"since when did the government become good at doing anything?"
--They certainly haven't in the last 6-7 years 
.
That said, good post. If more people, and more importantly, large corporations, took it upon themselves to act responsibly, there would be much less debate about this in the first place.
"since when did the government become good at anything?"
Well, since you don't own a car or drive, you probably aren't aware of this thing called the public freeway system that really is a marvel of engineering. Most people people take it for granted now, but there was a time when getting from point A to point B took four times as long. Whether or not you know it, you should be thanking your lucky stars every day for the fact that government took the initiative to build a standardized public freeway system.
And guess who was behind the 1956 federal act that built these highways all across this great country?
Al Gore Sr.
Don't tell me you believe private enterprise could have done this. Private enterprise is about generating profit and profit in ANY system is inefficiency. There's nothing wrong with profit but it is a fact of life that the federal government nearly ALWAYS does things better and more efficiently than private companies do. If there were, there'd be freakin' toll gates every where you'd go.
Another case in point, the internet would NEVER exist had it not started life out as a government-funded NSF program. The internet exists now because it is a collection of open-standards that ANY company, government, or individual can use free of charge, without restriction.
Profit-motive generally leads to tightly-controlled or entirely closed standards. Before the Internet was big, we had Compuserve, AOL, The Source, and so on. All of these services charged you usage by the minute (and often with lots of silly additional charges, like $5 to read AP newsfeeds, etc). You were stuck paying that because that was what was available.
The internet put a complete stop to all that. Why?! Because it was a vastly superior network than what these private companies concocted. It was self-sufficient, universal and never would ever have to be "down for maintenance." And it fueled a completely new and profitable industry, despite the fact that it costs you, at about $18-$50 month, 1/500th for 1/10000000th the content at 1/300000 the bandwidth 20 years ago.
How can it be profitable? Simple, the federal government had created a beautifully elegant, fault-tolerant, scalable system of transporting data that was very much like the federal highway system. And who was the first to recognize the potential as a public information tool and really push for it?
Al Gore Jr.
And while you may appreciate it now, it would be people like you, back then, who would be arguing against the internet.
Perhaps next time you repeat republican talking points that have no basis in reality, realize this. Republicans talk about government being bad because republicans only see things in purely selfish terms. They are incompatible with what has always made this country the success that it is, which is we are all in this together and we fight together. The federal government can do ANYTHING right when it has the right people
Last bit got cut off. Here it is -
Perhaps next time you repeat republican talking points that have no basis in reality, realize this. Republicans talk about government being bad because republicans only see things in purely selfish terms. They are incompatible with what has always made this country the success that it is, which is we are all in this together and we fight together. The federal government can do ANYTHING right when it has the right people. The problem is republicans are the wrong people. They fight for mediocrity and unaccountability and this leads to disaster, as we've already seen MANY times in the last 6-7 years.
The global warming issue beautifully incapsulates this. The republican party, if left in power of the biggest country that is responsible, could very lead to a global catastrophe, despite years of almost universal concensus of the scientific community that this is happening. There are some prominent scientists who say we've past the point already where anything can really be done.
Isn't it astounding to you that talking points have the power to trump actual reason when it comes to life and death?
Actually I was slightly off. Compuserve charged $30/hour which comes out to be 1/720 to 1/1240 what most people pay now for internet service. So much for government not doing anything right. 
Is the name "rabit" because you type like one?
The terms "always" and "never" tend to frighten me a good bit, but I think he makes some very good points. While some individuals like yourself might be self-motivated to do the right thing, in many cases it takes more time, effort, and money to be "green" - until people (and this translates to large corporations as well) stop being more motivated by greed than common good, I think this is a role for an educated and thoughtful government in this process. It would be nice if someone meeting those descriptions was actually in the oval office to deal with this important issue.
Is the name "rabit" because you type like one?
Hahaha, well I do type kind of fast and make a few mistakes here and there if that's what you mean.
The cool thing about the federal highway system is that it's managed by the states! That probably explains why it works so well.
And I guess in my quest for brevity I still should have thought to write "Since when has the government been good at changing people's behavior without the use of force?"
You also fail to refute my second argument against more government involvement in the environment.
The global warming issue beautifully incapsulates this. The republican party, if left in power of the biggest country that is responsible, could very lead to a global catastrophe, despite years of almost universal concensus of the scientific community that this is happening.
The Republican Party is barely in power now. Where are Pelosi/Reid on this? There were centuries of scientific consensus that the sun went around the earth.
The cool thing about the federal highway system is that it's managed by the states! That probably explains why it works so well.
