Ways politicians, aka sociopaths, do what they do best, i.e. lie to grab power and line their own pockets:

First way: The Right - Give up your civil liberties so that we can decide how you should live and keep you safe from terrorists

Second way: The Left - Give up your civil liberties so that we can decide how you should live and keep you safe from your stupid selves.

Third way: (the most dangerous) Left and Right combined - Give up your civil liberties so that we can decide how you should live

You seem to suggest that people lives should be be determined by centralized authority to which you seem to ascribe benevolent motives to bring about Utopian goals like those listed in the cartoon. Nothing wrong with those goals though but look at history and learn.

I suggest you read this book called "The Left, the Right, and the State"

You can buy it at
http://mises.org/store/L...-The-State-The-P550.aspx
or read it online here:
http://mises.org/books/leftright.pdf

Here is a short (17 min) video of a speech by the author on the subject:
Authors Forum: The Left, The Right, and The State

Here is the introduction:
http://mises.org/daily/3282

Ha Ha Hah!!! Smok'in in Spok'an. (Spokane,WA)

Always-reliable, if not incredibly dull by now, Konstantin said:

Nothing wrong with those goals though but look at history and learn.

History like the Montreal Protocol, signed by George H.W. Bush, which successfully imposed a cap and trade system to help stop acid rain?

Whaddaya know, it worked!

And we're not even slaves of the Grand Jedi Master Pubah Overlord now (anymore than we were already), didn't have to give up our "freedoms", weren't "taxed into oblivion" and all the other nonsense being bandied about by oil company stooges now blindly doing their dirty work for them by "standing up against" cap and trade, measures to curb global warming, become energy independent, etc.

But, whatevs, Konstantine. Keep up the good fight! For whatever or whoever the hell it is you think you're fighting for.

Woman Who Invented Credit Default Swaps is One of the Key Architects of Carbon Derivatives, Which Would Be at the Very CENTER of Cap and Trade

http://www.washingtonsbl...redit-default-swaps.html

@ #3
You've listed more than just CO2 mitigation in the cartoon which you expect the state to somehow "fix".
Last presidential election people voted for a benevolent candidate that promised change we can believe in.
How much force would you give the state to bring about those "fixes"? How much money would you authorize them to take from the people? Of course we all know they wouldn't divert that money for purposes they think are more worthy, like the next big meltdown right.
That's not slavery?
I guess you live and learn.

I have been saying this to all the otherwise lucid left-righties I know, and it doesn't even faze 'em! They are convinced that just because plutocrats and their government lackeys will try to use this, too, against us, that they must deny reality for all they're worth. Even people who can otherwise see complicated things clearly have broken their teeth from their knees jerking up and bashing them in their chins.

A great many of them are stupidly, stupidly YOUNG, despite their having an even greater need to get this handled. Our kids have turned SO malleable behind whole [short] lives being propagandized to pulp that waaaaay too many of them are rabidly fighting against making a better world. All they know is that the Big Boys are liars, and so all these fascists can pump them full of utter twaddle and they run with it. They should be rabidly fighting FOR making a better world, fighting the fuckers who are abusing the snot out of them AND doing everything possible, full time, to clean up the planet. But no.

The pigs have taken everyone's anger over the bailouts and kleptocratic war contractors and turned AGW into something those guys want to use to further loot our treasury. THIS IS ONE OF THE DANGERS OF CONSTANT POLEMICIZING, A NEVER ENDING PARADE OF WEDGE ISSUE GENERATION. They have perfected the art of using people's anger to turn them against themselves.

It isn't just bubbas getting their prejudices juiced to make them keep voting against their best interests anymore. They're doing it to the whole population, left, right and center... ESPECIALLY to the kids. They're plugged in. You can text them or tweet them and, bip-bam, you've got 'em.

This is waaaaaay not funny.

Some kid actually came to my place to link a video of a scientist talking about the possibility of AGW in 1950, thinking that was PROOF this is all just a big fat lie. I shit you not. I had to get a neighbor to come pick me up off the floor.

Love you bold, caps and italics people. I see that and I stop reading. Just a suggestion.

AND WE LOVE YOU BACK, SHAWN....

99 What exactly are you saying in your #6 rant? Not clear.

Well it's more than likely that Brad Blog is censoring most comments, but I would love to ask why everyone here is so convinced that America signing the Copenhagen treaty is the only way out of this mess.

Are we so brainwashed that we believe that America couldn't make it's own climate laws rather than signing treaties which bit by bit chip away at America's sovereignty.

Mark - obviously very unfamiliar with the way things work on the BradBlog here. Comments do not get censored here unless they fall under some very specific categories of personal attack. People can pretty much post any stupid thing they want, unless it is spamming, or copy and paste of long articles (provide a link)...just go back a few threads and read Damail's comments for proof that well, people can say just about any stupid thing here. Well, also consider that your comment didn't get censored

Cheers.

Mark, way to not actually read the comments and then make blind assertions about them. Are you paid to dump nonsense troll comments, or do you do it out of your own goodwill?

And just to play devil's advocate, would you please outline the process by which anti-pollution controls will lead to the subjugation of the U.S. into a non-autonomous state?

An earlier comment did not appear, for whatever reason but there are those who will always jump to conclusions.

I will restate that Brad Blog has not posted the significance coming at the same time as Copenhagen, of the EPA stating that the trace gas CO2 is dangerous and the implications of that statement with regard to future tax implications and the carbon trading scheme which is highly sought after by the banking industry and oil corporations for obvious reasons. It will not regulate emissions, but just trade them as commodities. And since human being breathe CO2, I find that rather problematic.

Be blind to this is you want but that is the agenda and the EPA guidelines merely open the door to this future green hell which is about to fall upon the middle class. More jobs will leave the US since other countries (India China and emerging markets) will have no such concerns.

