Actually, I think he might be a little grumpy about your misrepresenting his statement. See, he used the “trying” line very specifically in regards to the organizers’ attempts to keep the conference green. You took the line arguably out of context to read as a liberal justification for ineffectual and misguided social programs.
'Least that’s how it looks from this side of my monitor.
No true Scotsman…
Seriously, it sounds like you are identifying conservatism with some variety of libertarianism–but not all, or even a majority, of Americans who self-identify as conservatives would necessarily agree with that, or with many ideas held by those who self-identify as libertarians.
I’d love to see some data indicating that more Americans who self-identify as “conservatives” oppose current laws and policies on drugs than do Americans who self-identify as “liberals”. And it’s worth pointing out that, in general, Americans who self-identify as (are registered as, vote mainly for) Democrats will self-identify more as liberals, and Americans who self-identify as (are registered as, vote mainly for) Republicans will self-identify more as conservatives, and, again, I would really like to see some data indicating self-identified Republicans are more likely to favor changing how we deal with currently illegal drugs than do self-identified Democrats.
Well, Sofa King, I’ve been following the WSJ’s editorial page recently, particularly in regards to environmental issues, and I’m afraid that if they issued retractions for every error of fact or grotesque ignorance, they would be pretty busy. [Or, they could just issue blanket retractions like, “We regret that all the facts contained in our recent editorial on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol were incorrect (or half-truths at best).”
Speaking of half-truths that have found their way into the WSJ editorial pages, every time I see this argument (as I did a couple months ago in WSJ) I pretty much want to puke! I mean, for heaven’s sake, the Kyoto Protocol is only enforcing what Greenhouse gas emissions are to be in the year 2012. Even if the nations of the world agreed to emit no greenhouse gases for the next 10 years and then went back to business-as-usual that would only delay the build-up in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 10 years! What the argument ignores is that the Protocol is just a first step. The idea is to start to level off our production of greenhouse gases and provide the markets of the world with the proper incentives to start seriously developing the alternative technologies that are going to take us into the future! In other words, it is trying to start to move us along an entirely different path!
Do you honestly believe that we should simply continue to tell the market that there is no costs associated with the emission of greenhouse gases and yet maintain that the market will still act rationally? I mean, what sort of economic theory is that?
While it is true that we are going to have to adapt to some anthropogenic warming, there is still the serious question of at what level we can and should try to stabilize the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in order to minimize the amount of problems we cause while not simultaneously going overboard and creating undue economic hardships. This is the sort of things that the nations of the world, led by input from the best scientists, economists, etc. have been trying to hammer out through the political process of Rio and the Kyoto Protocol while the Bush Administration and the Wall Street Journal bury their heads in the sand.
P.S.—Why whenever one talks about failures to eliminate poverty is it always discussed as the government’s failure and never as a failure of the free market? I mean, by the same logic, couldn’t we say that the wonderful free market that conservatives and libertarians tell us must be left completely unfettered in order to best help all of us, but especially the poor, has failed? [Of course, these people would probably argue that the problem was that the market wasn’t left free enough … but this argument seems dubious by cross-cultural comparisons with other nations that have more government regulation and social services.]
Try selling the innocent act to someone else 'cause I ain’t buying. You know damn well that I called you on your pathological habit of twisting facts to suit your agenda and you’ve retreated into a whole new thread.
The only difference here is that you’ve abandoned the thread you linked to in the OP.
And in case you’re wondering about my political leanings, consider me to be “Lionel Richie”. 
I agree, but I also agree with the other posters who observe that this problem is not limited to liberals. (Depending on how you define “liberal” of course)
It would be nice if, when a new law or policy is put into force, its propenents would spell out exactly what the expect will be accomplished; If those goals aren’t met, they should admit that they were wrong and possibly even support a repeal. (And I realize that it’s often difficult to measure the effects of a new law or policy, but let’s face reality: many people will continue to support ideas that have failed again and again.)
MEBuckner – thanks for the statistics. Clearly the US can take pride in our educational improvement between 1870 and 1979. Various questions remain, such as
– What has happened since 1979?
– How has US progress during the last 40 years compared with other countries?
Again, I appreciate your bringing factual matter into the debate.
Note that this thread is no longer in the Pit, Mr. Ex-Moderator.
The linked thread, about the conference at Durban, had run its course. This thread is about a different topic.
Jeff Olson, I apologize for assuming that you were a liberal. What is a “Lionel Richie”?
[bragging]I know a web site which has the answers to both of those questions.[/bragging]
Gee, if only I’d shared that link…
Bloom County reference. I’d make further comments on your most recent post but I know they’ll just be ignored so I’m leaving this thread to those who give a damn.
Because before free markets there was complete failure, more or less. So you tell me.
—What severely strains my powers of endurance is a tendency among liberals to support good-hearted effort that aren’t working.—
What severely strains my patience is people who don’t define “working” so that we can know what the level of “effort” is supposed to be able to do. All that really matters is how much is accomplished how efficiently: and simply noting that there are poor people doesn’t in the least tell us whether the amount of effort expended had more or less result than it should have had. Simply noting that there isn’t lasting peace in the Mideast says nothing about what would have happened without any effort, or even what disasters there might have been with different efforts.
But of course, the dirty little secret is that none of these efforts make much more than a dent in the cost of government, and anyone seriously interested in cutting down the size of government cannot possibly be serious about it if these sorts of efforts are the only things they complain about.
—Of course, the most recent law included input from McCain, so it’s not purely liberal. I expect the law to fail, but time will tell.—
Oh: so he ceased to be a liberal as soon as the party’s favored candidate beat him in the primary? Funny thing that, how he suddenly turned into a liberal for the duration of the Bush’s campaign concern with him. And apparently fathered a baby out of wedlock, but only during the “new tone in politics” campaign.
Heh. Well, I tend to think of it as an educational experiment. It may not work - but at least I’m trying.
Well, as far as I know the WSJ has been silent on the subject, but some of you may find this response, but the National Indian Gaming Association delivered a rather interesting response, reprinted here. From my position, it’s not very pretty for the WSJ, waving an uninformed opinion before the NCAI’s and NIGA’s facts and experience.
But then again, y’all ain’t reading Indian Country Today at breakfast every morning, so maybe facts and experience don’t count for much in this game of hand grenades.
Yes, first language I speak English as my first language. Thank you very mchu.