Tina Fey opened Saturday Night Live last night. It would have been much funnier if they'd left that awful vice presidential candidate out of the sketch altogether.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A common refrain among members of the left in the United States in the last two presidential elections has been that if the right wins then they would "move to Canada." This was, of course, recently one-upped by Tina Fey who quipped that if McCain-Palin won this year, she would "leave the Earth…
I'm still buried working on next week's talk and my part of the center grant. Fortunately, Saturday Night Live provides some temporary entertainment until I can get out from under the pile. Once again Tina Fey nails it, especially the "maverick" part. While watching the debate last week, by the end…
My apologies, dear readers, for having little time to write proper natural products content.
I just got home and was watching Olbermann with the Family Pharmboy where clips from Tina Fey's faux Katie Couric interview were mashed up with Sarah Palin's actual one. (See Orac for the SNL clips).…
At least when it comes to politics, Saturday Night Live has been pretty funny so far this season:
The resemblance is uncanny. I have to admit, also, that SNL did a pretty good job parodying the first Presidential debate, too, given that the writers and comics had only a little more than 24 hours…
OT: My best friend had a heart attack yesterday. From the comments I have read on this site, I should tell his mother (regardless of her feelings) I don't believe in god. Why? How do I grieve with her and assuage her grief without multiplying her grief with my disbelief?
They could have used a cardboard cutout of her, with no noticeable difference.
@ #1
Why do you need to bring up anything about yourself? Isn't it enough just to tell her that you miss your friend and are sorry for her loss? The last thing anyone would be concerned about is you...
I love that Religulous is promo'd on the player.
Is it telling that an SNL skit is the closest the governor's gotten to a press conference since she was named as McCain's running mate?
Hold me, mommy. I'm scared.
Anyone seen that film Dave? Any chance we could put Palin in deep freeze and swap in Fey for her?
IA@#1
I presume by your name and post that you trolling with an appeal to emotion. There is nothing for you here except a thorough intellectual trouncing at the hands of the people on this blog (not me btw, I'm a mental midget in comparison)
Maybe your friend really did have a heart attack and you are grief stricken. Using that as a means to confront free thinkers is a bit cheap.
Being the pop culture reject that I am, I did not realize the first woman in the sketch was someone else.
Fail.
Uncanny. Absolutely uncanny.
You could start by not being a lying douchebag, Ignorant Christian.
Since when do we need to believe in god to feel compassion or hold the hand of someone suffering?
You're right. You are ignorant.
Other than that, and I really hate to say this, the best part of that skit was Mark Walberg dropping in.
She's a good an actor as Raygun
@11 -
I agree ... Mark was funny ... Palin put me to sleep.
I thought it would have been funnier if Baldwin had stuck to his comments about how awful Palin was even after he "found out" who she really was. As it was, it felt an awful lot like apologetic pandering. Looking at them pretending to run scared when the real Palin showed up kind of takes all the bite out of the satire. If you're going to talk shit you should at least mean it enough to stick to it. Maybe SNL is too worried about alienating their republican viewers. Pussies.
Well, NOW I'm gonna vote for her! She's adorable.
...why the fuck did they feel the need to get that creationist bitch on the fucking show? the sketches without her were funnier. It's like Palin's trying to get people to forget her interview with Katie Couric where SNL spoofed it by using the SAME FUCKING WORDS.
Palin, go die in a fire. If you become vice-president, I will weep for the intelligent people who are forced to be ruled by you and McCain. It would be telling the world that intelligent voters are in the minority in the USA.
"My favorite Baldwin brother is Stephen."
Of course he is... Of course he is.
I'm guessing Palin did this to make us believe she's a good sport. In the end, I didn't believe it. The sketch was too contrived, Palin was stiff, and everybody around her seemed uncomfortable. I've seen more sincerity on pro wrestling.
Just on a side note, it was weird how obviously Baldwin was having to read the Teleprompter.
A promo for Oliver Stone's "W" played after the sketch for me. It looks quite amusing too.
Remember Hillary Clinton's appearance on SNL? It was actually funny.
Was there a llama in the background?
I thought the "pretending to run scared when the real Palin showed up" was pretty funny, actually.
I personally liked Palin's performance on the show. It's unsurprising that of all the major media appearances that she could have in which she would not humiliate herself, it would have to be a comedy show.
Unlike Palin, Colin Powell doesn't seem to believe that Obama is an "anti-american" who pals with terrorists.
My guess is that his endorsement of Obama is going to convince a lot of undecided voters.
I'm not voting for Palin because she's an anti-science anti-environment creationist wacko, and like our current creationist retard president, she's not qualified to be in government, but I sure enjoyed watching her and Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live.
OT: I agree #1 is a lying Christian and I would add that he or she is probably a stupid asshole.
I hate Palin, of course, but I thought the skit was sort of funny.
I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. Far from it. The very thought of her becoming president is very frightening. But I thought this sketch was funny. Not in a "roflmao" way but in a surreal "life meets fiction" kind of way. Yes, Baldwin was kind of inept, Palin's acting was stiff, but kudos to SNL for actually coming up with something interesting.
I lulzd at the SNL skits!! I thought they were great. Smart move by the McCain camp, too. After worrying ourselves sick about jobs, homes and investments and our future for 3 or 4 straight weeks, and then the McCain camp's nuclear winter approach to politics, to see these guys make fun of themselves is a good thing.
It was good in the way that it would have been really nice for Nixon to just come out and admit he was a crook.
What it says is, "Yeah, we are vapid and vacuous and you can probably stick a fork in us. So let's just have some giggles."
If I were to say "Obama, go die in a fire", well we know what would be said. But some "pig rider"' say spew any amount of "hate" with out one word of admonishment from the "good people" here.
Typical Democrat Behavior.
Cry me a river pig.
Personally, the best part was the Religulous ad that followed. Good timing, NBC!
re:#21 LOL yes it was a llama - I was trying to figure out if it was a donkey with it's ass pointed in her direction and whether it was a deliberately set up prop on their part?
Let's hope that after this election she's had her 15 minutes of fame. Every time she winks she's saying "i give good blow jobs". She's an affront to every woman who has succeeded on her own merits and intelligence.
Would've been better if they had used my punchline: Lorne Michaels invites Palin to substitute for Tina Fey full-time. Palin says no because she knows her limitations and she would never accept a job she wasn't qualified for. Rimshot!
@ Eric Atkinson (#29)
FWIW, I'm going to vote for Obama, and I'm appalled by McCain's choice of Palin, but I also thought Ride The Pig's comments were childish and pointless. There are people on every side capable of spewing venom, and there are people on every side who wish they wouldn't.
