Re: [asa] Spain: Green Jobs Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Real Jobs, Decades in Lost Opportunity

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Thu Apr 02 2009 - 00:40:08 EDT

Hi Janice,

Do I have a low opinion of the cognitive abilities of the typical reader here? Well, THAT'S a red herring fit to strangle a whale, isn't it? Simply by introducing it you demonstrate one of my fundamental problem with your entire approach; that you fail to apply to yourself the standards you expect of others.

And herein lies the motivation for my response to your post.

Here I don't, as you correctly surmise, care very much one way or the other as to the "correct" answers to any of the questions I raised. My intent was simply to draw attention to the fact that your own approach comprises anything BUT a focus on the issues at hand. Rather, your usual tactic is to lift bizarre right-wing op-eds from the web, post them to the group, and then claim that any objection to same must be motivated by a partisan left-wing bias.

Case in point is your response to my comments on nuclear energy in response to Burgy. In THAT thread the subject was whether or not nuclear energy is renewable - NOT whether it's environmentally friendly. And the fact is, Janice, that one can't dig Uranium out of the ground forever. Sooner or later you reach the bottom of the hole and then you have to stop.

But rather than deal with the question of availability of supply, YOU chose to change the subject from renewable energy to green ideology. Which, apart from evidencing the double standard of which I speak, suggests what in addition? A low opinion on your part of the cognitive abilities of the typical reader here? Or does that only apply when other people change the subject?

And to cap it off, you decided to include a nice little personal jibe in the form of a quotation from Adam Smith and the suggestion that the ONLY reason I could EVER raise ANY criticism of nuclear energy is because I must be a left-wing partisan blinded by green ideology.

Well, it ain't so, Janice.

Fact is there are issues both for and against (yes, Janice, AGAINST - gasp!) the use of EVERY source of energy. There are reasons for and against the use of nuclear - just as there are issues for and against the use of gas, coal, oil, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc, etc. And whilst no person should allow environmental issues to trump all others, it is nevertheless the case that environmental issues are a legitimate issue to raise in one's considerations.

At the end of the day, Janice, the point is this those on the right don't always get it right, and those on the left don't always get it wrong, and those in the middle often don't know which way to lean. It's a complicated old world, and just because you can't resolve the difficulties other than by resort to a canned ideological line, please don't presume the same applies to the rest of us.


