Originally posted by MelanerpesReguardless,John Holdren is clearly "out to lunch".Here is an example of more recent views of his when Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution [b]if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
First of all, this was from 1977. Disco was actually popular back then. I would be very ...[text shortened]... der ways of making sure we never reach the point of being forced to have such a discussion.[/b]
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.
"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"
"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.
I do not think anyone with any credibility or half a brain thinks this is a possibilitie.This is a guy in Obamas camp advising him on matters of science.
3 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragon[/b]For me to make an accurate judgment regarding Holden, I would have to read a large sample of his work.
Reguardless,John Holdren is clearly "out to lunch".Here is an example of more recent views of his when Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up [b]his 1986 prediction that global warming was go this is a possibilitie.This is a guy in Obamas camp advising him on matters of science.
It's very easy to go through everything a given person has ever written or said and find the stupidest things he's ever said. I'm sure if you went through all of Einstein's work, you'd be able to find something that makes him look like a dunce.
But it seems like this is all we get whenever someone is appointed to anything. There needs to be an objective group whose opinion is valued by everyone on the political spectrum who can evaluate appointments such as these, and render a judgment as to their worthiness.
But one lesson here is that future presidents should avoid czars and just consult with whomever they want to consult without making a big fanfare. If the czar in question is sufficiently important, make it into an official cabinet position and require the Senate to approve the appointment.
Originally posted by Melanerpes"But one lesson here is that future presidents should avoid czars "
For me to make an accurate judgment regarding Holden, I would have to read a large sample of his work.
It's very easy to go through everything a given person has ever written or said and find the stupidest things he's ever said. I'm sure if you went through all of Einstein's work, you'd be able to find something that makes him look like a dunce.
...[text shortened]... ake it into an official cabinet position and require the Senate to approve the appointment.[/b]
I agree with that.
Originally posted by FMFCZAR TO COMMISAR. There lies the underlying problem. You seem to trust that these extremists change their stripes. You give this guy a break he does not deserve. Why do you fail to apply such defensive skepticism to the people on the right? You always express apologist doubt about extremists on the left but never on the right. The same way that you misrepresent who you are, your country of origin, religion, etc. First off you state you are Indonesian or used to, purport to be Christian, yet use an obviously muslim avatar. looks like it is simply more of the same from you. Dishonest, mendacious and quite obviously marxist. That's why you have no problem with these czars. Czar to commisar. I see from other posts that you defended Van Jones. Yet you never answer utherpendragon's question about your political stripes.
Oh but he has. Flatly. It's even in the OP:
[b]"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.
Can't be clearer that that. How can you intepret this as meaning that "compulsory abortions, ...[text shortened]... aches to limiting population growth" has, as you say "never been disavowed by Holdren" ?[/b]
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI'm not really defending Holdren per se. I don't know enough of the details. Nor did I defend Van Jones' ideology. In both cases I simply pointed out to utherpendragon that his OP did not make the case - indeed, in both cases, there were indications - in the OP itself! - that utherpendragon was twisting or misrepresenting what was being said in order to make his case. Utherpendragon has every right to make these cases and I have every right to point out the sloppy, fumbling, often apoplectic nature of the cases he tries to make, in the hope that he will offer better evidence and better arguments, and make this Debate forum into a more genuinely informative and more thought provoking place.
CZAR TO COMMISAR. There lies the underlying problem. You seem to trust that these extremists change their stripes. You give this guy a break he does not deserve. Why do you fail to apply such defensive skepticism to the people on the right? You always express apologist doubt about extremists on the left but never on the right. The same way that you misr ...[text shortened]... fended Van Jones. Yet you never answer utherpendragon's question about your political stripes.
you misrepresent who you are, your country of origin, religion, etc. First off you state you are Indonesian or used to, purport to be Christian, yet use an obviously muslim avatar. looks like it is simply more of the same from you. Dishonest, mendacious and quite obviously marxist.
Way to go. Excellent debating.
I contend that these "czars" - regardless of political stripe - are probably a quite understandable political method for getting things done in a political system that has evolved into a kind of stylized obstructionism and gridlock. I am certain that the next Republican administration will use them just as much as the Obama administration has. Whether individual people - like Holdren or Van Jones - are acceptable or skilled enough to do the job is merely a kind of retail, nuts and bolts politics. On the other hand, czars being used by the executive branch to consolidate and streamline policy initiatives is set to be a feature of the political landscape for decades to come, regardless of whether the policies being implemented are reactionary, reformist, liberal or conservative. When the U.S. moves rightward, as it almost inevitably will, after Obama's 4 or 8 years, the new Republican president in the whitehouse will use czars in the same way as they are being used now. Do you concur?