P.S. I thought it was funny.
Here is a poll that requires our attention
http://www.pbs.org/cgi-registry/poll/poll.pl
PZ please
Posted by: negentropyeater | (#24)
Check out Colin Powell at :43 He slams Michelle Bachman---albeit without mentioning her by name, but you know who he's talking about.
@Eric Atkinson: WTF are you talking about?
You didn't even make any sense!
AND..... SNL has made fun of Obama too.... but he does less stupid shit than the Mc-Palin camp....
So, get over it!
I give her credit for going on to a show where she knows she's going to be made fun of. Acknowledging the "Caribou Barbie" thing, I've seen her poke fun of the Sara Palin drinking game.
Sara Palin has much more class than you self righteous intellectuals give her credit for.
It is hard to believe anyone could possibly be so damned stoopid that they need help figuring out what to say to a grieving mother that has just lost a child.
#1, you are #1, the top of the stoopid list for the day.
#2 being Eric Atkinson. Go take some drugs Eric. You need more than you have currently injested.
I thought it was awesome having her there. Imagining all the right wingers being forced to watch SNL because it's the only way to see their VP candidate on TV is priceless. Plus the Palin Rap was so well performed it'll be a classic moment.
My opinion on Baldwin is that he did a poor reading off the cue cards on purpose as a subtle jab at Palin's scripted interviews and debates.
There are people on every side capable of spewing venom, and there are people on every side who wish they wouldn't.
Yeah, "Ride the Pig." Ya gotta love the liberal rape theme that keeps popping up in reference to Palin.
#16 doesn't want creationist retards in our government. What's wrong with that? Let's not suppress freedom of speech here by telling people how they should or should not express their views.
doesn't want creationist retards in our government. What's wrong with that?
Read what you just said. That's what's wrong with it.
No Eric Atkinson at #29, you'd be greeted with some shocked derision after some heroic efforts at ignoring you for being a classless, clueless troll, and like the asshat at #16, should be surprised if you don't get a visit from the Secret Service, which takes such stupid remarks very seriously.
Joel in #44, I'm not sure what you meant. Are you saying creationists are not retarded? Are you saying retards should be respected? I'm just wondering what your problem is. Thanks.
Matt, If you ment cowards, please say cowards.
Thank you.
I thought her two skits were great!
The first was funny because of Walberg ('You were in the Goonies, right? I produce Entourage! Say hi to your mother for me.'). The second one (the rap) was funny because SNL was making fun of Palin to her face and she didnt get it! WTF!
BobC @46, I'm sorry you're unable to comprehend.
"Ya gotta love the liberal rape theme that keeps popping up in reference to Palin."
Huh. I think ridethepigs comments were pointless and juvenile (look, his/her tag is "ridethepig", what do you expect?) but after reading them over I don't see a rape reference. You must be thinking of some other blog.
#21 - yes that was a llama. It struck me as odd too.
In my fantasy fey-palin sketch they pull a switch-a-roo, nobody can tell which is which, and so fey ends up taking palin's place in real life.
PROTIP: When you make an apology, you need to apologize for something that is your fault, instead of using your apology to blame someone else!
WRONG: I'm sorry you're unable to comprehend.
RIGHT: I'm sorry I didn't state myself clearly.
Just another Internet protip for our visitors!!
Now here was a funny show full of humor--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY&feature=related
And Eric-- Don't expect any childish group of folks to grow up and behave "fairly" or with decency. Especially a group who wants someone else to take care of them, and life to be fair all the time...
re: #21 I kept thinking the same thing. Must have been for the next skit up.
@ Mandrake What do you suppose ride the pig means?
@ 49
I'm just sorry your are so full of yourself.
Personally I thought "Ride the Pig" was a reference to a cartoon show and had nothing to do with rape or Gov. Palin.
#39: Do classy people have a monopoly on self-deprecating humor? Normal people do it all the time. They don't need supreme amounts of class in order to do so.
Never heard of the cartoon show. Given the tone of the post, I figured it's a reference to the putting lipstick on a pig thing.
That was actually pretty good! I get the impression that Sarah Palin was on the show more because her handlers thought it would be good for her credibility rather than because she wanted to be there, but good for her for agreeing to it.
Tina Fey impersonates her unbelievably well, doesn't she.
Do you think they had that TV in the lobby muted? That would be funny.
Do you think they had that TV in the lobby muted? That would be funny.
I think "Ride the Pig" is a verbal Rorschach test. That said, I don't want to delve further into Joel's mind.
Last time the water supply was tested over in Scott's end of my state all was well, so folks it must be something in the air that has driven him mad. Or perhaps he was bitten by an Alaskan mosquito, I've heard they are the size of a musk ox and riddled with disease.
"Ride the Pig" is a reference to the cartoon show Invader Zim. It is no more sexist than Powdered Toast Man (of Ren and Stimpy fame) saying to the Pope (voiced by Frank Zappa), "Cling tenaciously to my buttocks!"
"Lipstick on a Pig" is not, as was claimed, a sexist put-down of Sarah Palin, but an apt reductio of MKKKane's desperate effort to hang on to the core wingnuttia that defines the base of the GOP that makes for a succinct visual.
All seems to be lost for American conservatism. I will be very surprised if McCain makes a comeback now. He seems to have shot himself in the foot spectacularly by choosing Palin.
Ah well. After four years of Obama backed by a Democrat Congress - that is, four years of tax-and-spend policies, more failed government programs and more bureaucratic red tape - I am confident that the American people will realise their mistake. I can only hope that in 2012 the GOP puts up a better candidate than Palin.
I think I do understand what you meant in #44, but I asked you to explain further. Thanks to your non-answer, now I am almost certain you think creationist retards should be respected. You want to suck up to religious insanity. That's fine with me, even though that makes you just as bad, if not worse than, the creationist assholes who would destroy our country if they had their way.
Walton (#66) mused,
As long as the taxing is reasonable and the spending goes to useful programs to help all citizens, there is no problem.
The only waste of a government is if it elects to only help a small portion of its populace or none of its populace at all, as in Bush's policies.
Grow up, Walton, we're trying to help dig you out of the pigsty you want to wallow in.
If the vote were held today, same-sex marriage would be banned in California, and families of gay people will be the ones hurt.
Every dollar donated to the NO ON 8 campaign before midnight tonight will be matched by Steve Bing.
Give $10, and it'll mean $20 to buy ads in support of keeping California families together.
Each ad buy costs approximately $500. Pharyngula readers together could buy at least one ad. We could reach thousands of voters.