Brad Blog has also not noted the 9 carbon traders in Copenhagen funnily enough, who have already been charged with scamming the system and making billions on the backs of others. Carbon Trading was just announced to become a multi trillion dollar business that will open a pandora's box on corruption that will make Madoff look like a slumdog millionaire.

And while Global alarmists are calling skeptics nasty name callers who are suppressing truth, why did Hansen call for CEO's of companies to be criminally charged for denying GW's existence? The hypocrisy is unreal when for 10 years people were simply asking questions as to what the scientists really could prove...ten years does not a trend make...and everyone was being called a denier which is intended just to shut people down.

Lastly again, why are American's/Media so convinced that a Copenhagen treaty should supersede laws America should make on it's own.

Although I have no solutions to offer, I believe Agent 99 at #6 has precisely summarized the situation w/r/t young people and politics.

The assumption today is that anything said by anyone with any power whatsoever is a lie. Young people tend to think that by splitting the difference between both sides, they are cleverly honing in on the truth.

The two major parties have done a great deal to support that assumption --- I think our current President and his financial team have pretty much shown how uninterested the Democrats are in helping the people the Republicans screw.

The selection of W did a great job of discrediting the idea of third parties in federal elections, and Ralph Nader was the last person with then-reliable access to the national stage who regularly told the truth.

As I said, I have no solutions to offer, but IMO 99 hit it out of the park.

Konstantin @ 5 said:

How much force would you give the state to bring about those "fixes"?

Seeing as how the people can't, on their own, institute these "fixes", I'd say that's exactly what government, "providing for the general welfare", is supposed to be for (versus, say, lying us into endless and unfunded wars.)

How much money would you authorize them to take from the people?

By "take from the people", you mean 'use tax dollars'? I'd say let's see their plan, and we can decide. So far, it seems like a much better use of tax-payer funds than endless wars and unaccountable subsides to petroleum corporations and groups who defraud the government to the tune of billions of dollars, but continue to receive their government welfare anyway (like Exxon, Haliburton, Blackwater, etc. etc.)

Of course we all know they wouldn't divert that money for purposes they think are more worthy, like the next big meltdown right.

Nope. That's why we have public oversight and elections. To hopefully try at least to keep public officials accountable.

That's not slavery?

No. It is a Constitutional representative Republic. Perhaps your as confused about what "slavery" is, as you seem to be about science? Are you a slave now that the Montreal Protocol for cap and trade was instituted so successfully to curb acid rain [on edit] ozone issues? [the acid rain cap and trade protocol was a different one, also successfully implemented. Didn't make us slaves either.] Do you have any idea what "slavery" actually means??

I guess you live and learn.

Apparently you haven't.

Mark @ 10 foolishly said:

Well it's more than likely that Brad Blog is censoring most comments

Yes, it's a conspiracy of censorship! Just like those scientists! Oh, wait, your post and everyone elses who doesn't violate posted rules goes through automatically? There was nothing censored by the scientists whose emails were hacked and stolen? Oh, then never mind.

I would love to ask why everyone here is so convinced that America signing the Copenhagen treaty is the only way out of this mess.

Is there another way? Happy to discuss it, of course. Always open to good ideas, based on reality and facts, if you have any.

Are we so brainwashed that we believe that America couldn't make it's own climate laws rather than signing treaties which bit by bit chip away at America's sovereignty.

Um, you are aware that our air and stuff is connected to everybody else's air and stuff on the same globe, right?

@brad: I already stated that my comment did not print for whatever reason but keep spinning it as though I'm the bad guy. I am really amazed at your two facedness and lack of willingness to pursue other stories that might not re-inforce the one you're promoting. I would never have believed that a guy who fought the good fight against would just fall like this for Al Gore's propaganda.

TO EVERYONE ELSE: DON'T GOOGLE "DANISH TEXT"

You might find too many lies at Copenhagen to spin. And by the way, should that be the next attack, I am not anti-environment. I recycle. I re-use as much as possible. I turn off my lights and computer when I leave the house, and raise my A/C in the summer. But I do know a SCAM when I see it.

Mar5k...at various comments.

I'm a staunch leftist. I've had comments not appear also. Maybe it's a glitch in the system or simply user error, but I just simply retyped them and did the verifying alpha-numeric magic and it went. I certainly didn't play the "censured" card.

On to Copenhagen...Mark...my friend environmental issues are GLOBAL not just in the United States. It's gonna take a global cooperative effort for any measures to work.

You said @13 mark...

Brad Blog has also not noted the 9 carbon traders in Copenhagen funnily enough, who have already been charged with scamming the system and making billions on the backs of others. Carbon Trading was just announced to become a multi trillion dollar business that will open a pandora's box on corruption that will make Madoff look like a slumdog millionaire.

I would love to see some reputable sources to back those claims up Mark....there are many people that read these threads and you may convince some folks if you backed up those claims.

You also said @13...

I will restate that Brad Blog has not posted the significance coming at the same time as Copenhagen, of the EPA stating that the trace gas CO2 is dangerous and the implications of that statement with regard to future tax implications and the carbon trading scheme which is highly sought after by the banking industry and oil corporations for obvious reasons. It will not regulate emissions, but just trade them as commodities. And since human being breathe CO2, I find that rather problematic.

That is a very reasonable point. Now I ask you how would a society regulate carbon emmissions without economic incentives ?...Shall we simply do it n the honor system ? or should we make it economically feasible for a corporation/ company or family to monitor and reduce their carbon emmissions ?

Also @13

Lastly again, why are American's/Media so convinced that a Copenhagen treaty should supersede laws America should make on it's own.

American laws aren't globally recognized Mark...hence the need for an agreement among nations.

The purpose for international, comprehensive agreement on climate change is because the issue is international and comprehensive. China and India have only recently stepped up to reduce pollution, hoping that other world powers would too, thus attempting to level the economic playing field.