They are maintained by the states, but the federal government provides funding and set standards on maintenance and construction for these highways. Do you really believe that the interstate highway system would be better off if each state had their own standards? Do you think every state could afford to maintain their own freeways from their own state's taxpayer dollars? Last time I checked, it was the blue states who are really footing the bill for federal programs for all those broke-ass red states.
And I guess in my quest for brevity I still should have thought to write "Since when has the government been good at changing people's behavior without the use of force?"
At best, it's called education. At worst, I think the federal government has done a damn good job of changing people's behavior post 9/11. Remember all those color alerts? Scared the pants off a lot of people so bad, they became republican.
You also fail to refute my second argument against more government involvement in the environment.
Okay, I'll start with this: "Preaching the Gospel of Carbon Offsets while flying around the world in a private jet doesn
’t cut it" Typical talking point non-logic. First of all, whether or not Al Gore travels on a private jet/plane/helicopter/hot air balloon/whatever does not contradict his own message. The fact that he lives in a big house that uses more energy (but not always) to a typically-sized household does not undercut his message. The fact that film rolls of "Inconvenient Truth" are not made from biodegradeable material does not undercut his message.
That said, the only places I've heard the accusation that Al Gore has a private jet has been on wingnut blogs. I'm not convinced. Al Gore is the kind of guy who practices what he preaches. Unlike pretty much every politician from your side who preaches piousness and turn out to be everything but.
The answer is to campaign hard to convince people to live greener.
Well, that's a good start but let's begin with something a little more practical, that actually works, and it's something the federal government is really, really good at.
Federal farking regulation!! Yes, it's a bad word for a lot of republicans who have a cult-like adherence to the idea that private companies will always act honorably in a free, unregulated marketplace. No, they do not. Kenneth Lay was the big proponent of that theory in the 80's, and his company would be the grand experiment. Perhaps you heard of them. Enron?
Federal regulation both hurts and helps companies because, yes, it does cost them tons of money to develop alternative solutions. But it helps them because it establishes a level playing field that ALL their competitors have to follow. Even if a president of a company really does not want to be a polluter, they will be seen as a failure to his shareholders if his actions generate less profits. However, if he is "forced" into it by federal regulation, he will not be blamed and will feel so much better about himself. See, problem solved.
Federal regulation does work, and that is pretty much undebatable. That's the answer. Look at California.
Do you think every state could afford to maintain their own freeways from their own state's taxpayer dollars?
The PA Turnpike had done pretty well for itself.
At worst, I think the federal government has done a damn good job of changing people's behavior post 9/11. Remember all those color alerts?
I don't thing the government had much to do with altering people's behavior. I think it was probably the guys who took down the buildings with planes.
Al Gore is the kind of guy who practices what he preaches.
What about this? http://www.news.com.au/
dailytele...5001031,00.html
Federal regulation both hurts and helps companies because, yes, it does cost them tons of money to develop alternative solutions. But it helps them because it establishes a level playing field that ALL their competitors have to follow.
Business regulation almost always ends up with corporate welfare. Protecting companies and insuring them from competition.
If the public (i.e. the shareholders) demands greener companies, then it will happen, especially if they only buy green products.
I don't thing the government had much to do with altering people's behavior. I think it was probably the guys who took down the buildings with planes.
You understand so little. Americans are resilient people. 9/11 was a devastating, traumatic event, but we would go back to our normal, daily lives just as we always do. The problem was that the republican party could not let us go back to our daily lives. They could not help themselves from repeating 9/11 and Osama's name over and over again, drumming the fear that he will strike again into every American's consciousness.
Now herein lies the dilemma. Terrorism is not about the act of killing. Terrorism is always the act of the weak against the powerful. They simply do not have the resources to be a real threat. Their chief tools of the trade is purely psychological, gaining power through fear. That is why they are called terrorists. If someone fears you, you have gained some level of control over them.
Now, by that definition, the republican party, by drumming 9/11 and Al Qaeda into American's consciousness over and over and over and over again, has essentially been doing the terrorists job for them, for their own sick and twisted political ends. That is why Keith Olbermann of MSNBC calls the republican party a wing of Al Qaeda. They have literally used the same tactics of fear to control the American people.
What about this? http://www.news.com.au/ dailytele...5001031,00.html
Had to dig up an anti-Gore article from Australia? Fairly typical, considering that Australia is a massive polluter. Even Instapundit posts a rebut to this. Is that all you can find?
hat is why Keith Olbermann of MSNBC calls the republican party a wing of Al Qaeda.
And that's why Keith Olbermann is full of his own crap.
If you cite awareness of international terror threats as a bad thing, well then you should probably resume your ostrich position. You have no concept of history, either. Have you ever talked to anyone who remembered the attack on Pearl Harbor? It was an event like 9-11 that changed the way Americans saw themselves in the world.
