Comments on: Progressives Hate The Poor

By: I Hate Government

I Hate Government — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:28:44 +0000

"I'm still confused why Coyote is opposed to giving solar panels to people in India. Generally, people prefer electricity to kerosene."

Because it is mandated by the government and the government forbids Kerozene.
Because solar is much more expensive than kerozene and must be subsidied with tax money.
Because solar is less reliable than kerozene.

Leave them the choice if they want kerozene and solar and let them pay for it. Don't start to tax, spend and regulate.

By: Pieter

Pieter — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:19:17 +0000

The Kyoto protocol has limits on carbon emissions by developed countries, but not for developing countries, like China. Most Greens recognise that the developing and underdeveloped worlds have a need and a right to develop their economies which might increase their emissions. It's George Waterboard Bush who opposes the Kyoto protocol because it doesn't place limits on China.

I'm still confused why Coyote is opposed to giving solar panels to people in India. Generally, people prefer electricity to kerosene.

By: tehag

tehag — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:06:05 +0000

The brutal, murderous, blood-thirsty tyrants who declined the food aid did so because they wished their people to suffer and then to die (see USSR 1930s, PRC 1960s, Ethiopia 1970s, etc.). The excuse the tyrants offered to justify their behavior, to deflect criticism (onto greens, of which I am not one), to provide another reason for Europeans (and their sychophants) to applaud their corrupt regimes, was “GM is poison.” If the corn had been hand-watered and hand-picked at a lesbian, palestinian fifth-generation organic cooperative living on an island in the middle of Puget Sound, another excuse would have been found. The tyrants are murders first–any popular excuse will do. The content is irrelevant.

By: bbartlog

bbartlog — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:58:26 +0000

that abhor GM food, despite reams of scientific evidence and years of experience that it has no demonstrable health effect.

This isn't entirely clear. If you google (for example) 'effects of GMO corn on rats', you will see that studies suggest that some of it is not good for you (or at least not good for rats). Also: lending credence to some environmentalist fears would require us to set aside long-standing scientific and economic principles (for example, if we wanted to buy in to various resource-scarcity doomsday scenarios). But in this case, there's nothing particularly at variance with chemistry or biology in thinking that modified plants might have different effects when eaten. This is particularly true if a plant has been modified for increased pest resistance, because that normally implies a greater presence of one or more compounds which are toxic to insects. I certainly don't see anything wrong with a country like France being cautious about allowing the sale of such foods (especially if the only studies available are those financed by the sellers of the GM plants in question).

By: jmrSudbury

jmrSudbury — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:01:26 +0000

This has been building for some time. Just look at the movies The Core, The Day After Tomorrow, Volcano, Outbreak, Deep Impact, Armageddon, and I am Legend. They skew the science to make it scarier. It is entertainment, so artistic license is uses liberally. Even older movies like the Michael Douglas movie about a nuclear accident that was released shortly before the minor Three Mile Island incident. These movies take theories way too far, and too many people think that there is some reality to these films. People watch these movies and get worried. Look at the outcry over the Three Mile Island in which there was no serious threat to anyone. Yet women and children were evacuated prematurely. Media stories about sweatshops, GM foods and global warming are also way over the top. Al Gore says it is okay to exaggerate, so people will be compelled to act. It is not okay to mislead people!

Thanks for your post. People need this good dose of common sense.

John M Reynolds

By: Michael Miller

Michael Miller — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:21:38 +0000

Very good post. Could it be that the greenies are more interested in conserving their socialist order than they are in saving the planet?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:44:51 +0000

Maybe this is the whole play of the greenies. If the Dems get in, they are notorious for beeing protectionist. As the article concluded, this could destroy China and so many other developing nations that rely on US trade to servive. I would couse the starvation of millions, and price increason in the US. I guess it would help us here in Canada though.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:49:55 +0000

We had to destroy the World in order to save it.