Besides, if it's a big hoax, what's the worst that could happen? We might forgo a few civil liberties and go into an economic depression. But our infrastructure would be sustainable. Our natural resources will not have dwindled. Unsustainable industries (clear-cutting, mountaintop mining, oil) will no longer be subsidized by the government (and us). Our tax dollars do not belong in the greasy hands of industry, when industry avoids accountability.

The decision here should be tied more to risk management and probability. Science will never prove, without a doubt, that climate change is happening and that we're to blame. (Though, the available science does overwhelmingly point to ecological problems worldwide.) Politicians want such an answer to use as ammo, as an absolute answer, and they also want to get reelected. Neither is completely infallible.

Is it worth the risk to do nothing and risk everything or to do something and risk some economic 'development?'

The intersection of science and policy makes this a messy decision.

Mark....also

I have been following numerous environmental threads at Bradblog. I am in no way an expert. I've learned a lot about the issue just reading here.

You "deniers' hardly ever produce any kind of source verification for your seeming outlandish claims. I assure I'll read them or go any link you all provide...but it hardly ever happens.

It's like you all believe that if you make the ridiculous assertions often enough, then that will make it true and swing folks to your point of view.
PLEASE...give some evidence of the climate change 'scam'.

You may do society a huge favor...but as it is now, you're just whistling dixie.

Mark of Polo @19

Is it worth the risk to do nothing and risk everything or to do something and risk some economic 'development?'

Very well put...I would add the new green technology is a new economic devolopment...to replace any jobs/revenue lost by the old.

Mark, both the EPA announcement and the 'Danish Text' are in today's report. The reason you didn't 'see' anything on these two stories here is 1) you're not familiar with our posting schedule, and 2) you aren't familiar with our previous coverage.

@Mark said:

I would never have believed that a guy who fought the good fight against would just fall like this for Al Gore's propaganda.

If I see a story suggesting there is some sort of propaganda here, or criminality (other than the propaganda, and criminality we've already covered as being perpetrated by the denialst scammers) I'll be happy to cover it. So far, all I see is a bunch of corporate stooges falling for a well-funded corporate scam, just the way they fell for the ACORN "fraud" scam, the health care "death panels" scam, the WMD in Iraq scam, etc.

I'm sure you'll feel free here in open to comments to make an alternate case, even though neither you, nor any of the other denialists here seem to have done so, even after hundreds and hundreds of comments on the topic.

TO EVERYONE ELSE: DON'T GOOGLE "DANISH TEXT"

Yes, don't Google that dangerous term! You'll find it discussed at all of the major news outlets, who are hiding it from you! (We also link to it in today's Green News Report, published here shortly).

Glad to see, however, that you're concerned about the U.S. taking too much power over developing countries, and are standing up for the UN against the U.S. to boot! Neato!

What a scandal! Um...really?!

BlueHawk

I've been saying that worst case scenario is that we end up with a cleaner planet, a better world.

I am saying that a massive proportion of the "climate trolls" [my term] are YOUNG.

They're scared of "globalization", of the fascists running everything and trying to suck all the wealth out of the people of the world, and they've been convinced, by the very people they revile, to fight against doing anything about AGW on the grounds that it is another trick to subjugate us and suck more money/work from us.

They don't know they've already been tricked, and can't figure out that even if it is a trick, or that the scientists were wrong, we'd still have a cleaner planet, a better, healthier world, from which they have the most to gain and the least to lose.

Just like blue collar bubbas who are barely scraping through who vote for Republicans because they hate all us holier-than-thou liberals who want to make a bacchanal out of our society.

Just like all their outrageous caterwauling makes liberals defend to the death fascist policy.

They nail the kids with messages from their gizmos. Just like Obama got monster crowds from texting kids, these guys are getting this tsunami of climate trolls.

99, there's a chance that you're becoming cynical, at least in your comments.

Brad, so after rightly condemning fascist policies of the right your saying fascist policies in control of the left is ok cause the left never abuses power?

Further clarification: What I mean by "worst case scenario" is that we have a cleaner, healthier planet, whether it fails to stop or slow the heating, or the cooling, or the staying the same in the future.

Whatever is the actual case, we have definitely shown, even to deniers, that we have an unhealthy planet, and a nation that is slaughtering millions behind the almighty profit of a few... an apocalyptic mess... making creatures sick and hungry and dead in completely unacceptable ways.

And, guess what! We are the adults, the ones with the responsibility for changing this. It isn't up to someone else to face down the war and pollution profiteers. Scrapping over dated emails from one failed scientific attempt to gather correct data not only doesn't get things cleaned up, it serves the bad guys. They're rubbing their murdering hands together.

It's been my experience that whenever some people start cutting too close to the bone, too close to the real, others pop up to remark on their cynicism or some other negative characterization that distracts from the discomfort of the light shed on them.

If one persists in such gauche behavior, one gets a name for being a "complainer" or being "shrill" or being an "idealist" who obviously doesn't know or have the patience for how things are done.

There are a bazillion little semantic tricks to obfuscate truth. There seems to many, almost everybody, some survival value in denying reality... and I don't mean just in the case of this global catastrophe. It has ruined the United States, and it's killing Planet Earth.

In reply to 99 #27,
And my point in comment #1 was that you will never get those in power, i.e. called the state (not to bet confused with the states of the union) to limit their powers to some narrow range that will only address those specific problems. The state will never fix them in the way you want.
They just take credit for what people do to fix problems and in return demand more power.

Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

P.S. 99 it's ok to leave comments as they are with mistakes and have people refer to the accompanying clarifying comment.

Konstantin

Read French history and don't tell me how to keep house.

Konstantin @25

Fascist policies in relation to climate change ?

Please clarify Konstantin..

I mean your comments have always been more or less reasonable....Your climate change-fascist statement from you sounds shrill.

Konstantin @25 played it down to the felt with:

Brad, so after rightly condemning fascist policies of the right your saying fascist policies in control of the left is ok cause the left never abuses power?

