Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
(NOTE: Don't miss the end-post wiks!)
Following up the story of Al Gore's stunningly blatant hypocrisy, I delved into the theory of private carbon-offset markets such as what Gore claims he uses to reduce the incredibly massive "carbon footprint" he imposes on the poor suffering planet. I already had serious doubts as to the efficacy and efficiency of such schemes in actually reducing carbon production.
It's worse than I thought. But there's too much out there for me to write the lengthy and involved post it calls for on my currently-fractured schedule. So, it's linkfest time....
Read it all. Or not.
First, some tasty snark from the Amazing Iowahawk on how to save your enviro-soul.
Next, some commentary on the market economics of carbon-offset programs from Tyler Cowan. For those so inclined to econ, the comments section is wonderful.
Ecototality explains why Gore is being even more hypocritical than on first glance. If you want to dig into the hypocrisy angle, this is one post you MUST read.
Bloomberg News notes that the market in alt-energy and green stocks seem to have hit a bubble. See link above--does the word "motive" come to mind?
More from Bloomberg on the market for carbon credits, and who smiles and who gets stiffed.
Don Surber comments of the bias being displayed by the media in the news reports--and lack of them.
TaxProf Blog takes a peek at the "gift bags" passed out at the Oscars.
Bob Krumm puts Gore's household energy consumption in perspective from up close and personal, noting the "Gore Residential Unit" uses power at a rate five times that of his own nearby home on a ft2/kWh basis. Les Jones has a comparison of his own.
Classical Values weighs in with some of the same links, some not, and much better excerpting and actual thought than I'm offering here in a mere linkfest.
Choice quote from Creative Destruction:
Those policy preferences - limit carbon, mandate the use of certain technologies, restrict land use, etc. - all seem to entail increasing governmental control over the economy. Mr. Gore's actual motivation would appear to a fair-minded observer to be a desire to increase government power in the economic sphere - and environmental concern over global climate change is simply the convenient rhetorical tool to flog in the service of that agenda.
Mr. Gore is of course free to advocate for whatever policies he wishes. However, those of us who would bear the burden of his policies are also entitled - in our mindlessly swarming way - to think that his rhetorical flourishes are so much organically-composted, locally-grown, carbon-neutral BS.
Enviro-heretic Bjorn Lomborg has an excellent YouTube video on basic cost/benefit analysis and global problems. Tangential to Gore, but worth your time.
Agence France Presse (via Yahoo) has a story that makes it VERY clear why one should not pay too much attention to out-of-office politicians and bureaucrats when it comes to science issues.
Finally (for this round) The Virginian blog says that carbon-offset buying isn't really the same as Church indulgences, but bears a greater resemblance to the sumptuary laws of the Middle Ages. Lotta food for thought there.
But hypocrisy is really not the danger here. We are all hypocrites, each of us pretending to be better than we are. The danger is that the use of “carbon offsets” will create two things that re morally monstrous: a de-facto sumptuary law and the impoverishments of the poor and powerless of this planet.
The creation of an aristocratic elite that differentiates itself from the hoi polloi by its ability to buy “carbon offsets” while the rest of the planet is forced by environmental laws into a smaller and smaller carbon straightjacket is not so far fetched. What is government run by the environmentalists of Gore’s stripe to do if the people won’t give up their wasteful SUVs?
Because we know who WON'T give up their mansions and Gulfstreams.
Wik: More on carbon offsets from The Economist (via Instapundit).
Also wik: Protein Wisdom goes to town with Environmental Indulgences and the Church of the Fragile Mother.
Also also wik: Protein Wisdom still trippin' it out with Scenes from Al Gore’s ENVIRONMENTAL BATTLEFIELD USA, 1. Looks like Pat can really clean up here!
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| carb1.jpg | 23.78 KB |
| carb2.jpg | 46.85 KB |
| carb3.jpg | 43.81 KB |
Our RSS feed
Callimachus posted this
Callimachus posted this thought today:
"You're allowed to defend Al Gore from those who say a gong-beater for environmentalism is a hypocrite if he also lives in a big, energy-gupling mansion. But not if you've ever used the "chickenhawk meme" against anyone else."
Tully, you didn't address the chickenhawk argument vis-a-vis Cheney (as an example) in yesterday's thread. If Al Gore's hypocrisy has legs, why doesn't Cheney's? (I'm untroubled by either, but I'd like to hear your articulation).