The origin of the story is irrelevant, I just Googled "Gore fish" and picked the first news source.
And all I see is Instapundit saying that this hurts Gore's message, and him quoting a sarcastic reader, and another blog saying it was Gore fault. All I was saying by mentioning it is that it is something that makes Gore seem like he doesn't practice what he preaches.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
climat...1786438,00.html
Beginning two years ago, I made a decision to live a carbon-neutral life," he says, explaining that his family and businesses now do all they can to reduce their emissions and to "offset" the rest by giving money to carbon-reduction schemes in India and eastern Europe. He also says he has talked to Richard Branson at Virgin and British Airways about the problem with aviation fuel, one of the single biggest sources of carbon dioxide. "They're aware of it," he says. Mere awareness is hardly enough, is it? "There will have to be a day of reckoning that takes this into account," he concedes.
Like I said, I don't think carbon offsets really do anything to cure the problem, and I think it hurts his message when one of his top "green tips" is to fly less (as mentioned in The Guardian article).
And that's why Keith Olbermann is full of his own crap.
Funny that you attack someone who has been right from the beginning. Go back and watch his famous rant against the mind-boggling incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld, back when your party was attacking Rumsfeld's critics. Now your party universally concedes that Rumsfeld completely botched the war. Yet you still claim Olbermann is full of crap.
Typical republican.
If you cite awareness of international terror threats as a bad thing,
Playing on the American public's fears by creating phony alerts isn't just a bad thing. It's doing what the terrorists intended in the first place.
well then you should probably resume your ostrich position.
Oh, did you notice that it's your party who is assuming the ostrich position. It is now and always has. Cowards when it came to Vietnam, cowards now.
You have no concept of history, either. Have you ever talked to anyone who remembered the attack on Pearl Harbor? It was an event like 9-11 that changed the way Americans saw themselves in the world.
My grandfather was on the U.S.S. Saratoga that was docked in Pearl Harbor and left shortly before it was hit. He was 5 floors directly above the point of impact in the radio room when the Saratoga was heading back to Pearl Harbor and was hit by a torpedo. Pearl Harbor changed the way Americans saw themselves in the world, it made America mad and motivated to go into war. 9/11 did the same thing, except that the republicans latched the opportunity to turn anger into fear, for people who are fearful are controllable.
But forget all that. What matter is one thing. Between this moment now, and the moment of November 11, 2001, despite everything this president has done, despite the possibly hundreds of thousands of people who have died, despite the fact that we are a military technological superpower and are piping 300 million dollars a day that is going into this so-called operation to fight terror, that terrorist act on 9/11 has succeeded in doing exactly what the terrorists intended to do in the first place. Al Qaeda is growing. Only the most stunningly incompetent fools on the planet could lose a war against a bunch of religious nutbags.
I'll write more about Gore's so-called hyprocisy later.
Regarding that whole Al Gore hypocrisy issue, according to the UK's Telegraph.
But the fish enjoyed by the Gores were not endangered or illegally caught.
Rather, the restaurant later confirmed, they had come from one of the world's few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations. The Gores' spokesman, Kalee Kreider, admitted that the fish has been on the menu, but said: "The Gores absolutely agree with this humane society and the rest of the environmental community about illegally caught Chilean sea bass.
The right-wing blogosphere, always wrong, 100% of the time.
When did the New York Sun, The New York Daily News, The Daily Telegraph, and the Daily Mail become part of the right-wing blogosphere? I must have missed the memo.
I'm as glad as anyone to find out Gore wasn't sentencing an endangered species to the dinner plate.
When did the New York Sun, The New York Daily News, The Daily Telegraph, and the Daily Mail become part of the right-wing blogosphere? I must have missed the memo.
The people who repeated the story over and over again are the right-wing blogosphere.
I'm as glad as anyone to find out Gore wasn't sentencing an endangered species to the dinner plate.
If you're typical of the conservative community writ-large, you probably wil dig up anything discredit Gore. Certainly indicative of a quick search of your blog of any mention of 'Gore.'
Such as:
My heroes this week are the scientists speaking out against Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It is sad that they have to be lauded for trying to do their jobs (science), but that is the case.
Though, a bit of Googling around reveals this about the "Professor Emeritus" Eastbrook you quote as critical of Gore.
You do realize that there is big, big, big, big, big money to be made by being a global warming skeptic with a doctorate? Of the tens of thousands of retired geology professors, you'll always find some mediocre, less-prominent ones who'll happily sell their entire credibility away for a nice 5 figures sum from the oil industry PR firms, with even more lucrative possible future book deals and speaking engagements.
Do read this article. Only took me a few seconds on Google to find it. Google is the ultimate truth-teller.
Commenting by HaloScan