For a start, I'm not sure I ever spoke to "facist policies of the right". I did speak to corporatism of the Right (and the Left) and of violations of the Rule of Law and U.S. Constitution by the Right (and the Left).

So if you now want to claim that something --- what? cap and trade? global treaties? --- are now "fascist policies in control of the left" you're gonna have to be a little more specific about what the hell you're shadow-boxing at now.

Then I'll be more than happy to speak to how foolish it likely is. (Before you do, though: See Desi's previous notes, and our discussion in the GNR today, about past cap and trade plans that worked great, were met w/ industry resistance, and ended up costing less than planned, even while not enslaving the world in the bargain).

Peace. And good luck at your next attempt, whatever it may be, and wherever you may be pulling it out of.

@ #30: Brad listed much more than just climate change on the cartoon. My reply was in relation to that.
Seems climate change became a power grab for something like - "we'll run your lives for you cause we know better what's good for you and we justify the power grab to do it on the 'to protect the general welfare' clause"
It never turns out to that way in history.

What Brad doesn't understand is that the general welfare clause as he seems to think of it can be used to justify the right-wing agendas too. It doesn't mean what he thinks.

@ 99 #29: I assume you mean French history not in relation to keeping house.

What libertarians have forgetten is that government when done correctly works for the common good.

Most 'anti-government' libertarians seem to think only their ideas are proper and beneficial for all. Government by definition is an agreement between the government and the governed to bring about a peaceful, stable environment to live.

I have grown weary of hearing for over 30 years about less government, instead of proper government.

The terrible clusterfuck we're living through today is the result of non-government and selling out by those who were elected to tend to the best interests of the public. Gutting government won't alleviate the present crisis it will only intensify it.

I agree with 99...wise and sober environmental policies will make a better environment for life on our planet. It's a win-win and what responsible adults do. Anything else is simply playing into the hidden corporate hand of those who have hijacked our government into serving their narrow interests.

I find it curious that libertarians don't push back against the corporate/banking government that has infiltrated and co-opted our duly elected government. Libertarians have some soul searching to do also...Too many times they play right into the hands of the oligarchy; the oligarchy that is the true government now.

Libertarians are silent about them...

By the way, there's a reason why I wrote comment #1 not all related to climate change policy.

P.S. Comments I wrote in this thread have nothing to do with the actual science just politics of it.

RE: Comment 33 ....I'll add....

Libertarians actually don't seem to be concerned with ' the common good' at all.
They come off as seeming to be only concerned with their own personal welfare...and the freedom to do whatever they please irregardless of how it may effect society as a whole.

Libertarianism...seems kinda narccisstic...as it's presented in the public by today's libertarians.

@ #33
They're not silent about the banking crisis. Where do you think the "Audit the Fed" came from?
You just can't hear them in the smokescreen of the left-right noise generated by the mainstream media and spilling into the net.

There's way too much in your comment to address but look at http://mises.org

Konstantin

I'm familiar with mises.org. I seriously considered the libertarian position. I ultimately decided against it for the reasons stated above.

Ron Paul asks to audit the Fed...very nice. I wish he had more support in that.

But contemporary libertarians Randian 'me first' stance on most issues is fallacy for a nation of over 300 million people. Corporations use libertarian Randian mumbo jumbo to screw over the public and rob us blind.

Also as a black man...Ron Paul's support by avowed racists kind of took me aback....although I support Paul's calling for the Fed to be audited.

For the innocent bystanders: "Corporatism" and "Fascism" are the same thing. Some people like to argue that fascism is nastier, more of a warlike police state thing, but, well, look around. Whatever you call it... it's the same thing. The imperative of profit resorts to force on whatever scale it can get away with. Mind the taser next time you want to tell a cop where to get off. Consult your nearest street person. Ask an Iraqi if you're still confused.

You are free to carry a gun to public meetings and scream and disrupt to your hearts' content as long as it supports the profit of plutocrats and tends to keep officials from getting uppity about that, but just try wearing an antiwar t-shirt to a presidential speech, or meet with some others to discuss how you're going to house antiwar protesters during a party convention, see what that gets you. Pfeh. Are you nuts? Raytheon would go belly up! Halliburton would be hurtin'. Don't like the WTO? Better not say so or they'll blast you with a rubber bullet or bash you with a truncheon... whatever party you like.

Stop splitting hairs about what it's called.

@ #37
Bluehawk you said "Corporations use libertarian Randian mumbo jumbo to screw over the public and rob us blind."

I think that's a mistaken observation but a crucial mistake.
Corporations don't use "libertarian or Randian mumbo jumbo" to screw over the public and rob us blind; they use the government to screw over the public and rob us blind. You can see that very clearly with the "too big to fail" banks and all the money the government gave them.

On the audit the Fed he does have alot of support and it's growing. ALthough I don't know why Barney Frank would try to derail the bill like he tried recently.

As for the rest, I think you're listening to misinformation about Ron Paul.

Konstantin and BlueHawk

Corporations use whatever works. All of the above and more.

There are a lot of sensible and seemingly altruistic positions mixed in with Ron Paul's seriously ugly and selfish ones. His fans ought not to delude themselves about that just like Obama fans shouldn't have deluded themselves about "change".

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
... Shawn Rosvold said on 12/8/2009 @ 3:44 am PT...

Love you bold, caps and italics people. I see that and I stop reading. Just a suggestion.

That's ridiculous. Why would you stop reading something because it's italics, bold, and/or caps? Who cares?

OK, I thought about it, and we'll stop it. No more caps, italics, and/or caps. Put in the edits, Brad & 99.

I have a mind to put an open-ended bold in here, a flaw in Brad Blog, just to piss everyone off. I'll do it! I swear!!!

And don't you doubt him!

Konstantin @40

Corporations have legal personhood.