I'm less than enamored with cries of hypocrisy for two reasons. As argued yesterday, the first is that unearthing personal inconsistencies isn't hard work and proves little. For example, Callimachus referenced an Andrew Sullivan reader who commented on the hypocrisy of DC Dems who send their kids to private school. Other names come to mind: Ted Haggard, Ted Kennedy (is it something in the name Ted?) The politics of hypocrisy leads us nowhere.
Second, hypocrisy targets people stand for something, giving a free pass to underachievers, anarchists, and amoral thugs. Jonah Goldberg articulates this well:
"Hypocrisy is bad, but it's not the worst vice in the world. If I declared "murder is wrong" and then killed somebody, I would hope that the top count against me would be homicide, not hypocrisy. Liberal elites, particularly in Hollywood, believe that hypocrisy is the gravest sin in the world, which is why they advocate their own lifestyles for the entire world: sleep with whomever you want, listen to your own instincts, be true to yourself, blah, blah, blah. Our fear of hypocrisy is forcing us to live in a world where gluttons are fine, so long as they champion gluttony."
Apples and oranges
Tully, you didn't address the chickenhawk argument vis-a-vis Cheney (as an example) in yesterday's thread. If Al Gore's hypocrisy has legs, why doesn't Cheney's? (I'm untroubled by either, but I'd like to hear your articulation).
I didn't address it because I don't relate the two, as they are not at all the same thing. It's an invalid comparison. The "chickenhawk" argument is, as I have often said, an intellectually and morally bankrupt meme for quite a large number of reasons, lacking all validity from its basic premise onwards. Using it as a comparitive to defend Gore falls into diversionary and conflationary CPDTM territory, IMHO. Pretty much by definition.
So no, I'm not going to allow an intellectually and morally bankrupt argument to be entered into debate as being equivalent to a well-grounded intellectual and moral argument. Naturally, your mileage may vary. But even someone who lends credence to such an indefensible argument (and I obviously do NOT) should acknowledge the difference between a non-correctable youthful behavior several decades past, and an ONGOING refusal to correct an ONGOING blatant hypocrisy that is fully and completely within Gore's power to correct at any time. Among other things.
indefensible
Lest there be any confusion, I'm in agreement that the chickenhawk meme is indefensible and morally bankrupt. So you need not lend credence to it. However, if one substitutes the beleaguered Mr. Cheney with a hypothetical 27 year old healthy WH staffer (i.e., someone who could remedy his 'situation'), would that alter your last argument?
I beg to differ re: the
I beg to differ re: the Chickenhawk argument--it is certainly morally defensible to point out that someone vociferously advocating sending out troops into battle, and calling people who are against such a policy cowards who don't "get it" (the debate surrounding the Iraq war was hardly a rational policy debate), at one time avoided going to war himself or won't actually enlist to fight in the current war. Supporters of the Iraq war shamelessly tried to silence critics by using tough guy, jingoistic arguments, which deserve to be called out as BS (which doesn't mean they couldn't be right that invading Iraq, or bombin Iran or whatever is the correct course, but the emotional argument-style needs to be smacked down as being the BS that it is).
And, to be fair, advocates of "global waming will wipe us out" often use the same type of emotional arguments against skeptics--ie, you are a bad person who believes crazy things if you are skeptical of any aspect of how to deal with global warming (the treatment of Bjorn Lomborg by mainstream environmentalists is a case in point).
Not at all analogous
In supporting the war, I am supporting sending into battle soldiers who voluntarily signed up for the duty. That decision has primarily a fiscal impact on most Americans, and even that very indirectly through taxes and a higher government budget deficit.
Gore, in calling for carbon taxes and other mandated control measures is calling for policies which will have a direct and personal affect on my life. Not only will it make my life more expensive, it may actually prohibit me from doing things I would otherwise choose to do.
A better analogy would be if I supported both the war and the draft, while taking steps myself to insure that neither I nor my offspring could be drafted. Then I would be calling on you and yours to be forcibly subjected to an intrusive government regulation that I was exempting myself from.
But simply supporting the war while not volunteering is not in any way hypocritical.
just to be clear (not that
just to be clear (not that it's important), but the Chickenhawk meme/argument isn't an argument against people who support the war, but against people who argue for the war from a base, emotional level--ie, that people who do not support military action are not tough and do not get that we are in a clash of civilizations or whatever. Unfortunately, these types of arguments dominated the debate leading up to the Iraq war.
