AmericanPapist Comments
Man, I'm more informed than I thought I was...there were a couple people at the beginning I immediately recognized but that I placed with the correct party and associated with the correct crisis.
I then guessed a couple that I knew I would have known had I read that story and got them right. I think I would have gotten one wrong (Alaska from home), but it's a trick question anyway.
Man, you're right, more people need to read this blog. I'm going to stop fretting about not going to other media sources.
Always fret about multiple sources, though I trust Thomas, I do not rely on him solely. He is one of many sources for me, and though a good source, he is but one perspective.
Nonetheless, AmericanPapist is one of my main sites, though not my top priority politics source.
Here's some of the extremely well informed and balanced McCain/Palin voters:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v...h?v=vagD-
4AH4Vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K...h?
v=KjxzmaXAg9E
How do you think these fine folk would do on a pop quiz about governance and jurisprudence?
Not surprising at all.
"Here's some of the extremely well informed and balanced McCain/Palin voters … How do you think these fine folk would do on a pop quiz about governance and jurisprudence?"
The claim, presumably, is not that Obama supporters were so ignorant (presumably in contrast to McCain supporters). I'm not sure there's any reason to think McCain supporters would do any better.
The claim seems to be that the media evidently did a better job of drawing attention to gaffes and other issues from the McCain camp than issues from the Obama camp -- and generalized blame-the-GOP animus apparently created significant confusion about exactly who was running the show on Capitol Hill.
In other words, the point isn't just what Obama voters DIDN'T know, it's also what they DID know.
Specifically, Obama supporters knew by overwhelming margins which candidate couldn't say how many houses he owned (81.3%), which candidate was bought $150,000 worth of clothes from her party (86.3%), and which candidate claimed to be able to see Russia "from their house" (86.9%, life imitating Tina Fey).
At the same time, fewer than a quarter of Obama supporters could say which candidate thought he had campaigned in 57 states (23.4%; almost half as many, 11.4%, guessed Palin, and 10.1% guessed McCain). By a margin of more than two to one, Obama voters incorrectly identified McCain rather than Obama as the candidate who had said that his own policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (27.5% to 11.6%). And fewer than half knew/guessed which party currently controls Congress (42.6%).
OTOH,
Obama voters did overwhelmingly know which candidate talked about government redistributing the wealth (81%), and a fair number (43%) picked Obama as the one of the four candidates who started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground. But they only slightly beat the odds picking Biden in 1-in-4 odds as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign due to plagiarizing a speech (28.2%).
I dunno. I'd like to see the experiment repeated with better questions.
Always fret about multiple sources, though I trust Thomas, I do not rely on him solely.
I wrote my comment badly. I don't like TV, dislike newspapers, and loath news websites (in other breaking news, Brad Pitt's third cousin twice removed is now married...)
So, if it wasn't for AP and some other Catholic blogs I'd have no clue what's going on in the world. I know, I'm a horrid wretched person, I should care that Jose is now married, but I don't.
I do; however, get a lot of news that matters to me.
Given that, I'm surprised I knew any of the questions at all.
Here's some of the extremely well informed and balanced McCain/Palin voters...
Yes, I wish they'd polled McCain/Palin voters as well as a random sampling of "I don't care very much" or "I won't tell you" voters. That would have given something to compare it to.
And no, I don't think the racist 12 year olds would have done very well on the political questions (or their parents for that matter). However, it's a moot point because a lot of people who didn't vote for Obama were not racist.
I dunno. I'd like to see the experiment repeated with better questions.
... and a mirror poll with the McCain/Palinistas focusing on what they knew and heard.
I wonder how many of them would identify Obama as being an Arab Muslim born in Kenya.
Oh, and I would have loved questions on Obama's support on FOCA and McCain's support of ESCR.
I wonder how many of them would identify Obama as being ... born in Kenya.
I understood this to be a possibility; has his birth certificate been released and I just didn't notice?
I understood this to be a possibility
I suppose it's technically possible that he was born in Greenland.
But would you like the truth?
http://fightthesmears.com/
articl...irthcertificate
http://www.factcheck.org/
askfact..._disclosed.html
Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks for the links.
As for "proving your point", my previously mentioned lack of caring to inform myself would unfortunately leave you in the same position as before.
As for "proving your point", my previously mentioned lack of caring to inform myself would unfortunately leave you in the same position as before.
