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

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Thu Apr 02 2009 - 02:04:43 EDT


I also object to Janice's posts, not because I disagree with them, but
because the approach she takes guarantees her proposition will not be
considered on their own merits. I believe she would be much better off
putting advocacy related materials in her own web/internet space instead of
on the list. That way she could do a scholarly treatment of her subjects
without attracting hecklers or spawning flame wars.

Might I point out there are a lot of "Clinton, Bush, Obama" words in her
posts and these may go over the line in injecting too much politics.

-Dave C
"Please don't strangle the whales"

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Murray Hogg <>wrote:

> 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.
> Blessings,
> Murray
> 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.

I often suffer from nostalgia, that fondness for something that never was.
Pleasant memories have a tendency to expand.
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 2 02:05:49 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 02 2009 - 02:05:49 EDT