'Firestorm, it will never be certain.'

I find this statement rather out of place given the statements you make in the piece itself.

Let's start at the beginning,

'There are a great many things I could say about Climate Change, but today I want to make a pretty simple point about the likely health effects of Climate Change: They won't be good.'

There is quite a bit of implied certainty in that statement. I don't know where you get it though, especially because you even say 'it' will never be certain.

Then there is,

'And that brings me back to Climate Change. It threatens us all in so many ways...The food supply is certainly in danger.'

which is a dousy because you use the word 'certainly'. How is the food supply 'certainly' in danger when 'it' will never be certain?

I think the statement,

'Just please do try, once in a while, to think of Climate Change not just as a global phenomenon, but as something more local, tangible, and personal.'

effectively sums up the problems your point of view raise with respect to this issue. Because you try to frame climate change/global warming in terms of your own life and what you see around you, climate change/global warming begin to affect everything.

That big snow storm: Climate change.

That heat wave: Climate change.

The flooding: Climate change.

The drought: Climate change.

On top of that, if a blogger mentions climate change/global warming is passing in the context of something observation, you're willing to believe him/her. I think it takes a little more skepticism to earn people's trust, especially if you are asking them to adopt your feelings on this issue.

More importantly, from a scientific perspective, the effects of a global increased greenhouse effect due to man-made CO2 in local or even regional phenomena are next to impossible to detect given the amount of data we have so far. The NOAA analysis of the blocking event that caused the Russian heat wave this past summer is direct evidence of this fact. Certain scientists (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/) are also trying to make a push to get more regional and local effects due to man included into IPCC assessment reports, though without ease. This is because global circulation models that are used to predict global effects for increased greenhouse forcings cannot reproduce observed climate on a regional or local scale.

So no Kent, there are other issues that on a local level matter more to me than the height of the Huron River, the exact quantity of snowfall or how many days we have over 90 degrees in a summer. We've got 15%+ unemployment in Michigan right now. I think those people deserve some thought too.

As for my conscience or being right or wrong, I expected a more tempered response from you, frankly. If the idea is just shut down when evidence to the contrary of our narratives is presented, then what's the point of presenting a narrative? Do you not want to hone it more completely or work out issues that do not in reality support your position? I thought you were more serious about that aspect with respect to this issue.

Have a nice weekend.

Coyote, if my 'food for thought' gets us to a better place in framing this issue to attain some practical goals, what difference does its taste make?

Firestorm, I am moving your most recent comment to The Cornfield. It is out-of-order here.

Not every post I write is a chance for you to debate me about Climate Change's cause or likelihood.

This is first and foremost a piece about my fears, and your remarks are completely off-topic and, frankly, insensitive.

But, moreover, your logic is not sound. This is also a piece about what happens if there is Climate Change. I happen to think that's a near certainty, but you quite obviously think the odds of either the phenomenon or the strength of effect are different or less certain. I don't really care. My point is this: This is a discussion of a statement of the form “if X then Y” and you are debating me by saying, “but I don't think X is likely.” Your remarks have no place because the entire discussion is predicated on X.

The point of this post is to paint a picture of how I see the future. It's to show the stakes. And I need the space to describe what I see as the alternative. On another day, in another venue, perhaps we can discuss likelihoods when that's the identified topic. I have been what I consider overly generous in tolerating your longwinded critiques, even ones I have not agreed with, because I think it's necessary to some debate points. But not to this one. This post is not a debate on the likelihood of Climate Change, and it is just not the case that everything I write is a platform for you to have the same old debate. I break things down into small chunks to be discussed separately, modularly, exactly to avoid what I perceive you to be doing—making every discussion the same discussion.

Stay on topic or expect more of your comments to just wind up in the Cornfield. If you want a further explanation of the Cornfield policy, see my post The Cornfield Explained. But don't bother debating my movement of your comment on either this or that post because it's off-topic in both places. You can discuss it with me in private mail or write your own blog if you want to pursue it. This blog thread is mine and I'll run it to my standards, not to yours.