No it doesn't. It's an ample demonstration that people with a bias will quite often by influenced by it in what information they incorporate. This is hardly an exclusive trait of Obama voters.
You had paid enough attention to hear baseless garbage, but not the considerable refutation of it.
http://fightthesmears.com/ articl...irthcertificate
http://www.factcheck.org/ askfact..._disclosed.html
Is not the factcheck. org ran by the Annenberg Foundation who is also the former employer of Mr. Obama?
No conflict of interest there!!!!
and the fight the smears is also his organization.
I suppose if I didn't have proof of my birthplace I would use someone who I had monetary ties to to vouch for me.
Paid for the Obama for America group. Check the bottom of the screen.
No it doesn't. It's an ample demonstration that people with a bias will quite often by influenced by it in what information they incorporate. This is hardly an exclusive trait of Obama voters.
Well of course our biases determine what we click on. "Obama born in Kenya" catches my eye because that would be too good to be true. I thought your point was that McCain supporters were uninformed racists...my bad.
"... and a mirror poll with the McCain/Palinistas focusing on what they knew and heard.
I wonder how many of them would identify Obama as being an Arab Muslim born in Kenya."
That, by itself, would not be parallel investigating. The issue goes to what questions a particular demographic answers correctly vs. what they don't answer correctly.
Has anyone see proof of his citizenship that was produced by a non bias source???
"I suppose it's technically possible that he was born in Greenland."
However, Mr. Obama does not have immediate relatives claiming to remember him being born in Greenland.
Not that I particularly doubt the authenticity of the certificate of live birth. I'm just saying.
Has anyone see proof of his citizenship that was produced by a non bias source???
First, the word you are looking for is "biased".
Second, read the links, will you? They're not that hard to understand.
Second, read the links, will you? They're not that hard to understand.
Read the bottom of the screen to see who paid for the "facts".
However, Mr. Obama does not have immediate relatives claiming to remember him being born in Greenland.
.... via an incredibly tenuous three way two-language conversation that leaves a hell of a lot of room for confusion.
staying focused is what is important during an election. The Bishops tired helping us with forming our conscience and moral priorites. Too much smoke -- too many mirrors.
To bring this back to the point...I think SDG has a point. The questions asked had nothing to do with stuff people disagreed on, but with actual (uncontested) facts.
There were simple questions, "who is Pelosi, what party has control, etc"
Then there were gaffes and/or negative campaigning "57 states, pregnant daughter, etc".
Thus they were questioning general knowledge and bias in media reporting. It would be interesting to have polled the other side to see if McCain voters were, in fact, more informed, or if they were just voting "republican". It would have been interesting to get the "undecided" as well, do they really dislike both choices based on research.
Perhaps we could come up with a list of questions to send to a polling agency.
It would be interesting to have polled the other side to see if McCain voters were, in fact, more informed, or if they were just voting "republican".
Which is what I said.
"First, the word you are looking for is 'biased'."
Oh brother. If we're proofing combox exchanges now, "carbon based" as a compound adjective before a noun should take a hyphen. That being your handle for the nonce, you might take better care of it.
".... via an incredibly tenuous three way two-language conversation that leaves a hell of a lot of room for confusion."
I'm not making an argument for contesting the certificate of live birth. I am saying there are reasons the certificate of live birth is an issue that are not rooted in partisan imagination or paranoia.
"Which is what I said."
Yes, that would be one interesting question. Another interesting question, which is more what the current poll seems to be asking, is whether Obama voters were equally well (or poorly) informed about the foibles and issues on the Dem ticket side of the equation as on the GOP side. It is more a question about the media than about a particular sector electorate. And yeah, I'd be interested in asking the GOP sector of the electorate similar questions... though I'd like to tweak the questions too.
Oh brother. If we're proofing combox exchanges now, "carbon based" as a compound adjective before a noun should take a hyphen. That being your handle for the nonce, you might take better care of it.
Mea culpa. You're right! Life-form needs the hyphen too, actually. Hmmm. Brings up title case issues. I'll leave it all caps for now.
Grazie!
The thing is, seeing "that's bias reporting!" (usually from wingnuts) drives me crazy.
I am saying there are reasons the certificate of live birth is an issue that are not rooted in partisan imagination or paranoia.
Have you heard the original recording?
