Posts by James Bremner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I love how 'concerned' Republicans are about Obama's foreign policy experience. You see, seven years ago George W. had, uh, been to Mexico for a visit and governed Texas, so he was clearly the ultimate Citizen of the World.
In both 1992 and 2000, foreign policy was not the big issue that it was in say 1980 or is now in 2008. Bush would not have won in 2000 if foreign policy was a key issue, the 2000 campaign was all about domestic issues, prescription drug coverage, education (no child left behind) tax cuts and cleaning up the White House after the years of Clinton scandals.
-
Neil,
Hillary was not the key player in her husband's presidency that she is trying to make out, except for 2 occasions. The healthcare debacle in 93 which was either the or a major factor in the Repubs landslide win in 94, after which she was pushed out, and only came back in 1998 to run the damage control and fight back to the Lewinsky scandal.Her claim of great experience is a fraud, and the mismatch between her claims and the facts is definitely a factor in her not doing so well Having said that, she has more experience that Obama. Edwards has no experience worth a damn either. The Dem side is very weak on experience.
I really hope Obama has the substance to back up the rhetoric, but he hasn’t shown it so far. One of his other brilliant ideas was to invade Pakistan. Great. Gee thanks Barrack. Good idea. The US really needs that right now, and it would be great for Pakistan too!! Not.
-
Kracklite,
Did you read the article on the Lancet study? It is a devastating destruction of a study that has received a lot of play in the media over a period of years and has certainly aided in shaping opinions and perhaps in developing policy options on one of the most important issues of the day
Doesn't it bother you that the study is apparently a load of crap?
-
. .. the novelty value of Senator Clinton's vagina ..
A subject I do my very best never to think about. Nearly as scary as the hair on her scrotum.
if she can't mount a straightforward and consistent defence of her own voting record on Iraq in the primaries,
She can't be consistent, she has moved from support to deceived to oppose to "suspension of disbelief", just as the surge started producing results, and now she will probably start moving back as things continue to improve in Iraq.
McCain is starting to get a lot of kudos because of his opposiiton to Rumsfeld's post invasion strategy and his support of Petreas' COIN strategy, when plenty of experts and all Dems (except Lieberman) said that it would never work and the US should run away and leave the Iraqis to a genocide.
I think foreign leaders will feel comfortable trying to push Obama around, but not trying to push Hillary around. This matters a lot.
Kruschev thought Kennedy was weak and could be pushed around, which led him to believe he could get away with putting nukes in Cuba, leading to Cuban missile crisis, the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war.
It is important the the US President has a bit of crusty "don't fuck with me" about him or her. Huckabee is every bit as bad as Obama in this regard.
-
Also, the foreign policy teams of both Hillary and Obama are full of people who worked for Bill Clinton so both candidates will have a very sound base in this area.
Maybe I am placing too much on Obama's "I'll meet with anyone no preconditions" statement in a debate, but that is just not how things are done, or ought to be done, that is just naive, like the kind of answer you would expect at a High School UN project. Regardless of who is on the foreign policy team, the President is elected to make the final decision, and Obama makes me queasy on that count.
A few short years ago Obama was in the state legislature of Illinois. I am sorry, but that just doesn't count for much.
Seriously, I think you're being more than a little naive if you think anyone is going to suddenly play nice with the Great Satan because the President is a woman who had a problem keeping her dog of a husband on the porchHillary has more gravitas that Obama, and gravitas counts in foreign policy. That is simply the point I was making, and one I think most people and commentators agree with.
Obama is new and fresh and exciting and does promise more "change" that Hillary, which is what Dem primary voters want. But now they will start looking at Obama in a different light, like they did with Howard Dean 4 years ago. They might find him wanting, or not.
-
Great to see Hillary take a face plant in Iowa, she is down, but far from out. She has proven recently that she is not a good campaigner, but she has a strong machine behind her and she is as tough as nails (putting up with Bill screwing around on her for 30 years can only have toughened her up even more).
Obama is an amazing guy, very charismatic and honest and decent as far as I know, but he just doesn't anything in the way of experience to prepare him for the worst, most brutal job in the world. I am no fan of Hillary, but I would prefer her to Obama, she is a nasty bitch, which is not a bad thing in government (i.e. Helen Clark) and definitely not a bad thing in foreign policy.
Obama is as naive as he is inexperienced; he would most likely be the next Jimmy Carter. Nice guy, means well but an utter failure as a President. Putin, Armadinijad (sp?) etc. would just laugh at a President Obama. They wouldn't laugh at a President Hillary.