Kent,

Thanks for finally letting me know you don't care about meaningful debate on any topic concerning climate change/global warming. It's been long enough coming.

I'm going to echo Rick's point.

There is a deal of 'drama' in these posts getting people ready to take 'action'. You have admitted to Mishima here and to me elsewhere that this is one of your intentions in writing this and similar posts.

Unfortunately, there is no plan present other than 'write your representatives'. This doesn't really work to enact any meaningful change in reality. We have 200 years of evidence to support the fact that writing one's representative is not the most effective way to change the policies of our nation.

You say,

'The issues you raise are tiny compared to the magnitude of Climate Change, and fixing them would take more time than we have left. So I just ignore them.'

I'll say it again because it's obviously not sinking in here, using the fear of a catastrophic future climate due to climate changes doesn't affect change in the way you desire. In fact, Gallop polls earlier this year confirm that more and more average Americans believe the claims of catastrophic climate change to be exaggerated.

And even with calls in scientific papers to educate policymakers on the possible catastrophic climate outcomes, the Democrats scratched a proposed Climate Bill at the beginning of last month. They feared it would create more political backlash on top of what they endured due to Health Care Reform.

So it seems that the issues you ignore are rather important to the decision makers...

In choosing the lesser of two evils, I always choose the democrats, given the of choice as I have in a overeducated locality in a union strong state.

But I think that Rick's point is valid in that one cannot assume to affect systematic changes when one is willing to work within a framework that has not proven to provide such changes. Again, history is filled with lessons. It's important not to let them slip through our fingers.

Firestorm, I think one of the things that will have to change before we can have meaningful dialog is that we need more research. If we're willing to turn a blind eye to deficit in order to fight a war because it's “just needed” but we aren't willing to do the same to Climate Change, that's a very sad thing. So one reason to impress people with the importance is to enable them to believe it is worth the expense. If they think it's some small, deferable matter, they will put even research and even committees to study the matter in a bin of things that would be cool to do, but that we just can't afford this year, thank you very much. It is critical to understand that this is not acceptable and I know no other way to do that than to say that the matter is dire. That you or anyone thinks it might not be dire or might be dire but not provably so doesn't mean that we should not study it in depth.

The other issue that is quite important to me is getting people to where they can understand that pain might be needed. The problem is that people think they can choose politically among politicians, taking who tells them there will be the least pain. And the Republicans want a world in which business goes on as usual because it's profitable, so they're going to offer a “minimum change” message because their time horizon is short, being tied largely to quarterly profits statements, etc. (I think a lot of them want to retire and cash out before it gets bad, though I also think there are various ways they allow themselves to kid themselves about the timeline, so they are probably not being disingenuous so much as, I think, naive. Then again, your words, however you intend them, tend to give them cover, so you may think it's me that's naive and I that's sensible. The problem is there is no safe default and a lot of research and public dialog need to happen quickly to get to where we can make some important decisions before they are made for us.)

Sometime soon I'll post the piece I've been saying for a while I'd put up about why I think I have good reason to believe that even the most pessimistic scientists are giving us too-optimistic predictions, and why I'm worried so much. You may not believe my argument, of course. But the article will be about why that's so. I don't know if that's comforting or not.

The trouble with the gamesmanship argument you're talking about is that there is no political position that is neutral to gamesmanship. I don't accept that not talking about a dangerous problem is better than talking about it. If nothing else, the longer we wait to talk about it, the more risk of a panic if we ever need to. And we need people not to panic. We need them to care urgently. And that's better done sooner than later.

'That you or anyone thinks it might not be dire or might be dire but not provably so doesn't mean that we should not study it in depth.'

I've never made the claim that climate change is not worth studying. In fact, I'm sure that the one thing I have said is that the one certain approach would be to allocate funds to better observe climate changes and pinpoint the differences in significant climatic parameters. As a researcher, I think research is always part of the answer to any societal problem.

I also understand why you paint the picture as dire as you do. You're really worried. That point is very evident from all of your posts on this topic.

