http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,661678,00.html
Mmmmmmmmmmm.
QuoteObama Has Failed the World on Climate Change
By Christian Schwägerl
US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.
The folder labeled "climate change" that George W. Bush left behind for his successor on the desk of the Oval Office in January likely wasn't a thick one. Although Bush once said that America is overly-dependent on oil, he never got beyond that insight. He was too busy waging war on Iraq and searching for a legal basis for extraordinary renditions to pay much attention to the real threat facing humanity. "Forget the climate" seems to have been Bush's unofficial motto.
But few people expected that the Barack Obama, of all people, would continue his predecessor's climate change plan. When he took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US -- that America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very core.
Only if the US manages to reduce its excessive energy consumption, commit itself to mandatory CO2 emission reduction targets and help finance the move away from oil for poorer countries, is there still a chance that countries like China and India will do the same and that a dangerous warming of the Earth can be stopped. On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing -- and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy.
Obama Lied to the Europeans
Barack Obama cast himself as a "citizen of the world" when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely his country's addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves.
Obama's announcement at the APEC summit that it was no longer possible to secure a binding treaty in Copenhagen, is the result of his own negligence. China, India and other emerging economies have always spoken openly about the fact that the US, as the world's largest emitter of CO2, has to be proactive in commiting itself to targets agreed on by way of international negotiation. But that is not America's style. The US is quite happy to see itself as the leader of the Western world. But when it comes to climate change, America has once again failed miserably -- for the umpteenth time.
If the rest of the world were to follow the US example in their approach to fossil fuels, the oceans would not only heat up, but would probably soon begin to boil. American CO2 emissions per capita are about twice as high as those in comparable industrialized nations and many times greater than those of the developing world. The climate change bill that is currently making its way through Congress does not go nearly far enough -- and that is Obama's fault. The bill proposed reducing CO2 emissions by a ridiculous 4 percent relative to 1990 levels, by 2020. Climate researchers believe that reductions of 40 percent or more are required.
The bill has since been watered down even more -- by exactly the kind of lobbying interests which the new US president had promised to overcome. Obama has neglected to communicate the importance of climate change to his fellow citizens by speaking about it in a major speech or in his much-loved "town hall" meetings. And he has left it to the Europeans to take the lead.
Americans Do Not Look Beyond their Own Borders
Obama's priorities are wrong. Copenhagen is not just any old summit -- it is the long-awaited climax of many years of negotiations, negotiations whose failure was only averted at the last minute at the Bali summit two years ago. Industry and energy companies around the world will use the results of the Copenhagen summit as a benchmark when they are planning their investments for the coming years and decades.
Obama was quite happy to make the trip to Copenhagen in October to support his hometown Chicago's bid to host the Olympic Games. But he is currently leaving open the question of whether he will come to the Danish capital in December for the UN Climate Change Conference. In doing so, he has given other world leaders the signal that they do not need to attend. If the Copenhagen summit, which energy strategists and environmentalists have been preparing for two years, is a failure, then it will mainly be Obama's fault.
Admittedly the Europeans have been slow to make concrete pledges of the billions of euros that are needed to help developing countries combat climate change, but at least they are prepared to make significant CO2 reductions of up to 30 percent by 2020, relative to 1990 levels. The US, however, is dragging its feet, preferring tactics to strategy -- just as was the case under George W. Bush.
Dreamt Up by Hollywood
For most Americans, the world beyond the US's borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance. Hence arguments based on appeals about drowning Bangladeshis, starving Africans and flooded islands in Indonesia have little effect. In Hollywood, the United States has an industry that continually pushes the materialistic ideal of Western prosperity to billions of people around the world, while at the same time bombarding them with apocalyptic visions in the form of disaster movies.
Many Americans clearly also believe that real climate change is just something dreamt up by the entertainment industry.