Colin Powell knows better:
Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley, and now Colin Powell? Looks like Barack Obama is the future of American conservatism.
Walton makes it just a little less embarrassing to live in Dumbfuckistan, his ideas prove other countries have fools too.
Why aren't you out trying to get drunk or laid Walton?
Youth is wasted on the young. *snort*
@BobC, Their intolerance or your intolerance, it's all the same to me.
Seriously? That's the real Sarah Palin? Last time we saw our "heroine", she only watched SNL with the volume turned down. What gives? Is the GOP really that desperate?
Marky Mark was hilarious though. Does anyone actually believe he can "bust someones head open"?
I think anyone who "sincerely believes" in special creation--that "god" created humans apart from the rest of life--or, for that matter, worships a "god" which attends "personally" to the outcome of CERTAIN sporting contests, televised talent shows, and/or political elections should be banned from holding public office on the prima facie grounds of demonstrable and untreatable insanity.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican
@Support California families #69. Thanks, I'll be contributing.
All seems to be lost for American conservatism.
American conservatism is eating its young. See Chris Buckley.
...four years of tax-and-spend policies would be a refreshing change after eight years of reckless deficit-spending.
I can only hope that in 2012 the GOP puts up a better candidate than Palin.
And who would that be in your estimation, Walton, Michelle Bachman?
Joel said,
Sara Palin has much more class than you self righteous intellectuals give her credit for.
Palin has shown in her speeches that she actually has no class at all. She'll do anything to achieve power and that includes sucking whatever cock she needs to. Right now she's a mouthpiece spewing ignorant rhetoric. If she had any class she would never do that.
PZ, was that Religulous promo timed on purpose, or just good Godly coincidence?
Joel,
Yes, Ride The Pig clearly wishes to rape the GOP's economic policies. Palin called herself a pitbull, and no-one called Palin a pig. Moron.
QEDpro, if that is the same of you in #78 as in #32, you on the one hand write about women who have succeeded on their own intelligence and merits. Then you drag in cocksucking.
The whole point of the Palin candidacy was to unite Republicrats of all screeds under the banner of sexism. I really don't see what cocksucking, or rape, or the breeding of dogs (bitch references), etc. has to do with a political discussion.
Yet you boys and girls can't seem to argue about politics without having your limbic system shoved into overdrive, just as Sarah Palin's candidacy was designed to do. It makes you stupid, and you sound stupid, and I wish you'd all go away and leave Pharyngula to more evolved voices.
Or maybe this just shows how poorly evolved even self-styled evolutionists are?
As for gender bashing, in Seattle we are seeing the same thing happen in our gubernatorial race. An accomplished elder female politician is being denigrated for her age and appearance by the hyper well funded GOP criminal real-estate-industry scammer running against her. The demographic of people who hate women of experience are being rallied en masse.
What I can't believe is that anyone actually wastes their time on television anymore. It's all situationist spectacle designed to keep people reactive and stupid.
Sarah Palin is a disgrace and humiliation to all women-- everywhere. How can we, as women, expect to be taken seriously when the likes of her are chosen as representative? It makes me want to barf.
I hadn't seen that ad for the Oliver Stone movie "W" before. The choice of backing track is inspired (Once in a Lifetime, Talking Heads).
Despite my enormous distaste for Palin, I thought the skit was funny, even the parts with her in it. I thought it was funny that she said Caribou Barbie. She has thick skin, good for her. She also has a thick skull, which is why I don't like her.
SNL needed to have her on now, or not at all. There would be no point in having her on after losing the election. There would be nothing humorous if she were to win.
'Liberal Rape Theme'? I don't think I'm 'juvenile' or supportive of this 'Liberal Rape Theme' you speak of because I'm a fan of one of Jhonen Vasquez's works. Oh well, at least #57 got it.
ming,
If Palin wanted to be taken seriously and wanted to be judged on her abilities then she wouldn't be winking at every man she meets. Its disgusting and she's a whore for doing so. She brought this on herself. You can't use your sex and then cry when you're being bashed for being a whore. The men that support her only do so cause they are jerking off to her and the woman that support her only do so cause they're just like her.
Anne Ozment, you have it exactly backwards. Women like Sarah Palin are chosen precisely because women are expected NOT to expect to be taken seriously. You should expect to be taken seriously because you are (I presume) a serious human being. Not because you have a clit. Or don't.
Fuck gender. It's about time we grew beyond all this bipolar nonsense, including bipolar gender in which someone must always be on the top, and "the opposite" must be on the bottom. This axiological thinking is mapped to everything--class, race, sports team preference, age, religion, nation....
Axiological thinking is the problem. Gender is a problem--I certainly agree, and I think it's the biggest sickness of the human mind, reducing everyone categorically to the occasional functioning of their reproductive organs (which many of us choose NEVER to deploy).
The bigger problem is the quick, irrational retreat into Them versus Us, A versus B. I see this on Pharyngula all the time, and I feel frustration with it because for me, evolutionary biology has always been one of the temples of growing past all that chimp-brained nonsense. I realize that much of what is so loftily called "human culture" is the reification of these polarities, and their mapping onto everything.
But I tell my nieces that they must demand to be taken seriously as free human beings, not as women per se, and I tell my nephews the same thing. It's time we queered the fuck out of liberty. No gods, no masters, no gender--it's time we grow a culture of rationality rather than the idiotic concatenation of fear, anger, stupidity, posturing, and sex-organ-waving of the past 6,000 years. As far as I'm concerned my gender is none of your fucking business. Especially since I'm so queer I don't even know what species I am.
@RideThePig, it appears I misunderstood your nickname, I apologize.
Ha. I was right, you do want to suck up to religious insanity.
You think my disdain for creationists, who want to destroy America's science education, and who are constantly trying to slow down human progress, is a bad thing. According to you, I'm not showing enough for respect for assholes who belong in prison for treason.
I bet if I said I don't respect terrorists you would call me intolerant. Let's respect all the stupid assholes of the world, right? That's what you want, right?
I just had another thought. Are you, Joel, a creationist? You sure do sound like one. Most certainly you are no better than the creationist retards.
Why aren't you out trying to get drunk or laid Walton?
The only reply I can muster is "none of your damn business".
Thank you, Colin Powell.
This "Obama admits he's a socialist!" stuff would be hilarious if wasn't so infuriatingly stupid. Reagan redistributed my wealth. So did Bush I & II. Unless I missed it and McCain is now calling for the elimination of the Federal income tax, he's a "socialist" too.
Now that's funnier than anything SNL did last night.