What I don't understand, however, is the fact that you continue with this narrative despite the fact that it has not led to significant policy with respect to climate change directly or indirectly. If I have not made that point clear enough, I will make it again. Less and less people believe that the climate is going to get catastrophic with every story published on heat wave, hurricane and snow storm predictions for the future. Whether or not that is wise, it is a political reality.

You have pointed to the fact that the average voter wants to preserve his/her level of comfort. That's why white middle class voters put Republicans into office more often than Democrats. Knowing this fact, why would you want to make a political platform pushing the idea that the policy you support would be 'painful' for the average voter?

That's not really way the best way to win support.

This is why I have been talking about framing this issue around energy and energy independence. That's much easier for people of all political stripes to support. The climate change issue itself is becoming increasingly partisan, making a viable policy something that is going to be harder to get through the federal, state and local legislatures.

I understand you're worried. I think it's something worthy of some thought and worry, though of a different degree than you. But if you really want to solve this problem you have to come to terms with some political realities that aren't going to change. No amount of pessimistic climate outlooks is going to convince a conservative who believes Climategate proved global warming wrong to vote for a green Democrat. That ship has sailed.

If you want to right about your predictions for the future, that's one thing. We could place some odds and hope we live long enough to declare a victor. If you want to affect change in the world, however, even if you're right in every detail you've presented here and elsewhere, I think the message needs to change. Because you're not going to get climate change dealt with by turning into another Democrats versus Republicans issue. Barely anything gets dealt with in those terms.

Firestorm, the choice of what political strategy to use is a personal choice of mine and not subject to any kind of right/wrong analysis. I choose to do it, and your comments to the contrary can only serve to make noise and not solve anything. Please desist.

Moreover, your comments are off-topic here. This is not a comment about Climate Change. The mere mention of a topic does not make it about something. The article uses the general form of an article about Climate Change as a deliberate hook in order to get interest, but in fact is about something else.

You asked a question that was off-topic. It was rude of you to intrude. But I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond in earnest. All it gets me is more of same. You don't let well enough alone. You are rude and push your point of view in a manner that goes beyond reasonable bounds, and your point is not welcome here. I have heard this point several times, and I don't need to hear it in response to every piece I write, and most especially I don't need to hear it on posts where it's not even on-topic.

I have tolerated you because sometimes you speak about scientific facts. But you are well out of your area of expertise when talking about how to persuade people. I get a lot of PM from people saying how little they like to listen to you, so I conclude that this is not your strong area and I'm really not interested in your repeated advice on the matter.

I will be moving your comments and my reply to The Cornfield.

In the future, if you have specific scientific data to offer, you may do so, and even then you may do so if and only if done briefly. It's fine to offer a hyperlink to a post of your own, for example. I want people to be able to (a) know that you disagree and (b) get to the information you have to offer. However, beyond that, I have no interest in hearing from you. Certainly not at length. Certainly not repeatedly. Expect that anything you write other than a simple and brief sentence indicating that you disagree and telling people where they can go to obtain your permission will be moved to the Cornfield, as this little conversation between us will soon be moved.

so how old are you? and you are still laboring under the concept that LIFE IS FAIR? haha. Im pretty amazed that (a) you are watching reality tv, (b) its a FASHION show, and (c) you take the outcome this seriously. dude. its a tv show. a REALITY SHOW. seriously think about getting a life.

vzn, I don't find your comment to be particularly on-topic. You're not weighing in on either side of this but instead suggesting it has no place. What has no place are your remarks, at least no place on this thread.

Your remarks are ad hominem. It would be enough to annoy me if they were just out of line in that way.

But they are also just spam. Nearly any topic, no matter how important or trivial, has more people who are disinterested than are interested. There isn't enough time in the world for everyone to be interested in everything. If you are not interested, don't participate. Discussions on nearly any topic are predicated on interest of the participants, and if you just stop by to interrupt a discussion among people who care to tell them you don't care, you are just spamming people and engaging in little more than a Denial of Service (DoS) attack, albeit of a social rather than technical variety. Yes, your remarks were brief, but suppose 50 people were to offer similar comments. Such comments, whether brief or long, are out of place here. Where would we find the things people wanted to talk about if we were always knee-deep in text from people saying no one should be looking.