They use that legal personhood to bludgeon individuals, the public and the government with all sorts of acquired 'privileges' that were constituionally reserved for individual people...not corporate entities.

The United States were formed to protect people from corporate abuse (the British East India trading company) and give the individual person a fair equal/standing against them in legal affairs.
That has been turned on it's head now and corporations, now with rights and privileges meant for individuals abuse their power worse than the British companies did before the revolution.

Ayn Rand's (the libertarian goddess) philosophy of objectivism (narcissism) has been adopted by corporations and fused with the rights they've hijacked from the Consitution and now the American people or government are essentialy powerless in the face of corporate fascism.

Also Ron Paul is a racist

Although I do support his call to audit the fed.

More on Ron Paul's racism

You're right that corporations have been granted legal personhood and they shouldn't.

I don't know that much about Ayn Rand so can't comment on that.

Bluehawk what happened with that newsletter has already been explained. Google it if you're interested what happened.

Konstantin @46

I don't know that much about Ayn Rand so can't comment on that

Too many libertarians I know quote Ayn Rand and worship "Atlas Shrugged"

Bluehawk what happened with that newsletter has already been explained. Google it if you're interested what happened.

Konstantin explaining doesn't make it unsaid...

I've heard the blaming of speech writers and stuff...Either Paul doesn't pre-read his speeches or he speaks them unconsciously...Either way that's a man that doesn't deserve my support.

The assault of Corporate libertarians

Bluehawk @ #48

The link has an excerpt of a book. Haven't read his book but I read the excerpt and it's a total distortion of what I read about libertarian philosophy and economics.

Bluehawk @ #44 & #45
you said "I've heard the blaming of speech writers and stuff...Either Paul doesn't pre-read his speeches or he speaks them unconsciously...Either way that's a man that doesn't deserve my support."

I don't know what you're referring to.
What did he say that makes you think that?

Konstantin @49

I'll concede that maybe all libertarians don't hold all of those views. But from my experience libertarians worship at the altar of "free markets" and "deregulation" for corporations.

In my experience those principles stated in the link @comment 48 typify libertarian views. Libertarians are spokespersons for corporatist domination of the people. The corporation being the ultimate person in their book. The portion of that link with the heading THE CORPORATE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE is particularly libertarian in nature.

I focus on libertarians and corporate personhood on an AGW thread because it's a huge part of the tactics used by corporations to justify their environmental anarchy. They use folks that identify as libertarian to spread their lies...not calling you a liar Konstantin, but I do believe you've adopted a lot of corporate misinformation in the form of corporations anti-government regulation propaganda....it's what the corporatists want.

Where in history has this happened before? yeah I'm sure they will work for a benevolent state.

Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More

Bluehawk @ 51

I think you have a misunderstanding of what a free market is and of what regulations are.

I think the many videos at mises,org explain the economics well. Don't know if you've seen them.

There are some new ones they did for high school students recently. I know it's for high scool students but for people not familiar with economic terms, like many people here including the top posters and owners of this site, it's a good place to start.

One of them also addresses recycling.
Worth watching in my opinion.

Here are the links to those youtube videos:
1. The Core of What Economics Teaches
2. Money, Banking and the Current Mess
3. Technology and Social Change
4. The Economics of Recycling
5. Applying Economics to American History

Watch these short introductory Youtube videos in order:

1. The Core of What Economics Teaches
2. Money, Banking and the Current Mess
3. Technology and Social Change
4. The Economics of Recycling
5. Applying Economics to American History

Some of the audiobooks about money:

What Has Government Done to Our Money
audiobook What Has Government Done to Our Money

The Case Against the Fed
audiobook The Case Against the Fed

No it won't be a fascist state, right?
http://www.guardian.co.u...imate-warning-copenhagen

"Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, leading scientist and IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri warns of radical charges and regulation if global disaster is to be avoided
... .... ....
Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying;
and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
... .... ....
A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
... .... ....
Pachauri also proposed that governments use taxes on aviation to provide heavy subsidies for other forms of transport.
"We should make sure there is a huge difference between the cost of flying and taking the train," he said.
Despite the fact that there is often little benefit in time and convenience in short-haul flights, he said people were still making the "irrational" choice to fly.
Taxation should be used to discourage them.
... .... ....
Pachauri caused controversy last year by advocating, in an interview with the Observer, that people should eat less meat because of the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock.
... .... ....
He said that he also believed car use would have to be "curbed": "I think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private vehicles." ... .... ....
Pachauri also denounced the practice in some restaurants of providing iced water to customers who had not ordered it. "It is just an enormous amount of waste that we don't even think about," he said.
... .... ....

I have an eight by ten color glossy of all the global governments instituting Pachauri's recommendations and sending storm troopers after miscreants to fry with their death tasers....

And still this does not debunk the science.

And it was doing things Ludwig von Mises' way that got us into this godforsaken mess. Neoliberal economic policy has enslaved the masses, has put something like 80% of the world's wealth in the hands of 2% of its people. You are deeply confused, Konstantin... or... you are purposefully touting fascism while purporting to stand against it.

@99 comment #55 & 56

I never said it debunks the science. I specifically said the comments are about the politics and policies with the science used as justification for a power grab just like all crises are used as a justification for a power grab and erosion of civil liberties.

99 you are deeply mistaken about what you call the Mises way. That's not what we have today. We have an illusion of democracy ruled by an oligarchy.

Nothing personal against you but it's really getting annoying being told you believe something that you don't while the person doing the telling doesn't know anything about what they're telling.

During the 1800's till about 1913 poverty was being eliminated, the standard of living was increasing, prices were going down and thereby the purchasing power of people's earnings was going up, the poor were getting richer, etc.

But then in 1913 a group of bankers headed by J.P. Morgan put a stop to that and created a government enforced cartel to steal the people's wealth by removing purchasing power from people's money. You know the rest.