Obama has proven himself to be unable to put an end to the lies that modern American society is based on. He is unable to overcome the entrenched lobbyists of the oil and coal industries and make the reality clear to his compatriots: They are the worst energy wasters on the planet -- and are thus indirectly a major threat to world peace in the 21st century. Although they do not enjoy a higher quality of life than Europeans, Americans consume twice as much fossil fuel per capita. Their cars are too big, their homes are not energy efficient and they have yet to focus their talents for innovation away from trivial entertainment gadgets and toward renewable energy technologies.
The Main Culprit
It may seem arrogant to take the Americans to task to such a degree. But at least in Europe, many are willing to question their own lifestyle and to look at events beyond their own borders.
The Copenhagen summit, which is just three weeks away, is not lost yet. But if the worst-case scenario becomes reality at Copenhagen and at the follow-up conferences -- if, in other words, world leaders ignore the findings of the global scientific community -- then the US will find itself in a very uncomfortable position. America will be seen as the primary culprit of global warming -- and this after the US, with its rampant real estate speculation, has given us a global economic crisis which has not only destroyed assets, but pushed 100 million people worldwide into hunger. With that kind of track record, the US hardly has a claim any more to the leadership of the Western world -- let alone a Nobel Peace Prize for its leader.
A world of flooded coasts, dried-up rivers and disappearing rainforests will lead to massive refugee movements and conflict. The Nobel Committee should postpone the award of the Nobel Peace Prize from Dec. 10 to Dec. 20. Only if Obama has achieved a convincing deal at the Copenhagen conference will there be a real reason to honor him.
Now curl those impotent hands into a fist now.
*shakes fist as ordered*
*is unable to curl hands into fists*
L.
Puts kettle on.
Yerba mate for me PLZ. :)
Health care reform is more important than the planet, fools. :P
*launches into a Malcolm Tucker tirade*
Obama Lied to the Europeans on climate warming!
Obama lied, Euros fried.... :huh:
I'm intrigued. Which trivial entertainment gadgets are American?
wow. everyone expected Obama to change the climate? wow. I had no idea his "magic black man" mojo was that strong.
I love how after less than year of actually being in office, he's been completely written off. If you don't fulfill every single promise you made on the campaign trail within 11 months, you obviously didn't really want to change things. (He would and should have been able to completely change the whole world for the better by now?) :rolleyes:
sigh. the world is a stupid place. film @ 11.
But buddha, he does have himself to blame in part. When you run on a platform of "hope and change" you really do increase expectations that things will, well, change.
He isn't getting flack because he didn't magically chagne the climate, he is getting flack because he isn't even really trying.
He is getting flack, more in general, because he is looking more and more like what those who were not Obamateurs were afraid he might turn out to be - a charismatic hack without much of a clue about how to go about actually doing anything - or worse, without even the desire to actually do anything.
It is still early though, so there is yet hope for change.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
But buddha, he does have himself to blame in part. When you run on a platform of "hope and change" you really do increase expectations that things will, well, change.
He is doing the hope part in the first two years.
The second two years will be the change.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 12:59:18 PM
It is still early though, so there is yet hope for change.
The clock is ticking. Mid term elections are less than 12 months away, and it looks like any big changes may be impossible after those. Plus, votes are going to get a lot tougher the closer we get to those elections.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
But buddha, he does have himself to blame in part. When you run on a platform of "hope and change" you really do increase expectations that things will, well, change.
I guess he should have mentioned that he didn't have a magic wand that would just fix things without any muss or fuss. Hope btw is not actually doing anything. If people had no hope in America they would have voted for Palin/McCain. Changing an entrenched corrupt system is obviously not easy. They barely got their completely gutted health care bill through.
America actually doesn't really want change or they would be letting his government do more than hand out money to billionaires at the expense of tax payers. That's what previous presidents have been doing since FDR at the very least.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:04:07 PM
I guess he should have mentioned that he didn't have a magic wand that would just fix things without any muss or fuss.