@Joel
You apologizing for being a moron makes you no less of a moron. I'd be willing to bet money that if you stood out in the rain facing the sky long enough that you would end up drowning. Any takers?
@RideThePig
...why the fuck did they feel the need to get that creationist bitch on the fucking show? the sketches without her were funnier. It's like Palin's trying to get people to forget her interview with Katie Couric where SNL spoofed it by using the SAME FUCKING WORDS.
Palin, go die in a fire. If you become vice-president, I will weep for the intelligent people who are forced to be ruled by you and McCain. It would be telling the world that intelligent voters are in the minority in the USA.
If this is what passes for intelligence, I'll happily go through life as a moron.
RideThePig, I'm going to have to take issue with this:
This is eliminationism, and it is crossing a line.
Attacking ideas and policies: good.
Attacking people who hold ideas and advocate policies: bad.
RideThePig, the real problem with you is you expressing your desire the Palin die in a fire. With many people decrying the shouts of "Kill Him!" at McCain/Palin rallies, we have fools like you committing the same type of asshole moves.
As for your moniker, I do not give a flying shit about it. I do not even know what Invader Zim is. But you just gave the fool Erik Atkinson a little nugget so that he may play the "Liberals Are Mean To McCain Game".
Congratulations.
So, Walton,
What, pray tell, is so great about the Republan love for "spend-and-spend politics"? The money has to come from somewhere, don't they?
Or do you suggest that we build roads and bridges through great public volunteer outings where peasants and intellectuals come together to carry bricks?
As was said, better tax the people to help the people, than tax the poor to feed the rich. Presumably you insist on paying your GP personally and refuse to use the NHS, right? And you don't drive on public roads or public transport, right? Nor would you dream of visiting a museum or watching the Beeb, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY&feature=related
Obama conservative? Oh my!
One more time for the thinking impaired. Neither party is willing to give up on the notion that a central, dictatorial government with a massive army is good for the world. Both parties just gave away over two trillion of your tax dollars that you claim are for "sevices". (I am thinking massage and spa services...)States could easily collect taxes and build roads without the Federal government siphoning off most of your money and sending it overseas to fight wars and attempt to make things safe for corporations and banksters.
I am surprised there are so many sheep masticating here, a "rationalists" website.
It saddens me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY&feature=related
Walton, I'm a busybody. I mind the business of a lot of folks. So what's up Walton? Afraid of a little sin?
#95:
Call me juvenile all you want for using expletives or whatnot, but hatred of her does not end at simply "I do not like Sarah Palin". In the same way George Orwell showed in 'Nineteen Eighty-four' how reducing the number of words to express sentiments in a language reduces the ways people can express themselves, I refuse to play the politically correct game just to avoid offending people.
Indeed, expletives are sometimes used today as punctuation, which dilutes the effect they have, and should only be used to express the most vile, deepest dislikes. The expression 'go die in a fire' similarly expresses my total disdain for Palin such to the point that were she to kill herself, I would feel zero sympathy. Her children, yes, who should not have had to be born to such parents. Let me make clear that I am ***in no way am I advocating murder, or arson, because killing people for thinking differently amounts to nothing less than suppression of freedom of speech***, but when the expression 'go kill yourself' is used, it demonstrates a bitter hatred such that the person's death would not bother the person using the expression in the slightest. Actually committing murder because I disagree with her would be as baseless as religious fundamentalists, and I am certainly not going to stoop to their levels.
Where did her folksy accent go? Okay, she was faking that too.
Florida has Amendment 2 which would ban gay (and some other) marriages... I'll be voting against, but there's little chance of defeating it. Florida is a cultural shithole.
Who's behind the recent poll shifts toward banning gay marriage in California?
The Mormon church of Latter Day Saints, in Utah.
If they win, they'll just be that much more sure that God is on their side.
http://www.noonprop8.com/challenge
It seems like Baldwin purposefully messed up his presentation to make the jokes less funny. I think he did it in order to make the skit with Palin appear less funny overall to the audience, thereby ruining any attempt Palin was seeking at getting back at Tina Fey and appearing unflappable.
Go Baldwin! :P
RideThePig
First off, I did not call you juvenile. Secondly, I have no problem with anyone saying that they fucking despise anyone.
But I have a problem with this: The expression 'go die in a fire' similarly expresses my total disdain for Palin such to the point that were she to kill herself, I would feel zero sympathy. Her children, yes, who should not have had to be born to such parents. Let me make clear that I am ***in no way am I advocating murder, or arson, because killing people for thinking differently amounts to nothing less than suppression of freedom of speech***, but when the expression 'go kill yourself' is used, it demonstrates a bitter hatred such that the person's death would not bother the person using the expression in the slightest. Saying that you fucking hate someone is going to offend people. I am so sorry that I am stepping all over your freedom of expression.
Call me a literalist but saying that a person "should die in a fire" sounds like a call to action. I apologize that I am not perceptive enough to get all of the nuance of meaning from that phrase.
Wow, some people need to chill. I wasn't aware that people who study and support evolution were so prone to ranting and raving. I always thought that stuff came from right-wingers. As far as I'm concerned people, Sarah Palin included, not only can believe what they want but they have every right to their beliefs. I am against the insertion of creation in science classes, not because I'm atheist but because it's not science. Nor do I think we should let creationists equate the support of scientific studies in evolution with belief in anything.
Don't assist the extreme right wing in destroying democratic principles. Don't get angry just become more effective in explaining yourself.
scott, without an "interstate" system, the patchwork of roads would make interstate travel more difficult (good example is the patchwork of roads in Europe: you can have a German highway suddenly turn into a Polish country road or an Austrian toll-road. It's fucking confusing and hard to navigate sometimes). local roads are a different matter, of course. and Alaska and Hawaii would be another matter too, since they don't have real "interstate" roads.
Also, as far as bailouts go... it seems the Americans are doing it wrong, once again. nevermind for a moment the stupendous amount of money we're throwing at this problem... we're also not fixing it. Germany has a bailout the same size (so relatively almost 2.5 times as large. ouch.) but the conditions attached to it are so strict that a lot of companies might pass on it just to not have to comply (for example, executive pay has to be capped-out at 0.5M.). already, one of the biggest banks announced it's not taking any money (Deutsche Bank).
Whereas in the U.S., there will be no consequences to taking the money, so who's gonna say no? and what exactly is going to change? (no one and nothing, of course)
though the hilarious part is that the DB boss just said he and the entire executive branch are going to skip taking bonuses until the crisis is over, and all other banks are pissed at him, because either they decide to do that too, and are seen as copycats, or they decide against, and are seen as utter pigs :-p
People let's not fight and argue about who killed whom, this is supposed to be a happy occasion. Instead, go watch this.
