The only time l hear "libertarians" and neo-Republicans talking about the poor is in this sort of political ad setting - when it comes to real world actions that help the poor - such as tighter pollution rules and industrial leadership that understands why such regulations are needed - plus the good-faith implementation of those rules... Or supporting fair living wage movements... Or realizing that we live in the 21st century and our planet has become increasingly finite and that the 'Reaganomics Notions' of too much is never enough and greed is good are basically a Ponzi Scheme.
Give me a break - this concern for the poor from a political group of people who whole-heartedly pushed for our nation to create a war-of-choice and obliterate the neighborhoods and homes and lives of millions of poor and middle class regular folks and their children, people who did nothing to America, heck their hated leader did nothing to do USA.
So tell me again K, why should I be impressed with your politics? : - |
OK - I got a bit caught up in rhetoric myself, up there. What can I say, thinking about the unmitigated (and 100% predictable) disaster of USA's invasion of choice in Iraq can do that to me. I'll admit that Libertarians could point to this http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_War_+_Peace.htm, but it's not that clear cut
Krishel, I invite you to prove me wrong, show me where "Libertarians" are standing up to support a better world for poor folks.
Please I'm interested in hearing about efforts to help the poor.
Then there's that old contrarian trick again, toss a label at something such as "poor Malthusian reasoning" and assume the issue can be ignored. Thing is that Thomas Malthus published his “An Essay on the Principle of Population” in 1798 and indeed failed to take many unforeseen developments into account, including the size of the world and all the places that England's bursting populations were able to escape to. But then it was 1798.
This is 2014, and the basic predicament he lays out can best be summarized by the Tragedy of the Commons and the world is full of examines where once abundance natural resources have disappears because of carelessness driven my thoughtless greed.
In essence K and his Libertarian/neo-Republican world view demands that we turn a blind eye to such down to Earth modern realities and ignore the basic math, or the facts of compounding accumulating interest along with their self-evident implications.
For those interested in learning about the Malthusian idea:
"... In spite of all of the above critiques, Malthus’ theory still applies to many poor countries that are still struggling to get out of the Malthusian cycle. Even among richer countries, a Neo-Malthusian relationship between population growth and the environment has been argued for, based on the idea of the overuse of scarce natural resources. But this problem, too, is more severe in poor countries, which usually depend more on their natural resources."
Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian Theories/ Ran Abramitzky and Fabio Braggion
- - -
Soo much corruption? Like what corruption?
How can someone who doesn't understand the scientific background and complexities make an objective appraisal in the first place?
McIntyre plays Assumptions and Curve Fitting, his work has been dissected and dismissed by any number of experts, yet someone like K, who like myself has no clue regarding the actual complex math being applied, still chooses to believe McIntyre is a saint and incorruptible genius and that all the experts, who actually understand and work with this stuff are to be disregarded and insulted?
That is not the way of science.
McIntyre does political theater!
Not the stuff of serious learning,
About those investigations: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/02/25/setting-the-record-straight-on-misleading-claims-against-michael-mann/
Any no interest or concern in what that reveals about the Republican contempt for learning and truth about the state of climate science?
Committee Report: White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science
- Cached Columbia Journalism Review
Why is K limiting himself to the past three to four hundred years? What about the facts of the past eight, nine thousand years, while our planet experienced a period of unprecedented climate stability which enabled human culture and civilization to developed? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Turns out the Americas were very populated, with vast tracks of land being managed by fire to suppress forest growth, enabling large scale agriculture and also the vast grasslands that fed huge herds of game animal.
– "I’m not doubtful that humans emit CO2;"
– "I’m not a petroleum executive with a vested interest in natural petroleum;
– I’m not a nuclear executive with a vested interest in nuclear plants;"
– "I’m not opposed to your proposed solutions because of short term thinking, I’m opposed to your proposed solutions because I believe they’re bad in the short *and* the long run;
– I’m not being selfish by insisting the poorest of the poor be given the advantages of cheap energy;"
K writes: "I’m not an evangelical christian.