compared to most other nations.
Matt, Prof. Cole titled this piece "five ways _____ resembles Pakistan's Taliban." The existence of shared traits does not imply either that the two groups must either be on average alike in *all* respects, or that all of their members are like each other (aside from the first question.) To pretend that the latter was implied, is the straw man fallacy. Are you aware of the logical and background to rational debate, and of the responsibilities expected of those who engage?
Some things forgotten about in the euphoria: 1. If peak oil was truly false, then oil would cost around $40/bbl instead of hovering up in 80-100. Demand is still outstripping supply, the true meaning of PO. 2. Shale etc oil costs more and more energy to extract, meaning less total "ROI" and worse, ROEI (return on energy investment.) It is less efficient. 3. The shale type deposits often run out in a few years, they aren't as robust as old style oil fields.
The philosophical driver behind this is the deceptive (IMHO) idea that spending money is "speech" - an idea not really supported by the original, more egalitarian concept of simple "communication" of thoughts themselves. One irony that saddens me, is that real conservatives logically ought to be opposed to influences that corrupt government and lead to more market distortion through lobbying etc.
The poll results are about what I would suspect - and indeed, many Israelis are likewise opposed to Likud policies and thinkstyle. Also what a supreme hypocritical irony, that the US Christian Right dotes on Bibi Netanyahu while he puts out propaganda against celebrating Christmas. That is a *true* "war on Christmas" but will right-wing outlets feature or condemn it ...
One of the complaints of skeptics is that we have cooler spells lately, or the flatter decade (debatable) but for sake of argument even if true: makes no more sense to consider that counting against influence of CO2, than to doubt the effect of Earth axial tilt because of cooler spell in late April than a few weeks earlier.
I was hoping but wary the FSA etc could be viable. This is really depressing and dangerous. The skeptics of helping rebels have the right to say, "we told you so." This needs further elaboration: "According to Al-Hammud, the hard-line Islamic brigades that constitute 30 percent of the opposition fighters do not suffer a problem in getting finances. On the contrary they pay salaries to their fighters and ensure a good life to their families ..." So who is paying them so well?
Juan, I don't think Obama is as isolated as you think, when the overall question of opposition to Syrian use of gas is considered instead of US military strike per se. As I gather, 10 nations wanted to do more to pressure Assad altho I confess to not being clear on details.
Prolongation etc could be the result of a strike, but not as likely an outcome if Assad is determined to hang on . He was getting the upper hand recently and was indeed, emboldened by new help. To tip things more against him could get things to move more clearly one way or the other. Instead of just asking "how long", also ask "who would win" considering Assad's presumable lack of interest (or is that so?) in a Yemen style negotiation. Of course there is the problem of the different rebel factions, what they want, and will they turn to fighting each other. In any case, simply asking whether doing X "will shorten or prolong" the conflict is worth asking as one question, but by itself is inadequate.
It's a shame, and ultimately perhaps more tragic than the more potentially ameliorable situation in Iraq. And no surprise, Karzai is (like Chalabi, a gravely distasteful might-have-been who ironically was near to being an Iranian agent) another Bush baby foisted on the world. But Juan, even if you're not convinced there's a danger of extremists advancing in AfPak, we need to appreciate that the question is there. Well, did we at least ever get the benefit of that pipeline etc. that Moore referenced in F9/11?
In general: the strange irony of Iraq as well, now more friendly to Iran and not the balancer it was and could have been, as Iran is supposed to be our major threat in the world. As for Wikileaks, note the harm to small fry (well, they seem to be trying to lighten that) added to the debatable question of the big picture.