Well, he should have done something during the campaign to dampen expectations that got wildly out of control.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
Well, he should have done something during the campaign to dampen expectations that got wildly out of control.
Except that we would have been in a royal mess in terms of confidence in the government. The Bush admin screwed things up so badly (at least, that was the perception) that all Americans were going to accept was someone who would concentrate on fixing the damage done between 2000 and 2008.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:04:07 PM
I guess he should have mentioned that he didn't have a magic wand that would just fix things without any muss or fuss.
Well, he should have done something during the campaign to dampen expectations that got wildly out of control.
He didn't win by that much, and before the economy collapsed weeks before the election he was only even money to get elected (according to gambling odds).
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:04:07 PM
America actually doesn't really want change or they would be letting his government do more than hand out money to billionaires at the expense of tax payers.
This is the kind of contention (contained in the Op_Ed in the OP as well) that mystifies me. "America" does this. "America" won't let something happen.
How is "America" or even "Americans" prevent something from happening, or let something happen like "letting his government do more?" I don't see how "America" can even be an actor.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
Well, he should have done something during the campaign to dampen expectations that got wildly out of control.
QuoteBecause if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
Why are we the last hope? :(
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:04:07 PM
I guess he should have mentioned that he didn't have a magic wand that would just fix things without any muss or fuss.
Well, he should have done something during the campaign to dampen expectations that got wildly out of control.
like expect people to not expect solutions to appear out of thin air? yeah good luck with that.
Nobody in America it seems (the TV wouldn't lie to me would it?) wants to do anything to help the Obama government, they're all to scared by completely ridiculous fearmongering by the Republicans, and the media. Moronic tea parties, and blocking something as innocuous as letting poor people get some semblance of health care are somehow considered helping the economy?
It's interesting to see that the right in America is no smarter as opposition than they were as leaders, still paranoid beyond the pint of any sort of credibility and completely uninterested in any sort of bi-partisan way of working with the current admin, to at least try to affect some of this "change". Hope is easy to forget when change is slow to come.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:23:20 PM
like expect people to not expect solutions to appear out of thin air? yeah good luck with that.
Nobody in America it seems (the TV wouldn't lie to me would it?) wants to do anything to help the Obama government, they're all to scared by completely ridiculous fearmongering by the Republicans, and the media. Moronic tea parties, and blocking something as innocuous as letting poor people get some semblance of health care are somehow considered helping the economy?
It's interesting to see that the right in America is no smarter as opposition than they were as leaders, still paranoid beyond the pint of any sort of credibility and completely uninterested in any sort of bi-partisan way of working with the current admin, to at least try to affect some of this "change". Hope is easy to forget when change is slow to come.
:lmfao:
Too strong a toke, dear?
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2009, 01:15:25 PM
This is the kind of contention (contained in the Op_Ed in the OP as well) that mystifies me. "America" does this. "America" won't let something happen.
How is "America" or even "Americans" prevent something from happening, or let something happen like "letting his government do more?" I don't see how "America" can even be an actor.
It seems the ROTW has an inflated sense of how active the average citizen is in the US political system. Our ability to do much of anything past irate phone calls to the elected representatives' secretaries ends on Inauguration Day.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:04:07 PM
I guess he should have mentioned that he didn't have a magic wand that would just fix things without any muss or fuss.
Well, he should have done something during the campaign to dampen expectations that got wildly out of control.
like expect people to not expect solutions to appear out of thin air? yeah good luck with that.
Nobody in America it seems (the TV wouldn't lie to me would it?) wants to do anything to help the Obama government, they're all to scared by completely ridiculous fearmongering by the Republicans, and the media. Moronic tea parties, and blocking something as innocuous as letting poor people get some semblance of health care are somehow considered helping the economy?
:lmfao:
Is that really how the Euro media is portraying this?
And you actually buy that explanation?
:lmfao:
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 01:21:46 PM
Why are we the last hope? :(
The mongrel races of Canada are of no help to anyone.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2009, 01:15:25 PM
I don't see how "America" can even be an actor.
