The Republican-led infantalization of America continues
Two weeks of treaty talks on global warming neared an end today with the world’s current and projected leaders in emissions of greenhouse gases, the United States and China, still refusing to take any mandatory steps to avoid dangerous climate change.
The Bush administration was sharply criticized by environmental groups for walking out of a round of informal discussions shortly after midnight that were aimed at finding new ways of curbing gases beyond steps taken so far.
The walkout was widely seen here as the capstone of two weeks of American efforts to prevent any fresh initiatives from being discussed.
“This shows just how willing the U.S. administration is to walk away from a healthy planet and its responsibilities to its own people,” said Jennifer Morgan of the World Wildlife Fund.
The modern conservative movement is like that kid you always hated to play sports with in school, you know the one I’m talking about – the one who pouts and walks off the field when you aren’t playing the game the way he’d like to play no matter what the rules are.
Josh Marshall linked some good stuff from New York magazine:
Shorter Bushies: “We ain’t saving no planet if you let Bill Clinton say naughty things about Dear Leader.”
In July of 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 against even considering the treaty and warned President Clinton not to even send it up to them, saying the United States shouldn’t sign anything that would, quote, “result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” As a result, President Clinton never submitted the Kyoto treaty for ratification.
Clinton is articulate, intelligent, knowledgable, he can put two sentences together without fumbling, he actually reads, he can appear before crowds that are not hand-picked, he can hold press conferences without getting flustered or peevish. He’s a hardworking statesman with a lifetime devotion to public service. He managed to serve for eight years without pissing off the entire world and without losing 2000 troops (and counting) in a questionable military adventure. After five years as president he was more popular than he was when first elected.
He’s a walking embarrassment to Bush. He reminds people that no, the presidency doesn’t have to be occupied by a pampered, overprivileged, small-minded stuffed shirt with an empty stetson on top. No wonder Bush’s handlers want to keep him out of the public eye as much as possible.
OK, Frank. That was 1997.
We’re talking about this week.
Have you read about this subject at all, Frank?
Now what were you saying about Clinton being “against” Kyoto?
Wilbur: You know what’s embarassing? Your gushing over Clinton, our Elvis impersonator turned President.
You mean Clinton was against Kyoto before he was for it?
How Kerryesque.
You can tell Bush has really lowered the bar when listing what used to a list of basic qualifications for higher office is labelled “gushing” by Bush partisans.
Forget Clinton, Frank, Bush makes me “gush” over Ronald goddam Reagan.
Bush is so bad that, yes, an Elvis impersonator would be an improvment.
Tricky Dick, where are you when we need you, baby?
Wilbur, Clinton didn’t even do what you said he did. So forget about “basic qualifications” for office. Your description is interesting in what it leaves out: He bombed a country in which we had no interest from 40,000 feet so he wouldn’t be blamed for any casualties; that area is still aflame. His misdemeanor approach to the 1993 WTC bombing is almost directly responsible for 9/11. His “cut and run” in Somalia (which current Dems are attempting to repeat in Iraq) motivated bin Laden to plan an attack on American soil. His poor handling of the Marielitos in Arkansas led him to start the horrible practice of returning Cuban refugees to Cuba, unless they slip by the Coast Guard and touch American soil.
Notice that I didn’t mention one scandal.
In less than 50 years, he’ll be less well known than Calvin Coolidge is now.
Frank is upset that Bush is a failure and that they cannot counter a superb Democrat with a good republican president. Elvis Impersonator? I guess you speak of his singing talents? I will take a musician over an bad actor like Ronnie Reagan.
our Elvis impersonator turned President
Peace and prosperity are obviously so overrated says the fan club president of the woman who dithered while 3,000 Americans were murdered.
Would that be the same Kyoto Accords that put huge limits on the CO2 emissions of the industrialized nations, which are responsible for 25% of the total CO2, and specifically excluded the developing nations that spew out 75% of the emissions? The same Kyoto Accords that Bill Clinton didn’t even TRY to get approved, just had Al Gore sign so he could brag about what a grand gesture he made?
I once heard Kyoto described as the “great economic equalizer,” by bringing down the economies of the West to a point where the developing nations might stand a chance of catching up. I’ve heard NOTHING that would indicate it might be otherwise.