Classy Palin supporters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPg0VCg4AEQ
#104
Please stop whining about the phrase 'die in a fire'. It's a common expression. Does the Consumerist look worried? Is Sprint suddenly on high alert for deaths threats or something? I think not.
Die in a fire is just something people say on the internet. It's not lieteral.
I think she did a great job, and maybe she did it to show us she's a good sport - good for her. It's not entirely her fault that she's seen as an ignorant buffoon - she's in way over her head. She should've thought it over and turned it down politely. But then we wouldn't have had such wonderful entertainment over the last few weeks!
I actually like her as a person. The fundies we're used to are far worse than her.
RideThePig. I am not whining. Also, it is a common phrase? So?
I still place it in the same category as "Kill Him!". Just so you know, I am done with you Pig.
I didn't know die in a fire was a common saying either. But it rates about on par with go jump off a cliff. On one of the newer Red State Update satire video's the young guy has taken to saying 'rip your dick off your nuts' as meaning a good thing. I about choked to death on ginger ale when I heard that one the first time.
At least now she has a back up plan if politics don't work out for her (heh).
"What..? The real one..? Byyyye."
Freakin' funny.
Is this one of those "sane conservatives" I keep hearing about?
Ignorant @1: I'm getting a powerful sense of deja vu from this comment. Haven't you posted this exact comment before?
"What? The real one? By-eee!"
That's what this Sarah is gonna be saying if that Sarah ever becomes VP or, FSM forbid, President. Unlike Tina, I won't be leaving Earth quite yet, but I will consider leaving the country.
I thought Palin held here own, she was stiff in the Update bit, but better than most politicians trying to do skits.
She was great in the seat dancing during the Palin Rap, and the 'you betcha' was perfect, and she nailed the shit out of the Jane Curtain impression to clinch.
Here is a great 'Easter Egg' web page of Palin in the oval office, don't miss the science mag in the trash can.
It is updated daily, so bookmark if you're a big Palin fan like me.
http://www.palinaspresident.us/
--------------------------------------------
Jeff Tamblyn 'Kansas vs Darwin' on Texas radio
Am i thee onely won hoo haz speller cheking on hiz camputer? Jeez Looeeze guys!
#117 NelC
Me too. Obviously just a very weak one trick troll.
second time i've seen a Tina Fey skit on Palin, and it simply gives me the impression (as someone outside the US, without American tv) that SNL just seems awfully, direly unfunny. the humour is terrible.
The skit didn't sway me in any way, I'm still voting Obama (even though I fear he will try to take my guns away). But all in all, my personal opinion of Palin went up a bit. I was surprised that she would participate in a show that was so obviously bashing her. That showed quite a bit of tolerance and backbone I didn't think she had.
#1
Sorry for a responding to an old comment.
If it's a concern, just don't talk about religion. I've been an atheist all my life. When people I know die, I tell their friends and relatives honestly how I feel; "I'm really sorry for your loss, that's terrible, is there anything I can do? etc." It's just as easy to be compassionate and caring if you talk about religion or if you don't. Religion certainly has no monopoly on grief. It's obviously not neccessary to talk about your lack of belief while somebodies grieving, but neither is it neccessary to pretend that you have a belief that you don't. I find it rather unbelievable that you would need to ask this question, and it makes me think suspicious that you're not really an atheist, but a religious person with no moral problem with lying.
Hey, Walton, have you by chance read Paul Krugman's Oct. 16 editorial?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/17/opinion/edkrugman.php
But what the hell does he know, right?
Bart @ 123 : The skit didn't sway me in any way, I'm still voting Obama (even though I fear he will try to take my guns away).
I'm a second amendment supporter in a liberal mindset. I don't think we have much to fear from Obama, as he is smarter than the average politician.
All of the half-assed gun control measures that make it onto the books cost a great deal of political capital for backers, yet they are ineffective at reducing gun violence, I think he's smart enough to know that.
The assault weapons ban was bullshit, it just pissed us off, and when it expired, there was no run on 20 round clips.
You could still pick up a Bushmaster and go hunting humans in DC, it meant nothing.
i think he's aiming for some significant changes, not symbolic legislative tokens that would decrease coalition building potential.
NRA folks are blue collar, many of them union, and you need them if you are going to face down the entrenched neo-con oligarchy.
Which he may or may not do, we'll see.
Patricia @ 115 :
I didn't know die in a fire was a common saying either. But it rates about on par with go jump off a cliff.
It might be more painful, but far less frustrating than trying to go fuck yourself.
No matter how hard I try, I can't go fuck myself, however, attempting to go fuck yourself is an excellent cure for hiccups.
@ #1 - on the off-chance that you're genuine, and have received very short shrift hereabouts, here's an answer for you:
Lie. Tell her whatever she needs to ease her pain. You're under no obligation to truth here except a moral one - and in this case the moral choice is to lie. No celestial Scorer will mark it against your name.
CD
The best political impressions are those that capture something unseen and unspoken about the victim. The best example that springs to mind is the 'spitting image' take on Maggie Thatcher - which didn't sound or look anything like her but absolutely captured her to a tee.
I don't care that Tina Fey looks like Palin, or gets the voice close, thats really not the point. The question is do the jokes reveal something important (as Homer Simpson once said 'its funny cause' its true'). This weekends skit was simply boring. They probably had to tone it down for her to appear and couldn't use the sort of jokes that worked in the previous weeks (like using her exact words to the Katie Couric question as a joke or stating that she views marriage as 'a sacred union between two unwilling teenagers').
I've read that it was Tina Fey herself that suggested using Palins words in the sketch a few weeks back (not surprising that she would be the one that came up with the best joke of the whole thing when you look at the current standard of writing on that once great show).
Y'know, whenever I read posts by SfO, I remind myself that sometimes the lone voice raised in dissent isn't a rebel, a maverick, or someone with a new and better idea. Sometimes it's just an idiot.
In other news, PZ's advice fails.
I thought the rap was awesome. I would have loved some interaction between Tina and Sarah, though. I think Alec Baldwin was being absolutely true to his beliefs when ranting about Palin, but his acting muscles were strained to their max when he had to pretend to be hitting on her. He may have been trying to subtly sabotage the skit, I guess.
All in all, I hate Palin and everything she stands for, but kudos to her for showing up, and to SNL for inviting her.
"It would be telling the world that intelligent voters are in the minority in the USA."