Yer just not putting it together. Oligarchies are fascistic. Unregulated free market capitalism turns very quickly into oligarchy, whether it feigns being democratic or just does in-yer-face autocracy. Mox nix. It really is that simple. Mises might as well have been J.P. Morgan. You seem to equate fascism with being told you can't have ice water at a restaurant, when somebody's only trying to point out the sorts of things we could do to mitigate the tonnage of carbon we pump into our atmosphere so profligately.

You don't make a lick of sense. You seem only to like being obnoxious about stuff. You keep stating stuff that seems to deliberately miss the point. You keep stating stuff that makes it look like you're here to smudge cyberspace with disinformation.

So if you're annoyed, join the club.

I do heartily agree, though, that it got worse after 1913. If people understood what we call our monetary system they'd drop dead of shock.

Shit.

So tedious.

And, no, we didn't have a hundred-year stretch of prosperity that was only dashed in 1913. There was a monster crash in 1893... no... wait... there were a shitload of market crashes and bad depressions throughout the 1800s and early 1900s. Presidents were fighting mightily not to knuckle under to the bankers... some more than others... some more successful than others. But the economy was almost uniformly awful throughout that period. Workers got shit for pay until they started beating the living snot out of the oligarchs' goons in the 1920s and 30s.

Quit being such a dope.

Agent 99, I must disagree with your characterization of how our economic policies have been implemented in the past few decades.

Things have NOT been done the "Mises" way. We have not had a free market in America since 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was adopted.

Corporations and personhood is a major reason for this. Followed by the extension of logic that stated that campaign contribution dollars equates to fredom of speech (Sheesh!)

A Free market is NOT an unregulated market. A Free market fights against "too Big to Fail". A free market dis-allows anti-trust/anti-competition arrangements (such as our insurance industry now enjoys).

Agent 99 and Blue Hawk, please be open to the possibility that much disinformation was put out by our media regarding Dr Paul, just as happened regarding Al Gore and Bill Clinton before him. Dr paul advocates rational governance empowered by actual voting citizens. You would know this if you went directly to the source rather than relying upon blog/punditry.

As for the Dr Paul newsletter, when those racist comments were published, Dr Paul was not even in politics, having returned to private practice. And the individual responsible for that ugly commentary was fired as soon as it was brought to Dr Paul's attention. Again, you'd KNOW that if you went to the source rather than rely upon bloggers/punditry that actually has an agenda.

Dr Paul's constituency is 60-65% brown. The man continues to get re-elected (much to the consternation of the GoP too!), the man is NOT racist. And, in fact, ALWAYS advocates for a fair and level playing field for citizens.

What I'm asking of you, Agent 99, is nothing more than what's been asked of others who have commented here, consider the possibility that you have been misinformed.

As for the green initiative. I fully support it as a jobs/industry incubation program. It's a new field which we will fall behind in if we do not invest in R&D and manufacturing. The melting of ice caps is undeniable. The screwy contention that Antarctica has more ice than ever is insane, when chunks of ice the size of states have repeatedly broken off with regularity for the past decade. The ice is melting, seas are rising, did we cause it? Who gives a damn. Can we do anything to stop or slow it? I'd rather work towards green and clean and be wrong, than continue with the status quo and risk global catastrophe.

99 now you're getting into things that would take too long to explain and you would need some background history to understand it. Yes there were other panics during the 1899's and they were caused by the same type of manipulation that the Fed has been doing since the 20th century.

Well, then, Dan, what we have had posing as a free market, the neoliberal crap that succeeded in throwing off all meaningful regulation, is what I was alluding to. And, in any case, capitalism does always create oligarchy, and quickly. Even if you could succeed in beating it back down into shape by cutting off all their avenues for pillage, they will be corrupting the right people anew instanter.

And lay out for me what Dr. Paul proposes for healthcare, and for services for the poor, and for infrastructure, and for women's rights over their own bodies, please.

I don't know if he is a racist, but it's pretty clear that he was... or at least didn't mind a flamer putting out his newsletters... didn't mind them on his staff. It was on MSM, and it happened. A stretch to think he didn't know. I don't care. That's his lookout. Not mine.

And, Konstantin, won't you just give it a rest? You don't need to explain anything to me. I know capitalism works much better without a central bank, and this assholish fractional reserve system, but you are conflating the hateful financiers and some imaginary sick ruse about the climate, and it's pissing me off really badly. You keep making these wrong assertions and then continue to try and talk like you know what you're saying. It's disorientingly aggravating. Then you add in your monotonous cheerleading for filthy nukes and you're just not my favorite guy to talk with.

And, Dan, right on about who gives a damn who/what caused it! It's happening and there's stuff we can do that might slow it or turn it around, and it's psychotic not to try. Some of us have been hollering about this for decades, and it's like hollering into a stadium packed with cotton.

And why not just rock out for a while?

Our economic model since Reagan's days has pretty much followed a bastardization of Friedman's self correcting market. And it hasn't worked, ever. My theory for the reasoning that this model will never work is that Friedman never took into account the degree if integrity (or lack thereof) of the individuals who manage these huge multi-national corporations. And fraud at the top, in both Government and Corporate decisions, is what causes these Bubble/Burst cycles.

As an aside...
Phil and Wendy Gramm both belong in jail. And Chris Dodd, Frank Reich and Robert Rubin really do have some serious explaining to do. And neither Summers nor Geithner have any business being in this government. Period.

Friedman's economic models would never work, because his theories do not take into account basic human flaws.

Back to Dr Paul,

What drew me to Ron Paul initially was his very long held and public stance that the war on drugs was un-American, racist and immoral. And very very expensive. And he's right on all counts.

And another politician who was shamelessly smeared by our media that I wholeheartedly support, Dennis Kucinich, agrees with Dr Paul here.

Think THAT through....

He's NOT racist, never has been racist, and the scumbag that actually wrote that shit was fired and Dr Paul publicly renounced the racist commentary. Why isn't that enough for some on the left side of the spectrum? The "Dr Paul is a racist" meme is patently false and obvious to anyone who digs beneath the surface.