And Bill Clinton loudly trumpeting it, four YEARS after he left office, and after he let it sit on his desk for his entire second term, is just more affirmation of what a despicable excuse for a man he is. Try as he might, he can’t rewrite history and re-cast himself as a stalwart champion of Kyoto. The bastard didn’t even TRY to get it passed, didn’t expend one ounce of capital to sway the Senate, but still wants the credit for having Al Gore sign off on it — a gesture everyone, even Buddy and Socks, knew was a joke.
J.
White Whale — only you and Wilbur could appreciate an Elvis impersonator. Do you go see “tribute bands”, too?
Oliver, stop with the peace and prosperity crap. He practically singlehndedly burst the .com bubble with his monstrous tax increase.
Add together the military casualties from 1993 to 2000 {pdf}, and the civilian terrorist casualties for the same period, and Clinton’s (blessed be his name) got pretty bloody hands, too. Don’t forget to add on the people who drowned trying to get here from Cuba.
I once heard Grand Funk described as the “greatest band of the 70s,” but that didn’t make it true.
Frank:
And Ronnie was the real article? LMFAO!! I will give you party credit in electing any assclown failure and surrounding him with support but you again deny that despite Clintons massive ego(which seems to be the M.O. of all presidents) and a hostile congress and media he still succedded unlike Boy George.
Quaker:
Your assertion could be too nuianced for guys like Jay Tea(WTF?), so to set the record straight, Led Zepplin was the greatest rock band of the 70’s, but Jay would probably disagree because lack of counter-argument. The world is not flat…remember that one?
Feh. You’re both wrong. Genesis was the greatest band of the 70’s. Nothing can hold a scented candle to “The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway,” “Selling England By The Pound,” or the live version of “Supper’s Ready” from Seconds Out.
And Quaker, if you’d actually read the bit before the quote you cherrypicked, you’d have seen some support for the description of Kyoto I put forth — but that wouldn’t be much fun, would it?
Lemme repeat it here:
From that, it looks like actually reducing greenhouse emissions is taking a back seat to economic restructuring — and in a way I rather don’t care for. But you’re welcome to support it.
Reagan inherited a recession (I actually remember those days, when inflation, unemployment, and interest rates were all in double digits) and a Cold War that we were not doing well in. Both of those were cured by the time he left office. (Well, OK, the Cold War took a little longer, but it was his efforts that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and certainly not the “no nukes” and “unilateral disarmament” crowds.
J.
And my source for this info was the excellent posting by my former colleague Rob of Say Anything, who pulled it all together at http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/12/10/global-warming-human-generated-emissions-and-the-kyoto-accord/#more-8019 .
J.
OK, let’s break down the links to see if I can escape the Moderation Monster.
Frame, the data on CO2 is located at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/New%20Fig%206.gif. In my next comment, I’ll give the source of my data, from whom I’ve been shamelessly plagiarizing.
J.
Once again J you can repeat it all you want but how about a link to the source of these statistics?
Hmm… frame, that could be a challenge.
OK, frame, how about this?
BTW, just to give credit to where it’s due, I cribbed the reference from Wizbang former guest contributor Rob of Say Anything, and his excellent posting on the topic.
J.
My apologies, Rob. I should have paid better attention. Thanks for the correction.
J.
Actually, while I’d love to take credit for that post, the author is actually a read/guest contributor by the name of Carrick Talmadge, who is a professor at Ole Miss University.
Let the destruction of the source commence in five, four, three, two, one …
JD, don’t forget the “skip refuting the source’s statements” part. As long as they can attack the source, they don’t need to actually address the points it raises. It’s an adaptation of the “shoot the messenger” philosophy.
J.
“JD, don t forget the skip refuting the source s statements part. ”
Not necessary when you idiots have so obviously cherrypicked the information you want to present and misinterpreted what the charts are actually showing. From the same report:
“Developing countries emissions are expected to grow above the world average at 2.7 percent annually between 2001 and 2025; and surpass emissions of industrialized countries near 2018.”
Idiots.