If they don't grok that incontrovertible fact already, after the human scurf that has been elected to office already, they will never grok it.
Unfortunately (?), I think most of the world does grok this, and feels the requisite revulsion for us. Not that the people who would vote for a ticket with Palin on it care: "USA #1! Send all the Indians back to Africa!"
I thought Palin's appearance in the monologue was done really well, one of the better political cameos I've seen on SNL recently (way funnier than Obama and Clinton were). The bit during Weeeknd Update was kind of overdone (I'm not a huge fan of SNL's brand of musical satire), but still relatively humorous. And giving her both the "Live from New York..." line and letting her close Weekend Update was a nice touch.
I just don't understand why we all have to hate Sarah Palin so vehemently. Why not just accept that we disagree with her on most topics at a fundamental level, and make our statement by voting against her? This vitriol being spewed at her can't be helping to convert undecided voters, and might have the opposite effect on many. She actually seems fairly likeable as a person, and has plenty of charisma - political and religious views aside, she seems like a decent gal.
Jim @ #134
"She actually seems fairly likeable as a person, and has plenty of charisma - political and religious views aside, she seems like a decent gal."
For me, someone's political and religious views tell me a great deal about who they are as a person. Bottom line for me is that I find Republican positions on most issues immoral. If a person thinks it's okay for poor children to not have health care simply because of their parents' socio-economic situation, that person is immoral and not someone I want to have anything to do with. Ditto for a person who believes homosexuals don't deserve equal rights, or that it's okay if we (as humans) cause the extinction of other organisms. These issues say something about an individual's character and to me.
I don't think Palin is evil, but I don't think she's a great person either. Having never met her, I can't say whether I would find her likable or not. Look what she did when she went into labor with her youngest child.
Walton:
Like
- Rural electrification
- Federal highways
- the GI Bill
- Social Security (despite it's current problems, SSA did more to lift elderly Americans out of poverty than anything else)
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- FEMA (which worked well until the current administration)
- school lunch programs
- Works Progress Administration
- public educations (again, lots of problems, but the populace is more educated as a whole then they were before national public education)
- Superfund
I'm sure there are others I can't remember at the moment, not to mention state programs.
It's probably fair to call US military interventionism a "failed government program", although Walton may not admit this.
We can also call certain levees and bridges "failed" (as in "fell to pieces"), but that's mostly because the gov wasn't involved enough.
Also, lulz at Briton Walton writing "program", not "programme".
Walton, you ignorant slut![1] I swear to FSM, I dearly love your earnest seriousness, but sometimes you need to just lighten the fuck up! Patricia wasn't trying to poke around in your private life (yeah, I know she "confessed" to being a busybody... but that's just more humor); she was just urging you (in, I'm certain, a friendly way) to lighten up and enjoy your youth... to "gather ye rosebuds while ye may."
I'm convinced Churchill had it backwards when he talked about young men being liberal and older men being conservative[2]: I think young men, feeling bulletproof and very special, are more likely to be conservative, because conservatism is all about the individual; older men, having learned something about pain, and vulnerability, and empathy, and their inescapable connections to their fellow humans, grow increasingly more liberal. Or at least, that's the way it's happened with me. When I get depressed to see so many earnest, humorless young right wingers, I take solace in the hope that time and tide will humanize them.
And part of that process, it seems to me, is occasionally getting laid or getting drunk... or both at once. YMMV.
[1] Since the theme of this post is humorlessness, I'll footnote the joke. That line, in case you don't recognize it, is an old reference to an SNL skit. The SNL connection makes it relevant to this thread, and the word "slut" makes it relevant to a conversation involving Patricia, who is, after all, Pharyngula's resident (and self-proclaimed) slut... though decidedly not ignorant!
[2] Actually, according to WikiQuote, this is a misattribution, but you know what I'm talking about.
Patricia:
Ever since posting this, I've been tormented by fears that I was confusing you with one or more of our other regular commenters. If so, please understand that this was meant in the most admiring sense, and should in no way be taken as an attack. Sluts are magical!
Bill Dauphin at #138-9: Sorry I forgot to reply to this earlier.
I think young men, feeling bulletproof and very special, are more likely to be conservative, because conservatism is all about the individual; older men, having learned something about pain, and vulnerability, and empathy, and their inescapable connections to their fellow humans, grow increasingly more liberal. - That would be a watertight theory except for two things: (1) the majority of young people, particularly students, are somewhat inclined towards the left (though less so today than in the past); and (2) I think you partially miss the point of what conservatism is about.
It probably is true, on the whole, that young people are more ideological; having less experience of the world, we're naturally more likely to see it in black-and-white terms. I have been accused of that plenty of times in the past, and I would admit to having a tendency in that direction. Many people, both rightists and leftists, grow more moderate as they get older (like the countless British Labour politicians who were Trotskyites during their student days, and are now Blairite New Labour hacks).
To address the other point; I do recognise my connection to my fellow man (and woman), and I certainly don't consider myself "bulletproof", at least not consciously. I am very keenly aware that, like virtually all human beings, I've depended on numerous others throughout my life in order to get me to where I am today; my family, my friends and even (though I hate to admit it) the state (via the education system and my student loan). But while no man is an island, and social relationships are of vital importance, what I object to, fundamentally, is intrusive coercion by the state. Libertarian conservatives don't believe that people shouldn't organise or form groups, or that everyone should live on their own little homestead farm, provide for themselves and defend their land against all comers. Rather, we believe in the virtues of free and voluntary association between human beings; the family, corporations, trade relationships, voluntary groups, and all the other associations between persons that form the fabric of our society. We believe that, since the state's power rests ultimately on the threat of force, morality and a respect for the freedom of the individual requires that its scope be severely limited.
As to your other points: while, as a libertarian conservative, I fully support the right of people to engage in whatever private, consensual sexual behaviour they wish, that doesn't mean I have to consider it a good thing or an appropriate topic of discussion in a public forum.
(In any case, to be honest, I think humanity would be far better off without the strong sexual drive that is built into most of us and which pervades our existences, just as we would be better off without the strong human tendency towards dogmatic ideological extremism. The two are equally negative forces, and are the two leading reasons why people behave irrationally and act in ways detrimental both to their own rational self-interest and that of others. But this isn't really an appropriate topic for discussion here.)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/whoa_hitchens_endorses_obama…
How's this coming, Walton? I've been busy since then, so perhaps you posted your response and I missed it. If so, my apologies. Please point me to it and I'll take a look. Look forward to reading it.
Right on Bill!