Another interesting question, which is more what the current poll seems to be asking, is whether Obama voters were equally well (or poorly) informed about the foibles and issues on the Dem ticket side of the equation as on the GOP side.
Of course they wouldn't be. That people are more receptive to the alleged shortcomings of their political opposition is hardly a secret.
LMAO
The only thing worse than low voter turn-out is high voter turn-out.
"Mea culpa. You're right! Life-form needs the hyphen too, actually."
Not in American English, it doesn't... though English can be more hyphen-prone elsewhere. (FWIW, at least one tiny clue in your posts at least raises the possibility that you could hail from somewhere else in the English-speaking world, though it's far from decisive.)
"Have you heard the original recording?"
No.
"That people are more receptive to the alleged shortcomings of their political opposition is hardly a secret."
While that's certainly true, I'm not convinced that's quite the issue here. I suspect that a poll of McCain-Palin voters might find them also more familiar with McCain's fuzziness on the number of his houses than Obama's fuzziness on the number of states in the Union, or about Palin's $150,000 wardrobe than about Obama's plans to bankrupt the coal industry. More than voter animus, I think the story here may be about media coverage.
C.B.L.F.,
You are missing the point here. There are plenty of ignorant people who voted for McCain. However, they did not have their ignorance fed to them by the media. You cannot take the blame off your own party by simply pointing fingers at others.
Not in American English, it doesn't... though English can be more hyphen-prone elsewhere.
Not according to the American www.m-w.com.
life-form
the possibility that you could hail from somewhere else in the English-speaking world
Could be onto something there.
While that's certainly true, I'm not convinced that's quite the issue here. I suspect that a poll of McCain-Palin voters might find them also more familiar with McCain's fuzziness on the number of his houses than Obama's fuzziness on the number of states in the Union, or about Palin's $150,000 wardrobe than about Obama's plans to bankrupt the coal industry. More than voter animus, I think the story here may be about media coverage.
Or what is worthy of media coverage.
Obama's 57 states thing was an obvious slip of the tongue. Listen to the original. It in no way compares to McCain's houses thing. That wasn't a slip of the tongue. He couldn't remember how many he had.
As for "bankrupting the coal industry", that's not what he said. He was talking about fiscal impost on the construction of new conventional plants under the umbrella of an emissions trading scheme. You can make the argument that that might end up bankrupting the coal industry, but stating it plainly that he said he was planning to do that is fatuous nonsense.
Palin's $150K wardrobe found traction because it was at odds with the hockey mom persona.
The mud didn't stick to Obama because there just wasn't that much of substance there. And he had Palin's ineptitude acting as a welcome assist. By the end, he didn't have to do much but look calm.
I posted on this same thing yesterday. Absolutely insane that in the vein of "non-discrimination", there can be no qualifier to see if you are informed enough to vote. Meanwhile, the MSM is too busy playing bridesmaid to His Madjesty to help inform the public of basic facts that are material to their decisions.
The points of the video and the Zogby poll are to illustrate the absurdity of it all...that 90+% of the democratic constituents could tell you that Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter whereas virtually none of them could tell you that their candidate promised to bankrupt the coal industry.
Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?!!?
BTW, AmP, I really like your blog. Added you to my roll. Keep up the good work.
"Not according to the American www.m-w.com."
However, every other source listed at OneLook either omits the hyphen or includes it as optional. This includes Webster's New World College Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. The weight of evidence would thus seem to be against the proposition that "Life-form needs the hyphen too, actually."
"Could be onto something there."
If so, it's awfully kind of you to take such an interest in our little ole election.
"Obama's 57 states thing was an obvious slip of the tongue. Listen to the original. It in no way compares to McCain's houses thing. That wasn't a slip of the tongue. He couldn't remember how many he had."
I have seen the original Obama footage. It's the kind of slip of the tongue one can hardly imagine making. As for "McCain's houses" thing, whose houses are they anyway? Who has the money and who is buying the real estate? McCain possibly never knew how many houses his heiress wife bought with her money.
"As for 'bankrupting the coal industry', that's not what he said. He was talking about fiscal impost on the construction of new conventional plants under the umbrella of an emissions trading scheme. You can make the argument that that might end up bankrupting the coal industry, but stating it plainly that he said he was planning to do that is fatuous nonsense."