Jay –
Your statement that industrialized nations are responsible for 25 percent of CO2 emissions while developing countries are responsible for 75 percent of emissions is not reflected in the chart you linked to. That chart does not show statistics for emissions. It show statistics for Carbon Intensity by Region, which is different. Rob linked to the same chart referring to it as showing “the rates of CO2 production.” The chart that shows emissions by region is the chart above it (Figure 5). Figure 5 shows that industrialized countries (excepting the former Eastern Bloc countries) currently produce more CO2 than developing countries but that projections show this will change sometime around 2015-2020 — the time frame which Kyoto covers. It isn’t surprising that the region most impacted by Kyoto will reduce its emissions over the period covered by the treaty.
Go to the page of the article and look at Figure 5 yourself: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
From the EIA’s glossary:
Emissions: Anthropogenic releases of gases to the atmosphere. In the context of global climate change, they consist of radiatively important greenhouse gases (e.g., the release of carbon dioxide during fuel combustion).
Carbon intensity: The amount of carbon by weight emitted per unit of energy consumed. A common measure of carbon intensity is weight of carbon per British thermal unit (Btu) of energy. When there is only one fossil fuel under consideration, the carbon intensity and the emissions coefficient are identical. When there are several fuels, carbon intensity is based on their combined emissions coefficients weighted by their energy consumption levels.
That second stat shoudl read: “non-OECD Countries (Developing)”
Okay, so Rob wishes he could take credit for Carrick’s “excellent” work. Wonderful. Carricks himself says:
“Note that although the industrialized nations make up 3/4 of the total world productions, they are responsible for just half the total CO2 emissions.”
That doesn’t jibe with your statement either, Jay, does it? So even the guy you say you are plagarizing doesn’t say what you say he says.
2002 indicators:
CO2 emissions for OECD countries (Developed):
CO2 Emissions ** (Mt of CO2): 12554.03
CO2 emissions for OECD countries (Developing):
CO2 Emissions ** (Mt of CO2): 10730.42
**CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion only. Emissions are calculated using IEA’s energy balances and the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines.
Source: IEA Energy Statistics
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/index.asp
Other stats:
2002 Indicators:
OECD Countries:
CO2/TPES (t CO2/toe) 2.35
CO2/Population (t CO2/capita) 10.96
CO2/GDP (kg CO2/95 US$) 0.44
CO2/GDP (PPP) (kg CO2/95 US$ PPP) 0.49
Non-OECD Countries:
CO2/TPES (t CO2/toe) 2.2
CO2/Population (t CO2/capita) 2.12
CO2/GDP (kg CO2/95 US$) 1.56
CO2/GDP (PPP) (kg CO2/95 US$ PPP) 0.59
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/index.asp
Jay writes: “My apologies, Rob. I should have paid better attention.”
Yes, Jay. Maybe you should have. Hilarious.
Can somebody on the left side of the aisle explain why the vote in the Senate in regards to Kyoto was either 95-0 or 97-0. Does that not show bi-partisan nearly unanimous disdain for its ratification ?
JD –
Could you explain to me why J’s statement and the facts (as presented in the very same study he sites) don’t jibe?
Lemme repeat it here:
“Would that be the same Kyoto Accords that put huge limits on the CO2 emissions of the industrialized nations, which are responsible for 25% of the total CO2, and specifically excluded the developing nations that spew out 75% of the emissions?”
The study he links to:
“Developing countries emissions are expected to grow above the world average at 2.7 percent annually between 2001 and 2025; and surpass emissions of industrialized countries near 2018.”
The argument, by the way, that Kyoto places unfair restrictions on developed countries while allowing developing countries to continue on their present course is also a mininterpretation of what Kyoto sets in place. Kyoto allows for a link between the reduction in the rate of emissions in developing countries to a reduction in costs for the developped countries:
“Although they are not obligated to reduce their emissions under the protocol, developing countries may participate in the protocol s Clean Development Mechanism, which enables developed countries to pay for emissions reductions that take place in developing countries and receive credits against their own emissions in return. This benefits both developing countries, which gain access to new, cleaner technologies, and developed countries, which are able to meet their targets at a lower cost.”
http://www.ciel.org/Climate/devcountrycommit.html
Kyoto put mandatory limits on those economies that are better able to develop and adapt cleaner technologies while offering incentives to countries that are not able to afford the same technologies. That is to say there is an incentive for both sides to move in the same direction: The developed countries can reduce the costs of their reduction efforts by earning credits for helping the developing countries reduce their rate of increase. It may not be fair to make the developping countries participation volunary but its the fairest way to get them to the table and engaged in the process before their emissions grow too significantly. It’s called leadership and compromise. Both of which you guys seem to be against.