If global warming policy becomes based on the "if you don't support global warming policy x, you are a bad person who is irrational and hates the environment" argument, the hypocrisy of those making the arguments is relevant because it helps (or should) deflate the emotional effectiveness of the argument.
Maybe we should spend lots of money to curb carbon emissions, and maybe we should bomb Iran, but those decisions shouldn't be based on hysterical arguments.
[I know lots of antiwar people accuse any war supporter of being a "chickenhawk", and that is morally indefensible]
Still rotten apples and oranges
Even given your differing scenario, the chickenhawk meme isn't analagous.
Gore et al. ultimately want to force others to do what they themselves are unwilling to do, and they want to be able to use their position and riches to opt out of a burdensome system they will force on others.
Contrariwise, those who support military action (in whatever arena) are aguing over the use of a volunteer Army. No one coerced, intimidated, legislated, or compelled our military personnel into service. They freely joined, knowing they might be called to bear arms in combat. Further, America has long held that civilians should control the military.
If Gore wants to congratulate himself on his supposedly "carbon-neutral" lifestyle (which is non-scalably beyond the reach of ordinary citizens), I couldn't care less. But how does civilian control of the military compare to Gore's sanctimonious quest to force his junk-science-fueled, economy-destroying, misery-inducing hypocrisy on the rest of the world?
Nope
However, if one substitutes the beleaguered Mr. Cheney with a hypothetical 27 year old healthy WH staffer (i.e., someone who could remedy his 'situation'), would that alter your last argument?
Nope, it wouldn't. And you're still trying to drag me into a CPDTM comparison. I will list a reason your hypothetical is not comparable either, though.
Gore as a free agent and private citizen is advocating mandatory governmental impositions on the free behavior and free economic actions of all American citizens--a position requiring serious compulsion and (IMHO) the abrogation of the rights of all said citizens.
Your hypothetical staffer (whom at this point we have no idea what the "accusation" against them is) is acting both as an employee representing his employer (as compared to being a free agent) and is already under oath to both perform and advocate actions and policies with which s/he may not personally agree, but is duty-bound to so advocate and perform. Said hypothetical staffer's only real choice of action if they disagree with a policy of their employer is to leave that employment, or to continue it. They're already subject to the same service oath as military officers and are already "under orders" from the Commander-in-Chief. Their freedom of action has already (voluntarily, by themselves) been constrained. They are already in service to the nation.
If we had a draft, the arguments might be different. But we don't.
just to be clear (not that
just to be clear (not that it's important), but the Chickenhawk meme/argument isn't an argument against people who support the war, but against people who argue for the war from a base, emotional level--ie, that people who do not support military action are not tough and do not get that we are in a clash of civilizations or whatever. Unfortunately, these types of arguments dominated the debate leading up to the Iraq war.
If global warming policy becomes based on the "if you don't support global warming policy x, you are a bad person who is irrational and hates the environment" argument, the hypocrisy of those making the arguments is relevant because it helps (or should) deflate the emotional effectiveness of the argument.
Maybe we should spend lots of money to curb carbon emissions, and maybe we should bomb Iran, but those decisions shouldn't be based on hysterical arguments.
[I know lots of antiwar people accuse any war supporter of being a "chickenhawk", and that is morally indefensible]
I think "chickenhawk" is something else
... namely, an attack on those who support military action (most recently, in Iraq) but have not served themselves. They are hawks (for action) but really chickens (having not served in combat themselves) -- thus, chickenhawks.
That seems to be the common usage of the term.
It doesn't have to do with emotional (versus factual) appeals to a particular course of action, but is a charge of hypocrisy and cowardice.
And most of the arguments around Solution X to address global warming in fact have already been weighted down with moral language. People who oppose Gore's proposed solutions aren't just wrong, but bad. People who drive SUVs are greedy, rapacious, and selfish, doncha know?
chickengreens
Now that we've sufficiently beaten up the topic of Chickenhawkery, I wanted to offer a humorous tidbit. Tigerhawk's blog has now coined the term Chickengreens to identify supporters of Gore's hypocrisy. We're moving dangerously close to Collardgreens, but I disgress.
And you're right, PastorJeff- that's my understanding too.
I always thought that
I always thought that chickengreens were a side order....
That was my thought too,
That was my thought too, Tully, but I'm reluctant to comment on the niceties of Southern cuisine. Clearly, this is Pat's exclusive province.
I'm a carnivore...
I avoid all types of greens at every opportunity...
