Posted by Damozel | Since I first started blogging (way back before Buck Naked Politics), Midtopia has been one of my favorite political blogs. Centrist blogger Sean Aqui, its author, has a way of getting straight to the core of the partisan bickerings of the day and quietly exposing the gaps, logical leaps, and factual errors on both sides of the argument. This is why I'm so happy that---following a hiatus---Sean Aqui is back and posting.
At Midtopia, he posted last week this clear, concise, easy-to-digest summary explaining why present the military progress in Iraq, such as it is, is so fragile; and why Iran is still a problem, NIE or no NIE. If you are too elated by progress in Iraq or if you think Iran isn't still a threat, you definitely need to read it.
He anatomizes, and accurately, the current back-and-forthing over the NIE as follows:
As an aside, I love watching how people accept or don't accept the NIE as credible based on its contents. Up until now, many administration critics have all but accused Bush and Cheney of making up the NIEs to support their policy -- while administration supporters pointed to the NIE as authoritative grounding for our Iran policy. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the roles are reversed. (read more: Catching up)
In addition (specifically re: the global warming conference in Bali) , he has addressed---and demolished---one of the blogosphere's favorite criticisms of participants in the climate change movement.
Whatever you think of the conference subject -- or the likely results, if any -- I'm getting tired of one easy-but-ignorant criticism routinely aimed at such conferences. To wit:
Critics say they are contributing to the very problem they aim to solve.
"Nobody denies this is an important event, but huge numbers of people are going, and their emissions are probably going to be greater than a small African country," said Chris Goodall, author of the book "How to Live a Low-Carbon Life."
It's an interesting datum, made more interesting in that it's coming from someone who clearly thinks global-warming is real and serious. But as far as ethics or policy, such a criticism is mindless.....
If we were to accept the premise, then people concerned about global warming could never hold global discussions because of the emissions involved in putting such meetings together. Apparently, the effort to combat global warming is supposed to be fought by people meeting locally in outdoor venues reached only by bicycle or on foot. Or handled entirely by telephone and e-mail.
Which is utter bilge, of course.
For one thing, the amount of emissions involved are relatively small -- as the story notes, the 12-day conference is expected to produce about as much carbon as the city of Marseilles produces in one day. That one-time bump in emissions isn't even a rounding error in the scheme of things.For another, few if any of the people involved are advocating a return to caveman days. These aren't zero-emission fanatics, who think that taking a ski vacation in Colorado is an unforgiveable crime against the planet. There's a reason it's called emissions "reduction," not "elimination"; emissions are an unavoidable part of human activity. So expecting delegates to be entirely carbon-neutral in every aspect of their lives is silly. (Read more: An easy, if illogical, appeal)
Welcome back, Sean Aqui!
*BN-Politics used
the photograph(s) in this post under a Creative Commons license that
allows commercial use and sharing. Before copying the photo(s), follow
the link to
the owner's page and consult the licensing terms. Photo owners do NOT
necessarily endorse views expressed in this post.
Recent BN-Politics postings
Intelligence Chief Misleads Public Again
Did U.S. Govt. Officials Cover up Rape in Iraq?
$1 Billion (More) in Military Hardware Missing in Iraq
More Confusing Statements About Iraq War
Car Bombs Kill 25 and Wound 65, Gates in Iraq for News Conference
Bush versus the NIE: Buck Naked Bloggerama
Podhoretz Digests the NIE, Finds It Doesn't Agree
Better Late than Never: The Truth About Iranian Nuclear Weapons Development?
Defense Secretary Says Military Alone Can't Protect U.S. Interests
US & Iraq Trade Friendship Rings; Cynics Say Tail Wagged Dog
Why the War Hawks Fail to Persuade (Part 2)
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
Posted by: Alex | December 15, 2007 at 02:11 PM