Janice Matchett wrote:
> At 10:57 PM 3/31/2009, */_Murray Hogg _/wrote*:
>> Hi Janice,
>> *1)* */_Exactly_/*/_ *how *many US jobs have been lost to Asia because
>> of free-market economics?_/
> *<>* *EXACTLY what* motive did you have for changing the subject and
> dragging a red herring across the trail? Could the use of that tactic
> be a reflection of your low opinion of the cognitive abilities of the
> typical reader here?
> Most won't allow themselves to be distracted by such transparent tactics
> and would probably say that if you were truly interested in the
> /correct/ answer to that question, you could have easily found it on the
> internet, to wit:
> Myths and Realities: The False Crisis of
> <>* Outsourcing*
> <>
> *How the Left Created the Outsourcing "Crisis", and How We Can Fix It
> *
>> * 2)* */Does the fact that/*/ the Institute for Energy Research
>> receives funding from *Exxon* mean anything? <//
> *<> Does the fact that *_you chose to change the subject and post a
> link to a partisan Far Left blog link_ - ("Climate Progress", run by Joe
> Romm, a Sr. Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - which has
> a VERY close connection the BO administration), - _rather than refute
> the report in my post_, mean anything?
> For instance, <> ...
> */Melody Barnes/ left her position as executive vice president for
> policy at one of George Soros' radical activist projects, the Center For
> American Progress (CAP), to be a top policy adviser to Obama.* John
> Podesta, former White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton, also left
> his posts as president and CEO at CAP to head Obama's transition team.
> *CAP is the brainchild of notorious security risk Morton Halperin,* *who
> is a vice president at CAP while also running Soros' Open Society
> Institute. *Melody Barnes has represented Obama on education matters on
> PBS and other national media. .. she is also a former board member of
> the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and EMILY's List, which provides
> campaign contributions to pro-abortion candidates. [snip]
> *[[*As an aside, I'll post this link on the difference between the open
> society the radical leftists want and a free society: "...[This is] *the
> distinction Polanyi drew between what he called the open society and the
> free society.* He used the practice of science to illustrate the
> difference, pointing out that a truly free society does not merely
> consist of everyone believing whatever they want. Science, for example,
> is a free and spontaneous intellectual order that is nevertheless based
> on a distinctive set of beliefs about the world, through which the
> diverse actions of individual scientists are coordinated. Like the cells
> in your body, individual scientists independently go about their
> business, and yet, progress is made because their activities are
> channeled by the pursuit of real truth. In contrast, in a merely “open”
> society, there is no such thing as transcendent truth: perception is
> reality and everyone is free to think and do as he pleases, with no
> objective standard by which to judge it. *This kind of “bad freedom”
> eventually ramifies into the _cognitively pathological situation we now
> see on the left_, especially as it manifests _in its purest form in
> academia_* (the liberal arts, not the sciences, except to the extent
> that science devolves into metaphysical scientism). ... <
>> ]]
> This is an excerpt from your "Climate Progress" link entitled, "*/Why
> _conservatives_ hate green jobs/*/: "..So it is only fair to note that
> the myth articles were “produced with support from the Institute for
> Energy Research,” which itself “has received $307,000 from* ExxonMobil*
> since 1998.” The President of IER is Robert Bradley “who previously
> served as Director of Public Policy Analysis at *Enron,* where he was
> a speechwriter for CEO Kenneth Lay,” who was “convicted on fraud and
> conspiracy charges on May 25, 2006. .."
> /*This is my answer:
> *"..Clinton realized that America could not economically afford the
> Protocol Gore negotiated. The Clinton-Gore Energy Department found Kyoto
> would lead to $400 billion a year in lost output. ... Gore tries to
> throw _Enron _on the back of the [GWB] administration. *But it was Enron
> Board Chairman Kenneth Lay who sold Clinton-Gore on Kyoto's cap and
> trade system. *Gore, Clinton, and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin [of
> Goldman Sachs] met with Lay on Aug. 7, 1997 to go over goals and
> procedures for the Kyoto session. ... _The corporate *smoking memo* here
> was *not *that from an ExxonMobil adviser to oppose Dr. Watson, but *the
> Enron internal memo saying Kyoto "would do more to promote Enron's
> business than almost any other regulatory initiative*._" Gore succeeded,
> at least in this.
> <>
> "..Ken Lay. Lay and Enron were founders of Pew’s Business Environmental
> Leadership Council, a green-tinted coalition that was pushing the Kyoto
> agenda. Lay was also a favorite and longtime trustee at a similar
> outfit known as the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the
> Environment (run by John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz). _An embarrassing
> e-mail emerged in which Heinz staff pleaded with Lay, “Simply stated,
> your background, expertise and experience make you uniquely qualified
> [to run our] global-warming [initiative]._” ...With that bit of
> history out of the way and as_ Lehman Brothers_ lies in ruins, let us
> take notice of certain coincidences. For example, as Lehman melted down,
> observers spotted the _web of climate-specific similarities connecting
> that company’s priorities and activism and Enron’s_. Like Enron, the
> bank was a strong promoter of carbon pricing, and its recommendations on
> the subject had begun to be adopted by governments around the world.
> Lehman was also the banker for Gore’s private equity firm, Generation
> Investment Management. As it happened, one of Lehman’s managing
> directors, Theodore Roosevelt IV, was also the Pew Center’s chairman, as
> Lay was their star before him.
> _
> _Enron & the ‘Global Warming’ Scam
> Enron: The Godfather of Kyoto
> <>
>> *3) */What was it Adam Smith said about incredulity /
> *<> Adam Smith:* It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach
> incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough.
>> /and do you expect to develop some any time soon?/
> *<> * It's kind of funny to read that second question at this juncture
> ---- in light of the above. :)
> ~ Janice ...."I wish that some way could be found to add up all the
> staggering costs imposed on millions of ordinary people, just so a
> relative handful of self-righteous environmental cultists can go around
> feeling puffed up with themselves." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell
>> Janice Matchett wrote:
>>> B.O. has cited Spain as an example for the USA to follow. :)
>>> * Running of the Bull: U.S. “Green Jobs” Rhetoric Runs Smack Dab Into
>>> Hard Lessons From Spain
> [snip]

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 2 00:41:18 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 02 2009 - 00:41:18 EDT