Originally posted by FMFCzars are an unnecesary evil. I disapprove regardless of party. Point out at least one deranged czar like Holdren or Van Jones, or useless like Bloom. We should not have unvetted "cabinet" strength advisors answerable to no one unless it's the WH inner circle every prez is entitled to.
I'm not really defending Holdren per se. I don't know enough of the details. Nor did I defend Van Jones' ideology. In both cases I simply pointed out to utherpendragon that his OP did not make the case - indeed, in both cases, there were indications - in the OP itself! - that utherpendragon was twisting or misrepresenting what was being said in order to make his ...[text shortened]... n the whitehouse will use czars in the same way as they are being used now. Do you concur?
Originally posted by scacchipazzoWhat is and isn't necessary in politics is decided by politicians and then, ultimately, approved of or rejected by the citizenry at the polls. Obviously the current administration feels they are necessary. I predict that the next Republican administration will deem them to be necessary too. You disagree. Fine. Calling this instrument of governance "evil" is just silly hyperbole. But it's your view, so there you go.
Czars are an unnecesary evil. I disapprove regardless of party. Point out at least one deranged czar like Holdren or Van Jones, or useless like Bloom. We should not have unvetted "cabinet" strength advisors answerable to no one unless it's the WH inner circle every prez is entitled to.
Originally posted by MelanerpesCome on now, find me half as many Einstein stupidities to compare with those of this quack so far.
For me to make an accurate judgment regarding Holden, I would have to read a large sample of his work.
It's very easy to go through everything a given person has ever written or said and find the stupidest things he's ever said. I'm sure if you went through all of Einstein's work, you'd be able to find something that makes him look like a dunce.
...[text shortened]... ake it into an official cabinet position and require the Senate to approve the appointment.[/b]
Originally posted by FMFIn the past you have had the audacity to question whether English is my primary language. Here's my turn. "necessary evil" is merely a phrase. I am not calling anyone or anything "evil" per se. Therefore calling it silly hyperbole is beyond goofy on your part. Since you are so poll driven would you not think that with the tanking poll numbers Obama would call into question his own governance, policies and missteps? Maybe you need to be a czar/commisar since most of the time you already sound like an aparatchik. Sycophancy for the left is your forte and would therfore suit Obama quite well. I am still waiting for a single position on the right you might have defended as mere youthful utterances form the 70's. I am also sure you're not alarmed by Peter Singer being an advisor for healthcare as Van Jones was.
What is and isn't necessary in politics is decided by politicians and then, ultimately, approved of or rejected by the citizenry at the polls. Obviously the current administration feels they are necessary. I predict that the next Republican administration will deem them to be necessary too. You disagree. Fine. Calling this instrument of governance "evil" is just silly hyperbole. But it's your view, so there you go.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoOne wonders if English is your first language. "Necessary evil" is merely a phrase and everyone understands what it means. There is no commonly understood idiom "unnecessary evil". It is two words. You are calling czars (1) unnecessary and (2) evil. Of course, perhaps you didn't mean that. But the rest of your recent posts have been such yapping tirades of bristling drivel - attempted insults and all - that it's really hard to know what you mean. look here. We disagree. Why does it make you so incoherent and incandescent with sneering anger? What's up with you? 😀
In the past you have had the audacity to question whether English is my primary language. Here's my turn. "necessary evil" is merely a phrase.
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI've read a few of his books. The one that comes to mind is "The President Of Good And Evil" a philosophy-meets-real world contemplation about George W. Bush's 'moral compass'. That was rather good. Have you read it? Have you read any Singer at all, apart from extracts on far right blogs?
I am also sure you're not alarmed by Peter Singer being an advisor for healthcare as Van Jones was.
Originally posted by eljefejesusI don't really want to waste time poring through everything Einstein has every said or done. But I'm sure that if he was alive today and was chosen for a political position, the opposing parties and interest groups would have large staffs digging for dirt, and I'm sure they'd find some scary stuff. Unless Einstein was that very rare human being that never said or did anything embarassing. But I suspect that even geniuses have their bad hair days.
Come on now, find me half as many Einstein stupidities to compare with those of this quack so far.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThere is such a way: make people richer.
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution [b]if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
First of all, this was from 1977. Disco was actually popular back then. I would be very ...[text shortened]... der ways of making sure we never reach the point of being forced to have such a discussion.[/b]