Huckabee, what a joke. I don't see him going the distance, and he would get wiped out in Nov, if he got that far.
Dems definitely with a nose ahead going into the general, but they have gifted the Repubs with the tax issue to use against them, and the hip pocket is the most sensitive nerve. Reid and Pelosi have been as bad as I predicted when they won in 2006 and will help the Repubs.
Hillary is definitely beatable as she has shown herself to be lousy on the campaign trail, and Bill is a hindrance as much as he is a help to her. Hillary is the only thing that could bring together and motivate Repubs this year, as they are still pissed off with overspending, the amnesty bill etc. and not excited about any of their candidates.
Edwards has no show in the primary, but Obama could certainly win both the primary and the general.
A fascinating election. There is a lot to criticize about US politics, but you can't say that it is dull. And of course the outcome matters a whole lot.
-
This link may appear to be way OTT at first glance but it is relevant to the discussion on GW because it shows that "scientific studies" by respected organizations that appear in respected publications that are taken very seriously and impact public attitudes and potentially public policy can in fact be almost certainly a complete load of shit.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
Scientists are just like the rest of us. They make mistakes; they see what they want to see, they are vain and or greedy for recognition and or money, their personal biases can creep into their work (or drive it in the first place as appears to be the case with the Lancet studies). This destruction of the Lancet study is just proof positive that we should always be skeptical of scientific studies.
I wonder how many GW studies are as badly flawed as the Lancet study. Quite a few would be my guess.
RB, your comments on the National Journal article? You have cited the Lancet study number frequently in your posts.
-
RB,
The hurricane predictions for the past 2 seasons have been way off
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/320606.htmlA different team at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted 13 to 17 named storms, seven to 10 hurricanes and three to five intense hurricanes.
The actual results for the 2007 season: 14 named storms, five hurricanes, two intense hurricanes.
That turned a season predicted to be extremely active into one that was about average in number of storms and well below average in total intensity.
Even mid-season corrections issued by both teams in August -- somewhat akin to changing your prediction about a baseball game during the fifth inning -- proved wrong.
Their pre-season predictions in 2005 and 2006 were even worse.
So we can't predict a hurricane season (or El Nino, La Nina etc.) from a range of only a few months. and we know a lot more about hurricanes and El Nino than we do about how the exponentially more complicated global climate works, but we think we can predict how the global climate is going to change for decades into the future?
You don't need to be a scientist or climatologist to see a load of complete bollocks when it is that plain and obvious and staring you right in the face.
-
And here we have a prediction of global cooling...
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
And
Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.
So who knows? But it certainly doesn't seem to me that "the science is settled" as is so oft repeated by those wishing to stifle discussion and rush ahead with their daft schemes.
And of course there is the fact that warmer climates and more CO2 have some very positive effects, so even if GW is in fact happening, taking massively costly actions in futile attempts to control the climate may be the wrong thing to do anyway.
Some countries sign Kyoto and try (and fail) to reduce CO2 emissions, meanwhile China is exempt from Kyoto and increases its CO2 emissions every year, by the entire amount of Germany's CO2 emissions. What a farce.
And as far as relying on scientists is concerned, it is not as though they have never been wrong before is it? I remember the global cooling scare in the 70s and according to some bright scientific sparks we were supposed to have run out of food and have mass starvation by 1990 or was it 2000? And how many times have we been supposed to run out of commodities or oil? Must be in double digits by now.
Crossing politics with science, as has unquestionably happened with GW, is very dangerous as well. Just look at the history of Eugenics if you want to get a feel for how badly things can go off the tracks in that regard.
I hope that cooler, more sensible heads prevails on GW. Might be a less than even bet at this stage, but the longer the GW alarmists predictions continue to fail to materialize, and their much hyped global climate models continue to be wrong, the more their credibility will decline, putting a stop to this nonsense. It can’t happen soon enough.
-
I should add that naturally those making the most effort to discourage us from changing our pattern of behaviour appear to be those (or appear to be funded by those) individuals and organisations which have a significant investment in our continuing on our current path.
The "Exxon gave them grant money" type of slam needs to end if the debate on GW is going to improve. Exxon and other oil companies give money to all manner of organizations, including a variety of environmental organizations. Is everything these organizations say on any subject automatically discredited? Rubbish.
You should look at the other side of the coin. How many GW alarmists are funded by grants dependent on fear of GW etc.? The GW gravy train in a multi billion dollar gravy train.
There are both good and bad intent on both sides of this argument.