Disagree with him on his market philosophy, his stance on abortion. That's all fine and good. But when will the character assassination by innuendo end?

Try this one, a little Etta James:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09UrdLX2IMQ

I made the video for these guys...Jill can SING.

99 what wrong assertions? What ruse about the climate conflated with the financiers?
I said the government always uses a crises to grab more power and curtail civil liberties.
I never said or implied some financier ruse about the climate.
Wish people would stop mixing other people's view and ascribing them to someone else.

If we're going down that road about people not knowing what they're saying, to me listening to people here talk about nuclear power or science is like well, you all sound like teabaggers talking on FOX news or like those Brad was interviewing in his mini documentary
but I don't hold it against you cause you guys have been brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry which benefits.
I don't mean that disparagingly but it's the only thing you can relate to in terms of people who are those closed minded teabaggers.

I'm singing this to my bed right now....

That's the Naomi Klein shock doctrine you reference Konstantine.

Well supported in this here neck of the woods...
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

As for Nuclear, you better damn well figure out what to do with the toxic radioactive waste before you deploy hundreds of new, very expensive, potential pollution factories.

That's not closed minded. Three Mile Island just had another leak. We're talking about shit that kills people.

I suppose Konstantin, if our votes were actually counted, perhaps we wouldn't have such a divisive social and political landscape.

That's the point. Don't you understand there is virtually NO toxic waste. That's what I mean by people brainwashing the general public with misinformation about nuclear power, repeating it over the years, and having it as part of people's thinking like it's their reality.
I posted links to interviews of very well knwon environmentalists who changed their minds on nuclear power once they looked at the facts.

What do you mean about the Shock Doctrine? I know Naomi Klein wrote it but never read it although I read a review of it in which the reviewer rightly criticizes her lack of knowledge of economics and she often gets the facts wrong. I think she's intelligent but she mises the mark.
Very interesting review.
Here is the review if you're interested:
Shock and Awe: Institutional Change, Neoliberalism, and Disaster Capitalism

And if you really believe the media's version of the facts of what happened at Three Mile Island ...
Don't know what to say. I tried to inform people here about the facts. People would rather believe propaganda.
Even when the founder of Greenpeace is saying we need nuclear power and peop[le don't listen then there's no hope.

Haven't read the Shock Doctrine but if you meant about the government using a crisis to grab power, according to reviews of Klein's book she says governments uses crisis to implement neoliberal policies. She's wrong though. She doesn't really understand economics so she doesn't understand what happened in Chile.

Is that where you got the "
neoliberal economic policy has enslaved the masses" from? If so then that's wrong cause she's wrong about that.

We need nuclear power, yes. But we need a sound plan to deal with the waste and protect the core. As for it being non toxic, it takes years for the fuel rods to reach that state. meanwhile, any flaw or failure places the entire regional population at risk.

The premise of "The Shock Doctrine" is entirely correct, that crises are used by governments in order to increase their power.

The NeoConservative cabal of Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice et al...did exactly that. With willing GoP complicity. That abomination called the Patriot act was ready in weeks. A thousand page bill that significantly expanded the state's policing powers, ready within weeks? That shit was secretly waiting it's opportunity and was introduced as soon as the crisis hit.

And Obama won't renounce it....yuck!

Dan-in-PA comment #71,72,73 are replies to your comment #70
sorry thought 99 wrought it.

Dan-in-PA I posted some links about the truth about nuclear power and the truth about solar and wind power in the previous Green News Report thread
at the following link:
https://bradblog.com/?p=7555

Konstantin @73

Man you'll twists things more than a pretzel maker...

Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine" describes Crisis Capitalism or as she terms it 'Disaster Capitalism'....it doesn't describe how the government uses crisis to grab power....Klein describes how corporations use crisis (with government assistance at times) to grab wealth...

it's a meme about corporations exploiting disasters-crisis simply to acquire more wealth and power. NOT GOVERNMENT

Unless of course you mean how our our government (with corporate assistance) created shock and awe terror and disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to occupy those people...but that's a whole nother story...

hmmm...

corporations using/hijacking government to exploit and create disasters in order to enrich and empower themselves.

That's almost a text book definition of fascism...

Konstantin,

My military weapons training via the Navy tells me otherwise about the byproduct of the Nuclear reactor. My professional experience in nuclear medicine, as a field service engineer for this equipment, tells me differently.

This is not propaganda.

You, are actually citing propaganda.

Comment @77....glaring examples of disaster capitalism...

The Prison Industrial complex...create a drug crisis (the corporations biggest profit maker) and then cajole the government into allowing privately owned and corporate run prisons to house drug offenders.
What America gets is the largest incareration rate in the world.

The Military Industrial complex...KBR-Halliburton Blackwater and many many others. Exploit a criminal act as 9/11 was...Use patriotism and a dumbfuck government and media to convince the nation it was an act of war done by a "terrorist" nation. Convince the government to invade those nation(s) and reap huge profits by supporting the troops and "building infrastructure" which is a euphemism for laying the ground work for long term occupation...hey those all tanks will need lots of roads and bridges and stuff.

Exploiting natural disasters around the globe...I invite you to research the Sri Lankan tsunami and the deplorable rape of the aid money there done by disaster capitalists...but hey we don't care about Sri Lankans...they're way over there and they're brown...don't they already live in huts anyway ?

There are many many tohers I could spell out here...Konstantine...the government isn't your problem...reckless, greedy, fascist corporate power is. Hell the government has been laid useless in the face of that.

Screaming about nuetering the government has created the very mess we have today...it was lack of government that created this disaster...not oo much government.

Dan-in-PA @79

Did you run a nuclear reactor in the Navy? Cause this guy Rod Adams did, his blog at http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com

The byproducts of nuclear reactors are most usable as fuel in 4th generation reactors or can be recycled in 3rd generation reactors.

