tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post102863675840824142..comments2024-03-25T16:30:58.213+13:00Comments on GREENIE WATCH: JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-88771748594024441262011-06-05T16:42:52.627+12:002011-06-05T16:42:52.627+12:00I have a theory about why the same people would be...I have a theory about why the same people would be authoritarian in one direction and oppose "hierarchical" ideas in the other.<br /><br />The heirs of the "New Left" do not believe in individuals. I don't mean that they distrust individuals the way an authoritarian conservative would; I mean they do not believe individuals can come up with anything on their own. This theory leads to the following conclusion: If someone is not going along with a group (The People) then he/she must be following another group (The Establishment).<br /><br />According to this view, classical liberalism (which defended individual rights against The Establishment) must have been about strengthening the right of The People to tell individuals what to do. Anyone opposed to that obviously would have opposed the American Revolution and the abolitionists. (This explains why modern liberals---who think of themselves as nonconformists---are so eager to claim to be mainstream.)<br /><br />If The People agree with The Establishment they are not acting in accordance with their true nature and can be disregarded. If 90% of The People believe in family values, the work ethic, religion, etc. (Establishment values) and 10% don't, the 10% are the real mainstream of The People. (Authoritarian conservatives think that "nonconformists" are trying to be nonconformists. They're not. They're trying to be their type of conformist.)Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04720409839023747889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-80388630653365383392011-05-30T10:29:29.420+12:002011-05-30T10:29:29.420+12:00Kyoto
"The US, the second-largest carbon emi...Kyoto <br /><i>"The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.</i> <br /> <br />The AFP ending sentence is outrageous, and its inclusion by nearly the entire MSM, especially here in the US, without even a murmur possibly worse. <br /> <br />The "US" never signed Kyoto: Vice President Gore did, apparently without consultation, and even before he got back to the country with it for ratification the Senate had unanimously voted to reject it so President <i>Clinton</i> never sent it to Congress. Later, President Bush also saw no point in doing so. Especially since the US, unlke most of the signatory countries, had not only met but actually exceeded the CO2 cuts called for by Kyoto, which is still true some years later.John Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801684602403824157noreply@blogger.com