“Let the destruction of the source commence in five, four, three, two, one..”
Ya, and you’re going to defend this statement of yours how? Idiot.
Frameone – ask Jay.
Your response had not one thing to do with the question I posed.
Maybe I can ask you why you took Jay’s assertion at face value without looking at what the facts were yourself. Are you always so naively accepting of everything? Seems to me you were plenty willing to go along with what he said even to the point of criticizing how I might respond — his assertion being so obviously unassailable — but when that blew up in your face because Jay got it wrong you shifted tactics to an irrelevance yourself.
The unaminous vote has nothing to do with the validity of the treaty or the facts of CO2 emission that Jay used to attack it. Indeed, if the Senators voted against the treaty based on the kind of misunderstandings that Jay bases his opposition on, then I would say it doesn’t matter how the Senate voted: their vote was based on inaccurate information.
Or am I “shooting the messenger” when I point out that J was wrong in his assertion? Is that what’s come down to on the Right?
Where did I agree with him? Where? I simply pointed out, based on past observations, that when confronted with opinions that differ from yours, the posters around here tend to savage the source rather than dispute the assertion.
Apparently, you have pointed out where the source made a mistake. Congrats.
That still has nothing to do with the question I posed.
Idiot.
And you, clearly, are more well informed than ALL of the Senators that voted for that.
Do explain. Point out where I agreed with him. Point out where you were privy to a better set of information than the US Senators that voted against this treaty.
You’re pathetic.
Ya, you’re right. When you wrote Let the destruction of the source commence in five, four, three, two, one.. you weren’t taking any stance on the veracity of Jay’s assertion at all. What was I thinking. Once again I forgot the most important lesson in dealing with the Right: Never pay attention to what they say, only pay attention to what they mean.
As to your other point, the fact that there was bipartisan opposition to the treaty doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad or ineffective treaty. The vote also doesn’t necessarily mean that the Senate had all the facts about the treaty and the issues involved. The vote could be evidence of just how powerful the pollution lobby is in this country. The fact of the matter is that the Right has generated a lot of misinformation about climate change and the impact of Kyoto on economic growth to achieve the votes that it did in fact get.
This is where the difference between carbon emissions and carbon intensity comes in. One can argue that carbon intensity is the metric that matters but that’s entirely misleading given that carbon intensity can go down even when carbon emissions go up. Indeed, the very organization that Jay cited reported just such a development in July of this year:
“On Thursday, the Energy Information Administration announced that the nation’s carbon emissions rose 1.7 percent in 2004 — but that amounted to a 2.6 percent drop in carbon intensity, because the U.S. economy grew 4.4 percent that year. The rate of increase in U.S. carbon emissions more than doubled from 2003 to 2004 because of heightened economic activity.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070101915.html
Now it’s true that at the moment I have no idea what the specifics of the debate in the Senate were but it should be self-evident that a unanimous vote against the Kyoto treaty does not mean it is a bad treaty, it only means that the Senate was convinced by the treaty’s opponents that it was a bad treaty. Opponents of the treaty continue to spin misinformation about the treaty which is why I can be certain that the same misinformation played a role in the vote.
You’re pathetic because you find it so difficult to admit that Jay got his facts entirely wrong and that you yourself took him at his word that he was right. You’re pathetic because you started your gloatfest a little too soon and then when you got called on it you tried to switch the subject.
You say you were simply generalizing based on how other posters on this site have responded. Allow me to generalize in return. Time and time again I read assholes like Jay put forth the notion that the Conservative movement is the movement of ideas and facts while liberals operate on feelings and intentions. Well guess what? Jay is full of shit and so are you. You guys operate on assumptions, half-truths and outright lies. When you get called on it you start whining like the little bitches that you are. I never cease to be amazed at how stupid and craven you guys can be.
JD -
I don’t resort to name calling to make my points seem more credible, I turn to the facts (you know, real ones) for that, unlike Jay and unlike yourself. That said, I think my point that you’re a whiny little bitch stands on its own as a credible point. This thread is all the evidence I need.
“And you, clearly, are more well informed than ALL of the Senators that voted for that.”
That may or may not be the case but it’s a fact that I’m more well informed than you.