You may also find useful background about my opinion on the spam issue in my article The Freedom to Hear, where I note that the really relevant driving force in the Freedom of Speech is not the right of someone (like you, in this case) to blather but rather the right of others (like the people who did enjoy this post) to find the information they were trying to find. Remarks such as yours uselessly impede that.

If you want to participate with an on-topic point of view and to be respectful of the individuals involved in the discussion, feel welcome. But otherwise, please make yourself scarce. Thanks.

Republicans are encouraged to remember to avoid the crowds by showing up as early as they wish to vote on Wednesday.

alsoknownas, while I appreciate the attempt at humor, the election is TODAY. It disturbs me when anyone jokes about that. The idea that even one person gets the wrong impression and doesn't get to vote is very distressing. So I'd prefer we not take chances.

I enjoyed your post, especially as a 23 yr old who crunched the numbers of what my college education will cost. If I go to the $7,000/yr (tuition only) school, keep up with my immoderate living expenses of $160/wk room and board and $50/wk for 'entertainment', I'll end up $50,000 in the hole. What does this mean? If you're not rich, college will make you poor.

Another aspect (probably covered more eloquently by someone else) is that as more people get degrees, [SPAM HYPERLINK REMOVED HERE] more jobs have a degree requirement. It's self fulfilling, as you say.

Edgar, I appreciate your sharing your story but my posts are no place to slip in spam advertisement hyperlinks.

Kent, I read your posts because you are a good analyst, but I must take issue with one of your comments on he thrfead where you say 'climate change will get us first'...wow!...you're not a doom-monger are you? You realize that there is a scaling effect to the impacts of inclement environmental insults and injuries to the human pop. in that: the first 'harm unit' of climate change (a given % increase in frequency, destructive potential of catastrophic weather events, say) will kill the bottom 10% of the global population say...now, to kill the next 10 % of the pop requires more than just a doubling of the initial 'harm unit'....which won't happen maybe for decades as the population adapts and new ways of growing food (algae in sludge reclamation plants, etc.) becomes widespread. So, we will survicve more or less, but in a depleted and psychologically stressed condition, having to deal with fiscal matters for far longer than your glib quip would have us believe.

Caracalla, your Climate Change comment is off-topic and inappropriate here. It puts me in the position of either responding or letting it stand in the middle of an unrelated discussion. I don't like either of those options. My remark may have been off-topic as well, but it was not offered as substantive discussion, just light banter. And that's my discretion as it's my thread. If you leave that to stand, it doesn't reflect on you in the way leaving something stand on my own thread reflects on me.

[ALLEGED HUMAN NAME REMOVED] aka Nanaflay - Guess you forgot to add, Kerry told you to remove the pedophile post you put up. But then, you've always been quite the hypocrite.

See what I'm talking about? I absolutely DO NOT want my name to be used in OS or anywhere else online, and my reasons for not wanting it are as I stated in my previous comment, yet here is Bonnie throwing it around. Bonnie herself fails to mention the series of PMs in which I respectfully asked her to remove the *targeting* women comment. After several days of it remaining in place, I did a post in response to it, giving her a taste of her own toxic medicine.

Bonnie, you are the perfect illustration of the points Kent makes here. Thanks for that.

Please note: 'til she made her appearance I didn't mention Bonnie by name, and she returned the favor by posting MY real name here.

On Jauary 29, 2010, [ALLEGED HUMAN NAME REMOVED] put up a post “People Who Start Discussions Then Close Comments Are Cowards” it was specifically aimed just one man. A man who refused to tolerate [ALLEGED HUMAN NAME REMOVED]’s manic postings. The post also included a picture of [ALLEGED HUMAN NAME REMOVED] aiming his assault weapon at the camera.

Months later [ALLEGED HUMAN NAME REMOVED] wrote, “I own an assault rifle, a submachine gun and a Mossberg pump 12 gauge, and while there may be no glamor for you, there is for me. I grew up around guns and, quite aside from their utility, I like them in and of themselves.”