AFAIK, I accurately characterized Obama's statement earlier in this combox. Subsequent shorthand references, even if provocatively phrased, can be taken in context.
The weight of evidence would thus seem to be against the proposition that "Life-form needs the hyphen too, actually."
On this crucial issue, you are once again correct. Please consider my recently added second hyphen an affectation.
If so, it's awfully kind of you to take such an interest in our little ole election.
The tone of American wingnuttery has infected the entire world the last few years. It's impossible to live on this planet without feeling the weight of US hegemony. That's not a value judgment or a complaint per se: it's just the way it is. The world's largest single economy will obviously have a gravitational effect.
I have seen the original Obama footage. It's the kind of slip of the tongue one can hardly imagine making.
Bulldung. It's obvious he was talking about the lower 48. After 50, he pauses, mentions 7 and says that he had one more to go. He was meaning 40. You do the sums.
Are you seriously suggesting that he didn't know how many states there were?
McCain possibly never knew how many houses his heiress wife bought with her money.
Yeah, and that was the point.
AFAIK, I accurately characterized Obama's statement earlier in this combox.
Like hell. This is what you said:-
Obama voters incorrectly identified McCain rather than Obama as the candidate who had said that his own policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket
He didn't say that "his own policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket". Once again, this is a subjective conclusion you may draw from what he said, but it's hardly a fair rendition of his actual words.
What he was talking about (and yet again, not making a value judgment about it) was the relative expense of building new coal fired plants without carbon capture attributes as opposed to facilities that have them under a proposed cap and trade regime. It's pretty obvious.
"On this crucial issue, you are once again correct. Please consider my recently added second hyphen an affectation."
We must take our victories where we can get them, I guess.
"The tone of American wingnuttery has infected the entire world the last few years."
Fascinating. FWIW, my experience has been that all cultures, and all sectors of the political spectrum, have their own forms of nuttiness. I wasn't aware that one particular form of American nuttiness had been so successful in infecting the entire world.
"Bulldung. It's obvious he was talking about the lower 48. After 50, he pauses, mentions 7 and says that he had one more to go. He was meaning 40. You do the sums."
Yes, like I said, it's a mistake one can hardly imagine making. "Fifty...seven" just sounds wrong. But gaffes happen.
"Are you seriously suggesting that he didn't know how many states there were?"
That does seem unlikely, though it does seem as if he may have been fuzzy on the relative geography of Kentucky, Arkansas and Illinois.
"Yeah, and that was the point."
Was what point? Are you seriously suggesting that McCain is some silver-spoon blue-blood who is so out of touch with how common people live that he hasn't bothered counting his houses lately? That dog won't hunt. The more plausible picture is that McCain's averageness just hasn't been that affected by his wife's money or how she spends it.
"He didn't say that "his own policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket". Once again, this is a subjective conclusion you may draw from what he said, but it's hardly a fair rendition of his actual words."
By the rigorous standards you've applied in trifling matters like verb forms and hyphenation, I would have to agree that Obama didn't say his own policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket. He said his policies would likely bankrupt people building coal-powered plants. I'm happy to make that distinction clear.
"...I would have to agree that Obama didn't say his own policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket. He said his policies would likely bankrupt people building coal-powered plants."
8-D
"Bulldung. It's obvious he was talking about the lower 48. After 50, he pauses, mentions 7 and says that he had one more to go. He was meaning 40. You do the sums. ... Are you seriously suggesting that he didn't know how many states there were?"
Addendum: I just realized I neglected the main point here: The question isn't whether Obama knew how many states there were. The question is whether voters would have been more familiar with the 57-state gaffe if it had come from McCain rather than Obama.
Fascinating. FWIW, my experience has been that all cultures, and all sectors of the political spectrum, have their own forms of nuttiness.
America exports its nuttiness particularly well when under the thrall of a reactionary administration.
He said his policies would likely bankrupt people building coal-powered plants.
Wrong again!
You continue to commit the sin of omission. Intentionally, it seems. Why are you being disingenuous?
As I have said (three times now), he was talking about the relative cost of CONVENTIONAL coal-fired plants - as opposed to next-gen ones with capture and sequestration technology - under a cap and trade scheme. He posited that unless a financial hazard was imposed on the conventional type, they would keep getting built.
What is so hard to understand or acknowledge about that? And please note: I didn't say agree with.