I can tell why Walton isn't out getting drunk or laid. He's so damned up tight he's absolutely an insufferable young twerp.
Loosen up Walton! A life untwirled just isn't much fun.
A life untwirled just isn't much fun.
Love that.
I've had a hypothesis for some time that while a lot of Libertarians happen to get the right answer on the evolution-creationism dichotomy, they get it for the wrong reasons--not out of any understanding of what it means, but just a lucky guess, more than anything.
I base this hypothesis on how so much of their principles about how the world of Homo economicus "should" "work" is so at odds with what it means to be descended from--and still be--a social ape.
It's rare you see any Libertarian come flat out and state he thinks we'd be better off without exactly those things our primate heritage entails, though.
I will agree with Walton on one point, however--if things were different, they wouldn't be the same.
A while back, when thinking about Molly nominations, I started a list of all of those whose comments I enjoyed. This grew and grew, and eventually became too long to post (and were I to post it I would, I'm sure, still leave out several people, and then feel guilty). So I became determined to make an effort to express my appreciation to those I admire on an individual basis.
I salute you, thalarctos.
to be honest, I think humanity would be far better off without the strong sexual drive that is built into most of us and which pervades our existences - Walton
Don't knock it till you've tried it!
(blushing) thank you, SC.
coming from you, that means a lot.
McCain on socialism, in 2000:
I base this hypothesis on how so much of their principles about how the world of Homo economicus "should" "work" is so at odds with what it means to be descended from--and still be--a social ape.
Did you actually read my post in full, or just the bit about sex? As I said, libertarianism is not about rejecting human community or human social relationships. No man is an island, and we recognise that. Indeed, all the wealth, prosperity and happiness of human society stems from free, consensual relationships - whether commercial or non-commercial - between people. What we object to is the intrusive, coercive power of the state. "The community" consists of individuals, and the relations between them. It is not synonymous with the state. Since the state's power ultimately rests on a foundation of force, it is only legitimate when kept within narrow bounds.
Walton,
Did you miss my post @ #141, or did you intentionally ignore it?
He's probably pouting. ;o)
I've read most, if not all, of your posts in full. I still stand by my interpretation.
You've just said straight up that if it weren't for all those pesky primate traits, humans would be better off.
I'm saying we wouldn't be humans in that case, and like so many libertarian "solutions" I've heard expounded, your worldview only works if we aren't social apes with varying predictable degrees of dependency on others from infancy through (for most) robustness to degeneration.
I'm just impressed that you're so willing to explicitly jettison being a primate, and consider that "better off" though. It's refreshingly honest.
Walton:
Well, admittedly my "data set" was infinitesimally small and entirely anecdotal (and since this is chat rather than a term paper, I don't care to worry about that)... but it was actually that "less so today than in the past" bit that I was referring to. And...
...probably so, but I'm far from convinced that I miss the point of it by any larger margin than you do.
In my experience, people who are more likely to "see [the world] in black-and-white terms" are vastly more likely to be conservative than liberal. I know it's conservative orthodoxy that liberals are all rigidly doctrinaire... but my experience with actual liberals in their natural habitat suggests it "ain't necessarily so."
[sigh]
One last time: Nobody was suggesting you should discuss your private consensual sexual behavior in a public forum: That jaunty locution was simply a flip way of suggesting that you should get a life! Speaking of which...
Are you quite sure your name isn't Spock? Without making it too obvious to those around you, reach up and feel the tops of your ears; are they just a little bit pointy?
Patricia:
I'll take that as confirmation that I did not, in fact, inadvertently sully your honor. Whew! However...
...since you mention it, I'll just point out that uptight is one word. (And how's that for uptight, eh?) 8^)
Yah, me too. Might have to steal it and use it as a sig!
Our group of sluts, whores and peekers sometimes gets pretty slim around here. Other peoples uptight ;o) reactions to seeing me referred to as a slut cracks me up.
If Walton can't take my taunting, and busybody attitude he shouldn't hang out here. I tease everyone, and I expect them to tease me back.
Now. You were saying?
SC quoting Walton:
What? You mean Walton isn't a single-honours economics student? But he seems so erudite on that subject. I'm shocked!
Walton: I have another assignment for you. Explain, using your own words, the Tragedy of the Commons, and then explain why there would be so many more fish in the North Sea if only the civil servants - and the European civil servants at that - would just stop trying to impose quotas.
They're probably sold at "survival of the fittest". They may or may not be able to distinguish between "is" and "ought to be".
Amk at #156:
Walton: I have another assignment for you. Explain, using your own words, the Tragedy of the Commons, and then explain why there would be so many more fish in the North Sea if only the civil servants - and the European civil servants at that - would just stop trying to impose quotas.
This I can do, since it's less time-consuming than SC's request. The "tragedy of the commons" is an economic theory relating to finite shared resources. The concept is that each person using a shared resource, acting in his own short-term self-interest, will naturally exploit it to the maximum extent possible, leading to its long-term depletion and destruction. The term comes originally from "common land" in medieval villages; each peasant was allowed to graze his animals on the common land. Naturally, the peasants each put as many animals as possible onto the land, and in the longer term the land became over-grazed and unusable.
As I understand it, this is in fact an argument for the privatisation of such resources; if a person owns his own land, for instance, his incentive is to maintain its productivity in the long run rather than over-exploiting it.
The EU fishing quota policies are highly unsatisfactory. And there is an alternative: Iceland has pioneered the system of ITQs (Individual Transferable Quotas), which amount to saleable proprietary harvesting rights. This deals with the negative externality (the risk of depletion of fish stocks) through market mechanisms, rather than requiring the imposition of arbitrary government targets. (Yes, I realise that Iceland might not seem like a paragon of economic virtue right now. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with its financial policies, and is a sensible approach which, I submit, should be adopted in EU fisheries management.)
They're probably sold at "survival of the fittest". They may or may not be able to distinguish between "is" and "ought to be".
This is a grave misunderstanding of libertarian thought. We do not advocate a Darwininan "survival of the fittest" approach within human society. Such a society would be anarchic; the fittest and strongest would, literally, win, and there would be no protection for private property against theft by a stronger party.
Rather, we believe in a society in which the person and property are protected from illegitimate interference by force or fraud. Individuals are free to pursue their own goals, and to keep the proceeds of their own free economic transactions. Every individual is important, and each individual has a right to the protection and to equality before the law (which is not the same, and is antithetical to, equality of outcome). Such a goal is clearly not Darwinian.
So no, we understand quite well the distinction between "is" and "ought" as regards evolutionary theory.
Good gawd!
I wish there was a gawd!