Let the destruction of the source being now means I agree and am a proponent of what somebody else says ?
You are pathetic in your attempts to make me speak for another. Jay is an adult. He can speak for himself. But, this is a far too common tactic of the left, and one that shows how little you understand about those that you consider to be your enemies.
By the way, I always love when you resort to name calling, etc … Makes your point so much more credible. Makes any type of discussion just exponentially easier.
“the posters around here tend to savage the source rather than dispute the assertion.”
Did you even follow the links, JD? Did you ever bother to check the facts behind his assertion? You jumped in with your generalization without bothering to investigate any of Jay’s claims yourself. What did you contribute to the discuss with your little point? What did you hope to accomplish? You had nothing constructive to add. You did nothing to further anyone’s understanding of the subject at hand. No, you see I did that. I asked Jay to back up his assertion, I looked into the facts he presented. I found out that he had misrepresented the information he linked to. Did I call him any names in that post? No. It was only when I went back to read your gloating posts that I decided to call you all what you are: idiots. Jay is an idiot who regurgitates whatever crap comes his way that he thinks will advance his small, petty view of the world. You’re an idiot who hasn’t even got the balls to come out with a stand on anything, instead you try to snipe from the sides with idiotic questions and irrelevant assertions until someone turns your way. Then it’s all “I never said that, I never supported that, you’re putting words in my mouth, you’re calling me names.” What were you implying I was when you suggested that I was going to come back with an attack on Jay’s source? We’re you suggesting I’m dishonest in my dealings here? Of course you were but you haven’t got the balls to come out and say it, not even as an anonymous poster on a blog. You did the same thing in the recent thread on torture. You asked a series of questions that I answered. When I asked you a question did you answer it? No. You responded with your usual denial that you ever took a stand on anything and that I was putting words in your mouth. Again you offered nothing constructive to the discussion, you never bothered to research anything yourself or bring your opinion out into public view. Instead you try to hide behind slanted questions as if your practicing the Socratic method or something, a humble truth seeker hoping to objectively analyze the facts as people bring them to you. Jay Tea presented as fact an assertion in this thread that was totally wrong. Do you condemn him? Do you direct any questions to him? No. Because you’re a hack like him. Nothing to offer, nothing to add.
We must all bow to the superior intellect of frameone. Why should I bother thinking when I can just come here and let frameone tell me what is the correct way to think ?
At the very least JD I think you could consider the fact that Jay gave you and everyone on this thread wrong information — and repeated it as fact — and I gave you the truth. Does that count for anything in your book?
I should also ask, did JD ever respond to the implications of the facts I presented, namely that developed countries are not treated unfairly under Kyoto because they are currently the prime producers of CO2 in the world? Did JD ever respond to the argument I presented that Kyoto includes a market-based set of incentives to encourage developing countries to reduce their rate of emissions? No. The best he could come up with is to ask, “If Kyoto’s so great, why did the Senate unanimously reject it?” That’s his great big reasoned response.
Dugger –
What do you know about it? Jay Tea presented flat out wrong information here. Just flat out wrong. I corrected him but not before JD jumped in with his prediction that I would come back with a dishonest response. You guys always come back with “Name calling doesn’t make your case any stronger.” Well in your books neither, apparently, does telling the truth and supporting it with facts. That’s exactly what I asked Jay to do and he failed. Indeed, he revealed the arrogance of his assuptions by repeating his assertions twice in this thread without any sourcing, without any links, in an argument with Quaker. So here you have someone on this thread repeating false information and JD coming to gloat along with him in absolutle certainty that they were right and that I would choose dishonesty as a response. When I come back with the actual facts — taken by the way from the very study that Jay misread and misunderstood — JD switches the subject without addressing my correction and Jay Tea dissapears entirely. Then JD starts accusing me of ignorning his oh so relevant point that the Senate voted unanimously against Kyoto. As far as I can tell that’s the first actual hard fact that anyone on the right has presented in this thread.
Jay Tea gives you wrong information, JD gloats, they’re both flat out wrong and somehow I’m at fault for calling them idiots. They are idiots dugger. And I never get tired of schooling your sorry asses with the facts.
frame,
You will of course write whatever you want (interminably) but I just noted that in an everyday disagreement, you tend to become extremely harsh and personal – frequently. Its like you are at war and nobody else is. Sometimes, IMO, you can make a decent point but invariably it comes with the name calling and with about 10 excess paragraphs. Get mad if you wish – its an honest observation.