"America" can't be an actor, but Tom Cruise is American, and he is an actor.
"America" could be a collection of actors, but most movies would have to be about fat people.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2009, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:04:07 PM
America actually doesn't really want change or they would be letting his government do more than hand out money to billionaires at the expense of tax payers.
This is the kind of contention (contained in the Op_Ed in the OP as well) that mystifies me. "America" does this. "America" won't let something happen.
How is "America" or even "Americans" prevent something from happening, or let something happen like "letting his government do more?" I don't see how "America" can even be an actor.
well yes, Americans would have been better grammar and more to my point. The fact is that Obama was elected. As was Bush before him etc. therefore he is supposed to be leading the Americans, or speaking for America. And IMHO... That he does.
But this idea that America must change the world is yes, pretty silly. Every nation has an urgent need to change the world, some nations do this better than others, America probably better than any other nation in the last 100 years. But that doesn't mean and never has that as goes America, there goes the world.
Even if somehow The USA got universal healthcare everyone could agree on, gun control(that satisfied gun-tards and peace-tards alike), environmental protocols that put the whole world on the right track, brought the deficit down to a reasonable amount or paid it off even (talk about your fantasy scenarios) was able to pull out of Afghanistan & Iraq leaving the middle east as a peaceful Democratic Utopia of simple goat herders and heroin dealers, it wouldn't be enough. imho Obama has had this "saviour" thing cast on him, not by those who support him as much as he has a "failed saviour" thing cast on him, by his opponents.
It seems to me that people can't see through that, and can't understand from the hard time The US has had with the bailouts, housing markets, and various wars, that it may take more than a few months to solve all these issues that have taken years and years to build to the point they are at now.
Saying you are willing to work hard to try to change things people are complaining (Which is what I heard in his speeches) about, is not the same as somehow unilaterally just changing them. Abra kadabra.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:23:20 PM
Nobody in America it seems (the TV wouldn't lie to me would it?) wants to do anything to help the Obama government, they're all to scared by completely ridiculous fearmongering by the Republicans, and the media. Moronic tea parties, and blocking something as innocuous as letting poor people get some semblance of health care are somehow considered helping the economy?
Incidentally, one of the big criticisms the left has of the Obama administration is that it mercilessly stabs its base in the back whenver it's convenient. The gays, pro-choice lobbyists, environmentalists, civil libertarians, etc. are all at best dissapointed and at worst openly hostile to them.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 17, 2009, 01:25:40 PM
The mongrel races of Canada are of no help to anyone.
Just seems sad as that means the earth/human race is on the verge of immediate collapse?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2009, 01:00:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 12:58:23 PM
But buddha, he does have himself to blame in part. When you run on a platform of "hope and change" you really do increase expectations that things will, well, change.
He is doing the hope part in the first two years.
The second two years will be the change.
The problem is the Change part will be that there is no more hope.
The presidency has been all Hope thus far.
The Change part will come in 2012. The first Tuesday of November in 2012, to be exact. :)
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:37:20 PM
Even if somehow The USA got universal healthcare everyone could agree on, gun control(that satisfied gun-tards and peace-tards alike), environmental protocols that put the whole world on the right track, brought the deficit down to a reasonable amount or paid it off even (talk about your fantasy scenarios) was able to pull out of Afghanistan & Iraq leaving the middle east as a peaceful Democratic Utopia of simple goat herders and heroin dealers, it wouldn't be enough. imho Obama has had this "saviour" thing cast on him, not by those who support him as much as he has a "failed saviour" thing cast on him, by his opponents.
Actually, if he did that he would simply be living up to his election promises..... :P
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 01:24:54 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:04:07 PM
I guess he should have mentioned that he didn't have a magic wand that would just fix things without any muss or fuss.
Well, he should have done something during the campaign to dampen expectations that got wildly out of control.
like expect people to not expect solutions to appear out of thin air? yeah good luck with that.