Why does this matter. It’s time to connect the dots. It's not about [ALLEGED HUMAN NAME REMOVED]'s love of guns so much....but then, it is. The point being MEDIA.

While our ever-quick but lazy media mentioned Congressional Representative Gabby Giffords office doors had been blown out over an immigration matter - what Media Failed to cover was that prior to her win, Giffords opponent held a “Remove Giffords” rally at a local Gun range.)

So we’d be silly not to pay attention to people who are really quick to display their love of firepower.

Would love for media to answer the question...why did our so-called Liberal media show shot after shot of Giffords glass doors being smashed in over an immigration matter... but was mostly mum on the rally held at the Gun Range to " Remove Her" from office.

[ALLEGED HUMAN NAME REMOVED]: - No I didn't say you were going to shoot an elected official. Your post was directed at one guy. But you do have a big habit of reading what you want, rather than what's actually written. I don't know the cure for your reading comprehension issues. As for me, I always address veiled allegations head on. Your behavior with the pedophile post was and remains outrageous.

Bonnie, I'm moving your comment (minus the mention of his real name, which is an inappropriate invasion of privacy) and my reply to The Cornfield. Nanatehay, I'm having to move some of your remarks, too, because they engaged Bonnie once she did that. Please both of you stand down and discuss this elsewhere. Use your experiences to inform your remarks if you like, but do not bring the specifics here for trial. This is not a court and I decline to mediate.

Kent - First...according to your "unwritten rules" you should have deleted the big time whiner nantehey from the jump. You did not. So don't try to blame me for that one kiddo. That dog won't hunt.

As for Salon, gee, there's tons of women who have long voiced concerns about Salon's refusal to act responsibly. In many, many instances. Salon Editors have aptly demonstrated an long track record in this regard.

Third, I have quite a collection of Stellaa's PM's about me....and other people. (Talk about a sailor's mouth.)

But hey, I came of age in the Nixon, "I am not a crook" era, where we finally figured out we should be suspicious of anyone who talks about themselves a la Richard Nixon, in the third person. So "Stellaa now has two blogs at Wordpress" is worth noting.

Bonnie, take the personal digs elsewhere. You're not advancing the discussion, you're just carrying on side discussions that in my judgment (and it's my thread, so I'm permitted to be arbitrary) have no place here. I asked that follow-up go to me in PM, but you have ignored that.

Okay Kent - send this to the "Cornfield" too. . .rather than address your double-standard.

You wrote (sending yourself to the Cornfield)

Bonnie, take the personal digs elsewhere. You're not advancing the discussion, you're just carrying on side discussions that in my judgment (and it's my thread, so I'm permitted to be arbitrary) have no place here. I asked that follow-up go to me in PM, but you have ignored that.

But Kent, you kept the inaccurate, personal digs at me by bbd, who doesn't read my stuff or he'd know better, and who was exhibiting the very behavior you accused me of, front and center

So, you're right. You're not mediating anything. You are displaying a double-standard. Which you can do as it's your blog.

Just don't think it wasn't noticed.

Bonnie, distorting the truth as usual, said:

"1. Duh. Should have thought about before."


Bonnie, I did think of it before. Never at any time did I use my real name publicly in OS. You did that, not me. Someone either told you my name - some people I trusted and possibly shouldn't have knew it already - or you found it by snooping, then used it immediately in a libelous manner.

Let that be a warning to everyone out there reading this: Ms. Russell is a viper, a completely toxic, vicious, demented person with no morals and no ethics, and she has no compunction about posting distortions, half-truths and flat-out lies.

Sorry Kent, I should have stayed away from here but I didn't realize a straightforward comment on my part would bring the rabid weasel back. Cornfield time I guess.

Nanaspew - thanks for showing that you're only concerned with how you appear...along with the fact you clearly don't care who you attack. Until even Kerry told you to remove the post.

So, in addition to hiding behind a mask while attacking others, it turns out you owns lots of guns and have poor impulse control.