I'm a happy omnivore. A side
I'm a happy omnivore. A side of turnip greens or spinach cooked with onion and bacon bits, maybe garnished with a little chopped hard-boiled egg...mmmm. But collards are kinda bitter for my tastes. They don't smell very good either.
(Yeah, we lived on the Gulf Coast when I was a kid. I can pick all the meat out of a blue crab in pretty short order, make shrimp stock and gumbo from real shrimp, and shuck oysters too.)
Was that before or after...
Tully, was that before or after you had to walk to school in the snow, uphill both ways?
I have a good friend who was born "down the bayou" in rural south Louisiana. Once or twice a week they would have mystery-meat spaghetti, where the meat was whatever swamp rat or other creature her dad managed to shoot the weekend before... Mmmm, nutria!
"Through blizzards in summer
"Through blizzards in summer and winter..." Naw, that came later. No hills down there on the bayou. No snow either.
Hey, what's wrong with nutria? It's at least as tasty as Guinea Pig! And there's more meat on a nutria. Swamp rat? Sorry, man, rat tastes like squirrel, and I don't care for squirrel. Anyway, squirrels are just rats with fuzzy tails and better PR agents.
how many times...
....do I have to tell you to try swiss chard? :-)
I'm as carnivorous as they come, but I really like greens...beet greens, turnip greens, spinach, chard.
I do like collards too, but you have to cook them for a very very long time, (they're more like a ....what? ...a brassica maybe?).. similar to a cabbage or brussels sprout/broccoli stem. If you cook them in corned beef broth for 3 hours, they're delicious, and lose that bitter edge.
Three hours?
That would fall under the heading of "a LOT more trouble than they're worth." I mean, I can make some otherwise inedible things edible (possum comes to mind) but unless I'm flat broke and otherwise starving, WHY? Yeah, collards are loaded with nutrients, but so are One-a-Day vitamin pills.
I can steam up a batch of fresh cut spinach and/or turnip greens in about ten or fifteen minutes, and that's dawdling. Plus I get turnips, too. Already getting set for the chard.
joking
Hah! I don't think it has to be quite 3 hours. I was laying it on a little thick. The point is that if you slow cook em with a meat that needs the same kind of treatment (corned beef or a pork shoulder, say), they come out very good. The other point is that while all the things we've mentioned are called greens, collards really have a diffferent character than the others. Some greens will wilt if you look at 'em the wrong way, but you could probably weave a seatback with collards. :-)
The other alternative for something like collards is to use a pressure cooker, which is an awfully handy device. It works great if you want to make a nice chili from some cheap cuts of whole meats instead of ground meat. (Personally I find a chili made from chuck much better than one made with burger or ground pork). With a PC, you get super tenderized meat and great concentrated stock without simmering all day long.
A pressure cooker does even the toughest meats up tender at about 15 minutes per pound. It does vegetables much faster than that, and they tend to retain more nutrients if the taste is any judge. It's definitely more of a specialty device than a mainstay, but it was a great wedding gift for us, and when it's the perfect tool to apply, well, there ya go.
Nothing like finding a perfect tool. if you grow greens, I'm gonna guess that you are already hip to this perfect garden tool.
Need a better term than
Need a better term than Chickengreen, as it kind of makes no sense. I'm trying to think of something funny and clever, but because I'm often neither funny nor clever, I'm drawing a blank.
Chickenhawkery and
Chickenhawkery and Chickengreenery are similar in this broad sense- they level charges of hypocrisy against those who ask others to make sacrifices that they were/are unwilling to make themselves.
The new term
Environmentalists who propose solutions which will benefit themselves and directly harm others are ... Soylent Greens. Or Soygreens, for short.
Soygreens... We have a winner!
Well done, Pastor Jeff. I love Soygreens.
After all, if the environmentalists would only drop dead and let us eat them, that would save a whole lot of CO2 emissions...
Thanks, Pat
Here are the keys, as I see them. A Soygreen wants to enforce environmental policies which:
1) The Soygreen doesn't follow himself;
2) Harm others and benefit the Soygreen; and
3) Should be pursued and enforced with blind, self-righteous religious zealotry.
#3 is really optional, but it makes Soygreenery more fun for everyone.
Despite all the rhetoric
Despite all the rhetoric there's only one reason for carbon credits: getting people to donate money to create power plants that will be profitable once the whole country has carbon caps. If people were really concerned about reducing their own carbon output, they'd install solar/wind/geothermic power on their own property.