Nobody in America it seems (the TV wouldn't lie to me would it?) wants to do anything to help the Obama government, they're all to scared by completely ridiculous fearmongering by the Republicans, and the media. Moronic tea parties, and blocking something as innocuous as letting poor people get some semblance of health care are somehow considered helping the economy?
:lmfao:
Is that really how the Euro media is portraying this?
And you actually buy that explanation?
:lmfao:
No. That's why I posed those smarmy comments as questions. I don't buy anything the media or the government (any government) tries to sell me without much consideration. I don't know about the Euro media except from that OP.
I watch the Canadian and American media. It seems to me that both those are doing a lot of fear mongering/over hyping: Swine Flu, Olympic silliness in Canada, The Economy, etc. I rarely see positive stories about how this or that program or initiative is doing a good job of helping regular North Americans in their lives. But feel free to take my incoherent misspelled rants as something that I have put am lot of thought into, rather than the knee jerk reactions to the moronic posts of languishites.
Shame has a good point actually in parsing my posts: I agree with him that in fact most Americans( and Canadians if you look at voter this country recently) are diisengaed from politics. They (and probably this is better than getting wound up on Bulletin Boards all day) have no political will, and just roll with the punches, complaining amongst themselves.
I vote, but that is the limit to my political activism, for example. Languish is the only place I argue politics really ( I do have to listen to a lot of nutbar ranting trapped in a retail store that is oft visited by all sorts of people with conspiracy fetishes.) and I don't even do that well. It doesn't stop me from posting any more than it does you.
America indeed does not have any cohesive single political will. Why should it? land of the Free and all that. That was really not what I was saying. I was using the convention used in the OP talking about Europe and the US as if they were some sort of entities. I apologize for diluting your genius discussions with my poor grammar.
:p
America wasn't humbled enough with that last financial meltdown. So long as that doesn't happen there won't be any real changes. That a no brainer like healthcare could drag on as it does and swallow so much time/energy is very telling of the mire/lurch the US is in.
G.
The GOP even sucks at fearmongering. If they are attempting it, they have thus far failed to reach me with their message. And I pay attention to the news, unlike the majority of people. :P
As for the media only doing bad stories, well it could be worse. Unemployment is in double-digits. We could have the constant barrage of stories on the homeless and how hard it is for regular people to get by, etc. You don't see that to the level I'd expect under the circumstances. There's still a level of circumspection and restraint (except for FoxNews). It's probably true to an extent that a lot of them don't want to trash the economy with Obama at the helm, but honestly I think it's just a different level of expectations now. When we had a booming economy, they were doing sob stories about people who had problems affording the gas to get to work. Now, they don't have a job, so no problem. We're looking back at the economic "problems" of 2005 and wishing we had that back. So I think the media has shown a lot of restraint for the most part.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:37:20 PM
Even if somehow The USA got universal healthcare everyone could agree on, gun control(that satisfied gun-tards and peace-tards alike), environmental protocols that put the whole world on the right track, brought the deficit down to a reasonable amount or paid it off even (talk about your fantasy scenarios) was able to pull out of Afghanistan & Iraq leaving the middle east as a peaceful Democratic Utopia of simple goat herders and heroin dealers, it wouldn't be enough.
I would point out that "one of these things is not like the other things."
However, I would argue that you are wrong. Accomplishing these things (or even a couple of them) would be enough.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2009, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on November 17, 2009, 01:04:07 PM
America actually doesn't really want change or they would be letting his government do more than hand out money to billionaires at the expense of tax payers.
This is the kind of contention (contained in the Op_Ed in the OP as well) that mystifies me. "America" does this. "America" won't let something happen.
How is "America" or even "Americans" prevent something from happening, or let something happen like "letting his government do more?" I don't see how "America" can even be an actor.
This is no less stupid than the entire premise of the thread about "Euro" angst. It's a bit silly to expect exacting terminology from a response made to a thread that is in fact one big trolling attempt.