That was revealed in a postal rant about a guy you don't like with a gun aimed at the viewer because he dared to close comments on his own blog.

(Calling someone a coward while hiding behind a mask was lost on you...so zero points for insight, too.)

Can't imagine why you'd employers aren't beating down your door.

Yep. It's a real mystery. Rant on.

Jan, I've got to go, but I am astounded by you. I just fucking told you, at great length, that there is a fucking world of IDEAS, like the IDEA of physical, or natural, law. An idea, like the IDEA of numbers, dummy, like doing algebra, calculus, may be instantiated in a physical medium, the human brain, a blackboard, but the 'experience' of thinking, of living in that multitudinous world of ideas, emotions, language, thought, is no more just PHYSICAL than the existence of the NUMBER 8, say, depends on some metallic, or other MATERIAL numeral 8 existing somewhere in the depths of space in physical form from which the existence of the concept of the number 8 flows into our physical brains. The number 8, every other mathematical concept, is just that...a purely conceptual, or mental quality or existent. For an artist like you not to have an appreciation of the co-existence of the MENTAL with the PHYSICAL, is really stunning.

Oh Yeah Odetter. Don't condescend to me you pompous ass. This is the reason the public can't stand you. You sit there like you are smarter than everyone and you probably have never done anything in your life. Try running a business, employing people and dealing with the government crap. We are all smarter than you could ever be including Walker who just beat you bad. Don't ever talk down to us again.

Honestly, you just heard of this? Yikes, if the alleged educated and informed ones just heard of this on Rachel Maddow, the state of affairs is pitiful.

Wake up, ding ding. What do you think happened when the right wing took the state houses?

God the typical American liberal is so clueless.

Tilapia, I don't find your remark civil. If you want to comment on my threads, I don't ask you to agree or disagree with me, but I do ask you to be respectful.

Uncivil is waiting for Rachel Maddow to hear of this issue. T. You can delete if you want. But really? This has been a battle women have been fighting for a number of years throughout this country.


I think it's rude to have just discovered this issue.

Tilapia, it's not even relevant what I did or didn't know before. What matters is that in order to have a civil discussion where anyone feels they may participate, one must not make fun of anyone for being at any state of knowledge or non-knowledge. What's required of democratic engagement is an ability to listen and move forward, not a requirement to be “with it.” I'm not really particularly worried about what you think of my state of cluefulness or lack thereof, but I don't want anyone looking on to think that they ought not participate lest they be subjected to the same.

Think of it this way, why is such a hot topic, a strategy that is poised to roll back many of the gains women have made in the last forty years, just coming to your attention? This strategy of personhood has been in play for a number of years.

You can have your civil and moderated discussion, while Rome burns.

Tilapia, nothing in what I've said suggests that this did just come to my attention. All I said was here is a story I wanted to share. I liked the presentation. If you can't stop being insulting, you will no longer be welcome here at all.

"I'm fearful that this post's length will be a barrier to a lot of people reading it"

Count me in. It was all I could do to get through the tags.

It's all moral relativism poorly dressed up. Uninteresting, except for the author's self-consciousness about how it will be received, reviewed, and rated. Insecurity, anyone?

Gordon, your remarks seem to be ever ad hominem and I have no patience with it. If you're going to comment, please do so on the substance. There are people who disagree with me politically who I'm willing to listen to but because they don't insist on being insulting. There's no useful political nugget in what you've offered, just conversational tedium.

Super constricted comment moderation is cognitive dissonance. Creating a "cornfield" that is closed is intellectual hegemony. You define who the "other" is and you send them into exile. In the middle ages the "others" were thrown outside of the walls. They were not under the projection of the lord and master.

Now if you were a man of courage, you would at least let us who are confined in your Guantanamo to talk to each other.

"Yielding the right to disagree", well obviously unless people worship your pomposity they are not allowed such a right. Hypocrisy starts from how we moderate comments in open forums.

You sir are an intellectual coward.

Explain how an authoritarian paternalist can talk of cognitive dissonance and disagreement. Oops, there I go.