"As I have said (three times now), he was talking about the relative cost of CONVENTIONAL coal-fired plants - as opposed to next-gen ones with capture and sequestration technology - under a cap and trade scheme. He posited that unless a financial hazard was imposed on the conventional type, they would keep getting built."
This is a subjective conclusion you may draw from what he said, but it's hardly a fair rendition of his actual words.
Your emphatic distinction between "CONVENTIONAL coal-fired plants" and "next-gen ones with capture and sequestration technology" seems to correspond in Obama's comments to a pair of grammatically problematic sentences requiring some level of extra parsing to construe some sort of sense of them. Here is what he says:
"The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a[n] ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."
The simplest and least invasive grammatical patch for the key second sentence would perhaps be to remove the "that." If this is correct, it would seem that Obama's plan is "for us to take coal off the table as a[n] ideological matter." The second half of the sentence would then represent what Obama is not saying ("as opposed to saying"), i.e., that "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."
This would seem to more or less directly contradict your interpretation of Obama's words. On this reading Obama would seem to be saying "What I have said is that we should take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying that if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should use it." In fact, that is more or less exactly what he did say, with only minor adjustments in wording. You might propose another reading, but it would involve more invasive grammatical reconstruction of what you think Obama presumably meant to say.
This reading would also be consistent with the twice-repeated comments about coal-plant builders going bankrupt bookending the problematic quotation above, which contain no gesture toward your emphatic distinguishing term "CONVENTIONAL":
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. … So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them."
To get from that to "Those who build CONVENTIONAL coal plants will be bankrupted, as opposed to next-gen ones with capture and sequestration technology" would seem to involve some sort of interpretive leap for which I don't see any immediate basis in Obama's comments as quoted.
To get from that to "Those who build CONVENTIONAL coal plants will be bankrupted, as opposed to next-gen ones with capture and sequestration technology" would seem to involve some sort of interpretive leap for which I don't see any immediate basis in Obama's comments as quoted
Utter dung, and you know it. It is so obvious that he was talking about the relative costs of "old" vs. "new" coal under an emissions trading scheme that to deny it is simply absurd. How the hell can you get around this sentence: "But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion." Even if you try to parse it out of existence.
Your sophistry reveals you as a hopeless ideologue.
What in the hell do you think you are gaining by this casuist's approach?
The rational choice is to say "in my opinion, this would bankrupt the coal industry". That is a prosecutable argument. You could even add that this is Obama's unstated agenda. But to say that he explicitly STATED it outright is ridiculous. And once again, you know this.
C-B L-F: You are right about Obama and coal, but wrong about me. I have no iron in the fire and no dog in the fight. I couldn't care less about coal or Obama's coal policy.
I was reading the sentences in plain English as I found them after a very casual Google search ("Obama coal bankrupt" or something of the sort). The "illusion" clause you cite was not in the excerpts I had seen, so I Googled it. Along with that bit, I also discovered additional context that suggests that my simple attempt to patch Obama's problematic sentence doesn't work, because there is more at the end. What he actually said is:
"What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach."
The inclusion of that final clause makes the sentence more grammatically muddled, but also quite different in import, than it initially appeared to me without that clause. Abstractly considered, the more grammatical referent for the key "that" in the final clause might be "taking coal off the table as an ideological matter." However, the more logical referent, given how Obama seems to have finally intended to finish the sentence after abandoning a couple of earlier attempts, would seem to be "pusuing...using coal in a clean way...if technology allows us" to do so.
This makes considerable hash of the earlier bits of the sentence. Apparently Obama meant at some point to come around to rejecting the notion of "tak[ing] coal off the table as an ideological matter," but lost track of it by the time he reached the end of the sentence. Having in other contexts repeatedly defended Obama's sophisticated oratorical skill and specifically his ability to marshal complex sentence and paragraph structure on the fly, I have to admit I'm a little nonplussed at his rhetorical stumblings here. But I grant the point.
You, however, have apparently made up your mind that I'm a hopeless ideologue who propounds what he knows to be utter dung. I have arrived at the provisional conclusion that you're a hopeless jerk. Feel free to prove me wrong. Or not. Whatever.
I was reading the sentences in plain English as I found them after a very casual Google search
Well, that's not my fault. You were seeming pretty decided for a casual Googlist.