Oh, I'd say I succeeded.
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 01:52:07 PM
The presidency has been all Hope thus far.
The Change part will come in 2012. The first Tuesday of November in 2012, to be exact. :)
I HOPE Obama CHANGES.... :unsure:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 11:17:19 AM
But few people expected that the Barack Obama, of all people, would continue his predecessor's climate change plan. When he took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US -- that America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very core.
Only if the US manages to reduce its excessive energy consumption, commit itself to mandatory CO2 emission reduction targets and help finance the move away from oil for poorer countries, is there still a chance that countries like China and India will do the same and that a dangerous warming of the Earth can be stopped. On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing -- and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy.
Obama Lied to the Europeans
Barack Obama cast himself as a "citizen of the world" when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely his country's addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves.
The Oceans boiling? Give me a fucking break, not even under the worst case scenario would they do so.
Secondly, a harsh treaty like he's talking about would never get by the senate. It wouldn't even be close. If he believed otherwise he was deluding himself.
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 01:52:07 PM
The Change part will come in 2012.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcsos.movieset.com%2Fdownload%2Fmovieset%2Fs%2Fosywom%2Fimages%2F5tqa2d-560x420.jpg&hash=088507fb4404120ad02b54b56eda879e15de1785)
I blame Obama.
I'm here for the angry fist shaking. Where do I queue up?
Damn fine rant.
Meh, Der Spiegel is a piece of anti-American trash anyway.
Quote from: Warspite on November 17, 2009, 07:08:10 PM
I'm here for the angry fist shaking. Where do I queue up?
mart is hogging the line with his gay.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 12:59:18 PM
He is getting flack, more in general, because he is looking more and more like what those who were not Obamateurs were afraid he might turn out to be - a charismatic hack without much of a clue about how to go about actually doing anything - or worse, without even the desire to actually do anything.
I don't think you can accuse him of lacking ambition. I mean it's been under a year and he's had massive stimulus, a cap and trade bill, healthcare reform, Israel-Palestine and they've dropped a few hints about immigration reform.
I think Euros and, probably, Canadians do see opposition to him as more or less irrational because the things he's talking about are very widely supported in Europe and Canada. Even on the right you'll find very few who aren't generally pro-gay, who don't believe in universal healthcare or worry about climate change. It's sort of the same as when Americans look at Euro leaders arguing about Sunday opening hours, economic deregulation and privatisation or increase military spending. To Americans of all hues most of those issues look like no-brainers so the opposition is, inevitably, a bit loony. For all our commonalities we have very different political cultures.
Incidentally a thing that's interested me about the disillusion on the left has been the degree to which it's about the American system. It's as if the left (and perhaps everyone) has only just realised that America doesn't have a parliamentary system. Winning a majority, even winning a supermajority doesn't mean that you get to basically pass whatever laws you want. The constitution seems to me to be designed to be conservative to moderate and restrain the impulse of reform. That can often hinder good law but it can (or should) lead to an equal hindering of bad. I don't think this is the case because I often think some very bad laws are the ones it's politically impossible to vote against or oppose in any real way. The American system it seems to me is designed to hold back change, it's designed to almost encourage horse-trading and messy, ugly coalitions.
I also think that the modern Presidency is the opposite of the press: it has responsibility without power. With the media as it is the impulse is that 'something must be done'. In the American system the President is the focus of that while also only being able to travel so far as Congress will let him, except on foreign policy where he is the God-King of Washington. Unfortunately foreign policy is even more difficult because, ultimately it's in the hands of a bunch of foreigners in a distant land (look at the fate of poor Jimmy Carter).
I agree with you far more than I disagree Shelf, but Obama is not totally blame free. No one forced him to lard his campaign speeches with all those declarative "I will do X and I will do Y."