BlueHawk @80

fascist corporate power is the problem

That means corporations in control/cooperation with the government is the problem. If you limit the power of government as Thomas Jefferson said, then it limits the harm the government with or without the corporations can do.

Konstantin @82

Then you need to study the American revolution.
Our government was constructed constitutionally to limit the power of corporations.
Our government's sole purpose is be by the people, for the people and of the people...not the corporation. By your insane logic you think limiting the government will limit the power of the corporation. That my friend is LOONEY!

As I said earlier...it's a neutered government that fostered this corporate hedgemony in the first place....your solution ?
Let's limit governent more. Isn't that a silly position Konstantin ?

geez this has turned into a merry go round of obfuscation and word play. I agree with 99...Konstantin you're maddening.

Also your take on nuclear waste is purely fabrication. Not by you neccessarily, seems you've bought into some insane rhetoric that suits your purposes.

Konstantin, you've brought up many good points in past threads on thorium reactors as a viable option for baseload power, with the advantage of greatly reduced nuclear waste.

That said, there are a few hurdles that would need to be overcome. The biggest is the fact that even if a new type of reactor produces "virtually no waste" that still doesn't mean no radioactive waste --- and that's going to be the biggest sticking point for most people. Of course, there will be production waste and emissions for any human activity, including building solar panels and wind turbines. But for most people, the need to build sites with guaranteed safe storage of even a greatly reduced amount of radioactive waste for 10,000+ years seems like an unacceptable risk when modern civilization hasn't even been around that long. It also seems like an illogical choice when there are so many other renewable sources that don't result in radioactive waste of any amount.

Secondly, the construction of such reactors, as we've discussed before on other threads, is emissions- and energy-intensive due to the massive amounts of concrete required. There likely are ways around this problem, but it is not an insignificant hurdle. And the need for massive taxpayer buy-in and loan guarantees before a new plant can even start construction are another hurdle that would need to be overcome.

For many people, those hurdles mean the case hasn't been made to show nuclear (whether conventional U.S. or newer designs) as the best alternative, given the fact that we're working with a finite supply of money, time, and remaining emissions under proposed caps.

In the absence of side-by-side lifecycle comparisons of the various renewable energy options including nuclear, it will be difficult to overcome these hurdles among the American public. As always, we are need of the best, most objective, highest quality information as we tackle these difficult choices ahead.

If you see any info of that nature in your internet travels, I do hope you'll share.

Desi

Konstantin thinks it's safe to eat off dinner plates glazed with depleted uranium, and I believe he has taken my advice to test that out for himself instead of stumping for it all over the tubes as relentlessly as he has in the past. This is the only explanation for this disorienting barrage continuing. My miscalculation was that, once he'd experienced the radiation poisoning for himself, he'd finally get it. Instead it's killed off so many brain cells he can't make sense anymore.

Des @ #84

About your first points, the waste of nuclear power, the actual waste is very low. What is now called waste is can be used as fuel for 4th generation plants of which the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) type is ready to go today and the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) will need 5 or less years more of R&D.

They can use up most of what the general public think is waste and the byproducts are very small that are only radioactive for 300 years.
Actually they are our only chance to destroy what's left of our nuclear waste from our current reactors instead of storing current waste for thousands of years.

On your second point some of the links I provided addresses the point about the construction.
It's these links:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/06/tcase7

In them, especially,, the 2nd one , Dr. Brooks shows that the argument about materials required like concrete being energy intensive thereby emitting more CO2 compared to solar is not true.

He shows that solar requires:
15 times more concrete and 75 times more steel.

Now which do you think will require more money and which will emit more CO2 in their construction?

If you read those you'll see the side by side comparisons you're asking for. Other people have done them too and have come to similar conclusions.

As you can see what you've been hearing or reading about the hurdles of nuclear are not true but propaganda. I think you'll never see any honest comparisons coming from solar or wind proponents or companies. And of course you can check the calculations.

There is also these articles comparing what well known anti-nuclear proponent Amory Lovins says and what well known environmentalist Stewart Brand says.

Amory Lovins vs. Stewart Brand - Part One (The “Land Footprint Myth”)
http://neinuclearnotes.b...wart-brand-part-one.html

Amory Lovins vs. Stewart Brand - Part Two (The "Baseload Myth")
http://neinuclearnotes.b...wart-brand-part-two.html

Amory Lovins vs. Stewart Brand - Part Three (The “Portfolio Myth”)
http://neinuclearnotes.b...-stewart-brand-part.html

Amory Lovins vs. Stewart Brand - Part Four (The “Role of Government Myth” and Final Thoughts)
http://neinuclearnotes.b...art-brand-part-four.html

(Haven't finished reading all 4 yet).
As always you can check the info and calculations and/or ask experts about them.

Over the last several days, Konstantin has informed us that Desi doesn't understand science, Dan-in-PA doesn't understand nuclear waste, Naomi Klein doesn't understand economics, Frank Schaeffer doesn't understand the New Testament and that, of course, is just a sampling of this ankle-biter's vast knowledge.

An exclusive BRAD BLOG investigation into the real identity of this "Konstantin" character has been unable to unearth this exclusive photograph of our resident "expert" on, well, everything, when last seen in public at a local pub in Boston...

Given the futility of attempting to engage with such folks, I suspect this will be my last comment in reply to him. Good luck to the rest of you who have much more expendable time to spend on fruitless pursuits than I do.

Brad except for election/voting news and reports you're just as bad as the teabaggers with science and economics.

I know you probably didn't pay attention in school regarding science and math like most Americans but if you're going to criticize the comments on nuclear energy or science at least get the advice of an expert. Isn't that what a journalist is supposed to do?

We should go for this treaty. If we can actually achieve, what is written there in toon picture. I think this is beneficial for all the nations.