I'm a hopeless ideologue who propounds what he knows to be utter dung.
OK, then. I'll change your status to someone who bangs out a mini-thesis without being aware of all of the facts.
I have arrived at the provisional conclusion that you're a hopeless jerk.
That's your right to do so. But I do kind of like people to read all of the background material of something they are discussing. I actually assume that they have when they go to that level of detail.
"Well, that's not my fault. You were seeming pretty decided for a casual Googlist."
I'm quite willing to take my lumps, but you're not a very careful reader of the words in front of you if you thought I was so "decided." My comments above are liberally peppered with provisional language like "AFAIK" and "seems to" and "I don't see any immediate basis in Obama's comments as quoted," etc.
"OK, then. I'll change your status to someone who bangs out a mini-thesis without being aware of all of the facts."
Since that's the more charitable assumption, why wouldn't you try out that one first? Having said that -- ALL of the facts? If you're confident you have ALL of the facts on this or any other subject accessible primarily through the news media, you're either a lot less self-critical than I am or else a lot more obsessive and wonky.
I made the mistake of going with the wrong source, and was misled. I don't mind making mistakes now and then, nor do I mind being corrected. I'd rather not incur harsh moral judgmentalism, but that's more for the sake of the intemperate judge than for my own sake.
"That's your right to do so. But I do kind of like people to read all of the background material of something they are discussing. I actually assume that they have when they go to that level of detail."
Again, this suggests a lack of careful reading, at least. Having seen the fuller quotations, you knew that the bits I was quoting were trucated. Why did you assume that I was truncating them? Why not assume that maybe I had seen an incomplete source, and be nice about it, instead of a jerk?
P.S. Having now access to MORE of the facts -- I would never be so rash as to say ALL -- it seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion is that Obama's rather convoluted comments are at best ambiguous as to the future of the coal industry.
In the key sentence, convoluted and ungrammatical as it is, Obama expresses at most openness to the possibility of clean coal technology:
"What I have said is, that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter [would be a mistake], as opposed to saying, if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that, I think, is the right approach." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement that technology does or will allow us to use coal in a clean way.
Now, it's true, as you note, that Obama also says "this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion." However, that doesn't mean that the coal industry wouldn't be bankrupted. Not ending an industry isn't the same as not bankrupting it.
I'm not sure whether Obama's emphatic and repeated statements about bankruptcy as the fate of anyone who chooses to build a [conventional] coal plant applies only to new plants or to existing ones, or what will be the fate of existing plants, or what sort of time frame we're talking about for the development and/or application of suitable technology, etc.
My comments above are liberally peppered with provisional language like "AFAIK" and "seems to"
Your equivocation was wrapped up in a pretty emphatic delivery.
Having said that -- ALL of the facts?
Yes, all of the facts. The pertinent element is what was said by Obama in the recording being used as the source for the poll question. This has finite limits.
Why not assume that maybe I had seen an incomplete source
Because, as I have said, I made the mistake in assuming that someone who was rattling on in stentorian tones would have checked the source.
I would never be so rash as to say ALL -- it seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion is that Obama's rather convoluted comments are at best ambiguous as to the future of the coal industry.
I agree, and haven't said otherwise here. The moot point was whether or not Obama's comments could be distilled down to a self-declaration that his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry.
Whether or not the coal complex is has valid reason to fear for their survival is not entirely clear. On the plus side for coal, the resource is cheap, plentiful and high in specific energy. The process is fully mature. On the negative side - and especially in brown coal form - it's dirty. That's one of the main reasons why power generation often takes place in remote locations and is inefficiently "shipped" great distances with enormous power loss. In an environment where the right to emit will no longer come free, obviously this will cost the coal industry. However, it still may end up cheaper than other sources of energy. This is one of the criticisms often made by anti-coalists: they say that the imperative to shift away from coal won't be strong enough. Many of them also doubt capture and sequestration technology, and actually consider it a ploy to make it look as if something tangible is being done without actually achieving anything. It's a byzantine topic.
"Yes, all of the facts. The pertinent element is what was said by Obama in the recording being used as the source for the poll question. This has finite limits."
I'm tempted to just concede the point -- you're essentially right and I'm essentially wrong -- though the exercise of excluding the possibility that the poll question could reflect similar comments made by Obama on some other occasion would have less definite limits.
Commenting by HaloScan