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 08:18:01 PM
Even on the right you'll find very few who aren't generally pro-gay,
Not anymore. Martinus ruined it for you guys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 08:32:01 PM
I agree with you far more than I disagree Shelf, but Obama is not totally blame free. No one forced him to lard his campaign speeches with all those declarative "I will do X and I will do Y."
Oh I entirely agree Obama's to blame. Though I think you're on the wrong track. If you look at the history of political rhetoric very few successful speakers (defined as either successful orators or successful statesmen) have larded their speeches with 'I will try to do X. I will appoint a commission to study Y.' It doesn't set the heart on fire.
The exception that proves the rule is Gordon Brown who quoted his school motto 'I will try my utmost' :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 08:43:20 PM
Oh I entirely agree Obama's to blame. Though I think you're on the wrong track. If you look at the history of political rhetoric very few successful speakers (defined as either successful orators or successful statesmen) have larded their speeches with 'I will try to do X. I will appoint a commission to study Y.' It doesn't set the heart on fire.
The exception that proves the rule is Gordon Brown who quoted his school motto 'I will try my utmost' :lol:
The relevant comparison is the history of political rhetoric in the US, since as you already pointed the ability of elected leaders to single-handedly implement changes is much greater in a parliamentary system.
Now I totally admit my observations may be skewed by bias, but it seems to me Obama was much, much more liberal in his use of "I will do X" than previous candidates for the office. I will fight for, I support, I'm in favor of, I will call for, X Y & Z are my priorities, etc., those to me are more typical campaign formulations, and rightly so. Except in the area of foreign policy, for the reasons you've already mentioned.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 08:59:31 PM
Now I totally admit my observations may be skewed by bias, but it seems to me Obama was much, much more liberal in his use of "I will do X" than previous candidates for the office. I will fight for, I support, I'm in favor of, I will call for, X Y & Z are my priorities, etc., those to me are more typical campaign formulations, and rightly so. Except in the area of foreign policy, for the reasons you've already mentioned.
'We will try to go to the moon. And I mean try really hard.'
You could be right. I'll try and read some speeches and see what I think. The difficulty is finding the speeches of failed Presidential candidates
Didn't he say "we must go to the moon?"
Note he didn't say "I will get us to the moon." :contract:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 09:06:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 08:59:31 PM
Now I totally admit my observations may be skewed by bias, but it seems to me Obama was much, much more liberal in his use of "I will do X" than previous candidates for the office. I will fight for, I support, I'm in favor of, I will call for, X Y & Z are my priorities, etc., those to me are more typical campaign formulations, and rightly so. Except in the area of foreign policy, for the reasons you've already mentioned.
'We will try to go to the moon. And I mean try really hard.'
You could be right. I'll try and read some speeches and see what I think. The difficulty is finding the speeches of failed Presidential candidates
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/
This is the conclusion of Obama's primary victory speech:
QuoteBecause if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.
I remembered this speech because because of how spectacularly it was detached from reality.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2009, 09:22:47 PM
This is the conclusion of Obama's primary victory speech:
I quoted it earlier. :cry:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2009, 09:22:47 PM
This is the conclusion of Obama's primary victory speech:
QuoteBecause if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.
I remembered this speech because because of how spectacularly it was detached from reality.
Like Fae said, already been posted.
I'm still wondering though why we are the last hope.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 12:51:02 AM
Like Fae said, already been posted.
I'm still wondering though why we are the last hope.
Still pretty sure it's an artificially high view of US citizens' political efficacy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 11:17:19 AM
Only if the US manages to reduce its excessive energy consumption, commit itself to mandatory CO2 emission reduction targets and help finance the move away from oil for poorer countries, is there still a chance that countries like China and India will do the same and that a dangerous warming of the Earth can be stopped. On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing -- and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy.
:lmfao: I'd say, even if the US does all those things, the chance of China following is nil.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 18, 2009, 03:26:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 11:17:19 AM
Only if the US manages to reduce its excessive energy consumption, commit itself to mandatory CO2 emission reduction targets and help finance the move away from oil for poorer countries, is there still a chance that countries like China and India will do the same and that a dangerous warming of the Earth can be stopped. On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing -- and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy.