I just put together a small pied a tere for the Cornfield guests. I think they may want to interact. You know, undesirables need to mingle as well. http://open.salon.com/blog/tilapia/2011/06/20/a_meeting_place_for_kent_pittmans_cornfield_inmates

There was a brilliant Canadian documentary years ago entitled The Corporation that maintained that the personality profile of the legal person of a corporation was that of a psychopath. It was the warning to the world for the future and what was already happening with the raping of countries and reducing or maintaining their third world status so that the imperialists got to plunder their riches. A great motivation for our CIA to stir it up among unstable countries so we could get our bastard in their to oppress the people. Of course media branding of the psychopathic raping corporations made them all soft and fuzzy to myopic consumer Americans.

Now the sociopathy has turned on the US more and more, though the corporations have controlled BOTH sides of the aisles, in fact it has been a convenient little game to give citizens an illusion of empowerment. Post Bush the scales should finally be coming off on the kleptocracy that is America. Despite Obama's hopium.

But no. People are still stuck in that post-Bush, Obama 5 stages of grief. Especially dangerous are the seemingly intellectual ones in the "bargaining" stage who try to pump up their own hope and propagandize for the betrayer, explaining he is not as bad a betrayer as the out of their minds betrayers. I call that the Stockholm Syndrome, my friend. If you use any moral frame at all, Team Dem are bottom feeders who have betrayed with such colossal hypocrisy for their own self and group-aggrandizement we should be impeaching or dumping most of them. The system is they have to appease the corporations for re-election so they sell out the constituency. They may pull an Obama, talk the talk of pro-citizen, but when push comes to shove, they don't challenge the kleptocrats.

Hillary? You want to replace Obama with Hillary? Are you for real.? You haven't seen her true colors either? Dear God.

What, are you, a six-digit income Middle Classer who doesn't give a damn that 1 in 4 American kids goes to bed hungry each night? That is the best Obama could do for them, and they should be lucky cuz the Republicans would make it more kids each night?

Good Germanhood in America. Don't question authority seriously. Just enable the system.

And Obama carrying on gratuitous wars for profit or for international gamesmanship to protect the dollar or oil or banks or whatever? Obama is the biggest kleptocrat going. You are like Maddow, a part-time ostrich. A cherry-picker extraordinaire. Call out the non-cronies, but give the Dem cronies a pass.

There is a saying, it is easier to see a flea on someone else, the other party, but not an elephant (or in this case a jackass) on yourself, or rather on your own party.

Lost in the trees you are, and the forest has been captured by the corporations and your encouraging others to enable the Dems who are puppets for the corporations, have their faux-lesser evil role to play, is not helping us drain the quicksand swamp we are in. It is prolonging it.

DENIAL is ferocious, clearly.

libby, I don't mind if you express your opinion about the situation, even strongly, but please confine your remarks to the subject matter at hand. To the extent that you drift into criticizing me or others as in “are you for real?” and “Lost in the trees you are” you are out of line. Say what you want to say, whether it agrees or disagrees with me, without embellishing with your personal assessment of me or any other participant in this discussion.

"There are so many things [obama] cares about that he has not done the things many wanted and yet at each point has deniability. So I don't see a contradiction."
hey kent, sure, your position in this single post sounds well reasoned, but overall, combined with your stance on obama, in other posts, it MAKES NO SENSE. it is "transparently" not consistent. lets face it, you're clearly involved in the well-known psychological condition/trap/tendency to fit the facts to your feelings. your feeling is that you just dont trust ron paul, and its not really based on the facts.... now, please dont feel bad about this kent, because this is exactly the same reverse-engineered logic that most americans [hell, most HUMANS] use to make most major decisions in their lives, incl, and perhaps esp, stuff like "which president do I vote for, anyway?"

vzn, the topic is this post. I don't know which other positions you're talking about, but they're not up for discussion. It's possible I'm sometimes inconsistent or it's possible I've changed my mind, but either way it's of no relevance to the topic. I'll take your last comment and my reply here to the Cornfield. I want no one posting here to feel they are at risk of being personally criticized for their opinion.