Dugger
Please. JD pre-judges my behavior based on his observations of others who post here then he accusses me of putting words in his mouth. He’s an idiot.
Speaking of babies walking away, whatever happened to Jay?
Apology accepted.
frameone – if I did not do so previously, I acknowledge that ANOTHER POSTER made a mistake when representing the figures. You are right.
What I thought was interesting when I was reading the linked passages was the lack of certainty that they attributed to their conclusions.
“Assessments generally suggest that the Earth s climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor. A National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated, Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.
It seems that the scientists are not quite yet ready to state definitively that this is all a result of us horrible humans. When one looks at the time frames many of these studies are based on, in comparison to the amount of time this little planet has been in existence, methinks it is reasonable to question how big of a role humans play in comparison to the cyclic nature of mother nature. Just my two cents …
now that frameone appears willing to actually discuss things, maybe you can point this marginally skeptic person towards a place where one can find information in regards to the increase in temperature over say, the last 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
I know this may sound incredibly naive, but has our beloved planet not been in a cycle of warming since the last ice age ?
Were we to have adopted Kyoto, and met the emissions regulations in re. greenhouse gases, what was the corresponding target goal of reduced warming for the same time period?
This is a topic that I am woefully under-informed on, so maybe I can be educated.
And I don’t think you’ll find any scientist anywhere saying or even suggesting that it is all the result of “horrible humans.” The earth’s environment is a vast and infinite complex interconnected system in which every part contributes something to the whole and every part impacts the other parts. I don’t think there’s any question that humans are contributing to the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those gases are contributing to global warming:
“Recent warming can be largely attributed to human causation. More strongly than ever, the IPCC states in its 2001 assessment, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
Check out the information here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-consensus-vs-certainty.html
The above quote comes from the link on that page: “What We Do Know about Climate Change”
JD –
I’m going to assume you know how to use google, right? If you’re so interested there’s a wealth of information out there. All you have to do is look for it.
In reality, this conversation is about a range of 0.5-1 degree F increase over the last century, 2/3 of which occurred between 1900 and 1940?
Thank you. I was simply asking for a recommendation.
Start reading:
http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/globalwarming.html
Jay wrote me back:
From: “Jay Tea”
>To: “Frame One”
>Subject: RE: You never came back …
>Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:29:26 -0500
>
>First reply: Huh?
>
>Second reply: Oh, that tiff over at Ollie’s site? I didn’t care that much
>about the issue, and nobody ever touched on the main point: it’s aimed at
>crippling the West, and gives the developing nations a free ride.
>
>Third reply: considering how many times we’ve crossed swords, I think it’s
>quite notable that this is the first time you’ve felt so vindicated, that
>you had to gloat in private e-mail. Maybe I shoulda done that all the times
>I crushed you…
>
>Fourth reply: I got better things to do than deal with you. You’re cutting
>into my higher priorities. For one, I got this itch on my leg that needs
>scratching. Next, there’s some drying paint that is far more fascinating
>than you.
>
>I think I’ll stick with #4.
>
>J.
>
>
“The modern conservative movement is like that kid you always hated to play sports with in school, you know the one I m talking about – the one who pouts and walks off the field when you aren t playing the game the way he d like to play no matter what the rules are.”
… and he claims to own the ball, when in fact, it’s school property.
Ed
frame:
I had no idea that when I wrote you that private e-mail, you would publish it here. Had I known that it was destined for public viewing, I would have written it differently.
Presuming that a one-on-one e-mail would remain so was my error, and I regret it. I am taking steps to make sure that it does not happen again.
Oliver, if you happen to be reading these comments, please be aware that frame e-mailed me privately about this matter, then published my above response without my knowledge or consent. I don’t know what ethical standard you hold to in such matters. I realize that frame was under no legal obligation to not publish it, but I’ve always held people who hold no higher standard than the letter of the law in a great deal of contempt.
This is not a formal complaint, Oliver, nor a request for action, but merely a professional courtesy notice, from one blogger to another: frame has acted in what I consider a thoroughly unethical manner, and used your forum to propagate it. Take whatever action — or no action — as you see appropriate. I have already done what I believe is appropriate.
J.