:lmfao: I'd say, even if the US does all those things, the chance of China following is nil.
I think we'll all benefit when China's coast looks like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvisions2200.com%2FMapsSpaceImages%2FChinaYellowSeaCoastAfter.jpg&hash=2305c9d0b5ca10189ba8082710cf7a2e769f9a3c)
Hopefully we'll be able to sink Beijing with some more work.
Quotefew hints about immigration reform.
:perv:
The best strategy is for everybody else to limit their CO2 emissions, while China does nothing. China alone will not make a difference.
If the big players really wanted China to comply, you would have to. It'd be as easy as closing the markets to producers that do not meet certain standards.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 18, 2009, 08:18:37 AM
If the big players really wanted China to comply, you would have to. It'd be as easy as closing the markets to producers that do not meet certain standards.
lost votes of fanatical darkgreens < lost votes of pipple not geting their cheap chinese stuff
Quote from: Iormlund on November 18, 2009, 08:18:37 AM
If the big players really wanted China to comply, you would have to. It'd be as easy as closing the markets to producers that do not meet certain standards.
And it'll be as easy as not buying any US treasury bonds to send their economy down the abyss :P
Just remember
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3502%2F3199855133_43104c0cf6_o.gif&hash=5f8fd2e5558064d31eeca5192846476bc3be24ae)
Quote from: Faeelin on November 17, 2009, 09:27:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2009, 09:22:47 PM
This is the conclusion of Obama's primary victory speech:
I quoted it earlier. :cry:
:blush:
Great minds think alike?
Quote from: Monoriu on November 18, 2009, 10:10:50 AM
And it'll be as easy as not buying any US treasury bonds to send their economy down the abyss :P
Indeed. Not very easy.
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 10:16:42 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 18, 2009, 10:10:50 AM
And it'll be as easy as not buying any US treasury bonds to send their economy down the abyss :P
Indeed. Not very easy.
Even if the Chinese government want to comply, it'll be next to impossible to enforce. Local governments and private firms frequently pay lip service to central government edicts, especially when their economic interests are threatened. You can't get them to respect copyrights, and you can't make them care about global warming.
Quote from: Tamas on November 18, 2009, 04:14:23 AM
Quotefew hints about immigration reform.
:perv:
Sorry, the Dems don't want to let you in. They just want floods of Mexicans that will vote Democrat.
But I'd open the gates for you & pretty much any other Euro willing to assimilate immediately (or pre-assimilated) :hug:
NO GYPSY!
NO!
Quote from: Monoriu on November 18, 2009, 04:14:57 AM
The best strategy is for everybody else to limit their CO2 emissions, while China does nothing. China alone will not make a difference.
China will (or already has?) surpass the US as biggest CO2 emitter. Without them, it is pretty pointless.
Anyway, global warming will create very serious problems for China. Once all those glaciers in Tibet have melted, China will have even more serious water issues than it has now. The Yellow River is already gone, expect the Yangtze to follow.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 18, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
Even if the Chinese government want to comply, it'll be next to impossible to enforce. Local governments and private firms frequently pay lip service to central government edicts, especially when their economic interests are threatened. You can't get them to respect copyrights, and you can't make them care about global warming.
China and India together with the ROTW need to make an effort because anything else is a waste of time. As China and India expand their industry and people become more prosperous CO2 emissions will increase exponentially.
Eventually the choice faced by the ROTW if China and India aren't willing to go along is if nuking them would be worse for the environment than their CO2 emissions.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 18, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
Even if the Chinese government want to comply, it'll be next to impossible to enforce. Local governments and private firms frequently pay lip service to central government edicts, especially when their economic interests are threatened. You can't get them to respect copyrights, and you can't make them care about global warming.
You'd be amazed how mass executions can convince people. That's the advantage of a barbarian state like China.