That boy is SO deadly boring, I'm almost moved to tears.
Walton has got to be the only person on the planet tighter laced than I am.
Loosen up some son, you're gonna pass out! And then old Pilty will have his way with you. :o(
That boy is SO deadly boring, I'm almost moved to tears.
If you're not interested in my honest answers to political questions, don't read them.
I would probably be bored if I read a long and jargon-filled article about, say, the biology of the lesser spotted tree frog, or trends in early twentieth-century cricket scores. Hence why I don't read them. Some people find these things interesting; and I don't go on every internet forum why they're being discussed and say "God, you guys are so boring". So I have no idea why you feel the need to do so to me.
Error: "why" in #161 above should read "where".
It's because you're so CUTE Walton!
Posted by: Walton | October 24, 2008
If you're not interested in my honest answers to political questions, don't read them.
*SNORT*
It's because you're so CUTE Walton!
So I'm cute but boring?
Sarcasm is lost here.
Janine, you saucy strumpet, you are right.
I'm wasted on that boy. He's got his breeches locked up tighter than the popes secret archives.
I am really confused.
Social interaction has never been my strong point. Can we get back to talking about politics, please?
Walton, there are other blogs out there. They may be more receptive to your ideas. Try a few.
Poor ol' Walton, confused again.
He is cute though. Especially when he goes off struttin' around, half cocked, tryin' to convince the other gents that his momma sent him out onto the playground in big boy pants.
Patricia, you hussy. Can't you please talk politics? You are confusing the wee lad.
I have a compromise, the topic can be the politics of sluttiness.
Oh, wait, his beloved Thatcher is not slutty at all.
You know, I really don't enjoy being made fun of.
Are you rescinding your acceptance of my challenge, Walton? There's no hurry, mind you. I would, though, like to know if you've decided you're not going to follow through on it after all. Thanks.
Get OUT!
Well, I did have the rudiments recently of a good little rant about religious repression and the politics of female orgasm:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/i_pray_that_angels_come_down…
Probably not what you had in mind, but an issue relevant to billions of human beings.
Posted by: Walton | October 24, 2008
You know, I really don't enjoy being made fun of.
You know, you are leaving yourself wide open for more flouncing and bouncing and more slutty sauciness to dance your way.
Poor ol' Walton.
I think I know what he so distraught about.
But just look how hansome he is in uniform!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_aIW33xGqs
PS: Much/Most of what Arendt had to say re the oikos and the polis in The Human Condition was garbage. Remember that.
It just has to be said; I Love A Man In A Uniform!
Welcome to teh interwebs!
An essential feature of the Tragedy of the Commons is that the benefit of an actor's actions go to that actor, but the cost is spread around.
Privatisation is one solution, obviously not possible with fisheries. Another is regulation, with the relevant government body issuing permits and quotas. Shockingly, I may agree with you about ITQs.
Much the same issue happens with environmental issues, such as AGW or ozone layer depletion, hence why I brought it up. If I jet around the world, I get a net benefit because the environmental cost is spread, so that if I acted in my own interest I would continue jetting - and if everyone else did as well disaster would follow.
The simplest (partial) solution to AGW I've read (via Monbiot) is for a global body to auction permits for bringing a quota of fossil fuel out of the ground. Only a few thousand companies would be effected directly. This doesn't protect carbon sinks though, and aircraft are in a different class because of the altitude at which they emit.
For AGW, see this, this and read through this.
The fossil fuel permit proposal
On the topic of the tragedy of the commons, market failure and externalities, as I mentioned on another thread, I attended a talk by David Friedman in which he examined the fact that, although free markets do inevitably fail when it comes to dealing with externalities and public goods, so do governments. Government decision-making is not immune from market factors; special interests will lobby to have policies which reflect their own self-interest, and the few will win out over the many simply because they have more to lose, and therefore more of a stake in the outcome. This is why I am against quotas in general.
As to AGW, I also attended a talk this week at the Oxford Union by Nigel Lawson (a former UK cabinet minister), who is sceptical of AGW orthodoxy - not the science, but the economics and the politics. He pointed out that, assuming that the predictions of the IPCC and the majority of climatologists are absolutely correct, the economic and social impact of global warming will actually be nowhere near as catastrophic as most people incorrectly believe. According to studies, a rise in temperature of 1-3 degrees Celsius will actually increase food production worldwide. Although some areas of the world will suffer harm (due to rising sea levels and changing weather patterns), others will, most likely, actually benefit economically. A Department of Health study in Britain, commissioned in the wake the major heat wave in the summer of 2006, showed that predicted global warming trends will lead to around 2,000 more deaths a year from heat-related illnesses in the UK - but to around 20,000 fewer deaths from hypothermia! Unfortunately, the media doesn't report these elements of the science, and so we get sensationalism rather than hard facts.
David Friedman said much the same, in fact, when asked about AGW. He pointed out that, compared to many of humankind's past fears, the predicted impact is actually a fairly minor "catastrophe". We can, and should, plan for how we can deal with the human impact of global warming; rising sea levels will pose a major threat to some coastal regions, for instance. But it isn't a civilization-destroying threat; we can adapt and deal with it. The Kyoto protocols, if fully implemented, will be very detrimental economically; if the "ideal" carbon targets were met worldwide, the economic development of countries such as India and China would be held back massively, keeping millions in poverty when they have a chance to escape it. I'm not willing to sacrifice economic prosperity, and leave poor people in poverty, on the altar of AGW.
You won't answer my calls, you change your number...I'm not gonna be ignored, Walton!
You may like to be a little more specific here.
So, you've gone from "it's not happening!" to "it doesn't matter!"? Dare anyone suspect your motives?
4 out of 5 dentists agree
SC at #181: I apologise for inadvertently making it appear that I was avoiding you.
I will be honest; I don't have the time or energy right now for your challenge. I am a full-time student with essays to do, and I spend too much of my time on this site anyway. I come here for recreation - there's something bizarrely therapeutic in arguing about politics - not to be set extra work.
I will try and do it at some point, but I can't promise. I'm sorry.
So, you've gone from "it's not happening!" to "it doesn't matter!"? Dare anyone suspect your motives?
Not quite. I never asserted that global warming, per se, was not happening; that's hardly in question. What is in question is (1) what is it caused by? (2) how bad will it be? and (3) what should we do about it? I remain sceptical of the majority scientific view, but I don't have enough climatological knowledge to argue the point. However, in light of Lord Lawson's interesting talk, I wished to point out that even if the majority view is accepted, the consequences will not be so dire as the media would have us believe.
Greenspan finds flaw in ideology