There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama's Global Poverty Act, but the extremist fearmongering is counterproductive.
I recently received a hysterical email from someone on a mailing list I subscribe to, ranting and raving about the dangers of the Global Poverty Act, which was authored by Barack Obama and which is currently up for consideration by the Senate. Apparently, it's also being spammed all over the internet, even on craigslist. While I agree that any program which could potentially send a great amount of US taxpayer money overseas ought to be opposed on principle, what troubles me about the email I was sent is that it is chock-full of blatant lies about the content of the act.…
Article comments
26 - Baronius
Pablo - I just found something on infowars that says that the Global Poverty Act would commit us to Kyoto, gun control, and the ICC. Like I said, my computer's barely functioning today, and I can't load enough of the page to tell if this is an article or a message board entry. So here's a mission for you: read the link and read Dave's article, and tell me which correctly describes the Global Poverty Act.
27 - pablo
Oh and for all you 9/11 truth deniers out there below is a fox news clip on 9/11 that is very interesting.
First the Faux news commentator says:
"We are getting word from New York right now that a third building has collapsed, I understand that this is a 47 story building." As she is talking there is a live shot of building 7 in the background. She then goes on to say as the building collapses: "Is that smoke coming from this third collapse (then the building starts to collapse behind her and she says and I quote)"Take a look at that the right hand of the screen, its going down RIGHT NOW" When she says "its going down RIGHT NOW" there is no question that she is referring to the present tense, as you can easily see on this video.
Fox news clip 9/11/01
This coupled with BBC's reporting of building 7 collapsing 30 minutes before it did is only further proof that 9/11 was an inside job, but the media at the highest echelons was complicit and aware of this terrible crime.
28 - pablo
Matthew,
I do not recall using the terminology that infowars was a superior site do you? What I did assert and still do is that it is more popular than blogcritics. I am more than capable of speaking for myself please refrain from suggesting something that I did not assert. Thank you.
Also the numbers that I quoted on alexa were also taken from today which clearly shows that infowars.com is the 5910th most popular site on the world wide web, and blog critics is the 10,326th most visited site on the world wide web
"Clearly Google is part of the conspiracy too."
Cheap shot at best Matthew, nice try though. :)
29 - pablo
Also Matthew in terms of popularity, given that blogcritics has about 15 completely different categories, and infowars has one that being politics, I assert that because the statistics via alexa are about 2 to 1 in favor of infowars, if you put both of them together in just the political arena its more like 30/1 more popular than this site.
Superior? Hardly, thats like comparing dogs and cats, fundamentally different animals as it were.
30 - Matthew T. Sussman
"I do not recall using the terminology that infowars was a superior site do you?"
It was your implication. When someone blurts traffic stats in such a context that's almost always they're trying to accomplish.
"the numbers that I quoted on alexa were also taken from today which clearly shows that infowars.com is the 5910th most popular site on the world wide web, and blog critics is the 10,326th most visited site on the world wide web"
Alexa's ranking is based on a three-month period. Since politics was überhuge, this makes sense that Jones's site had a lot of traffic from September-today. Look at other timeslices:
Last week:
IW 6,330
BC 12,772
Yesterday:
IW 15,767
BC 13,109
"blogcritics has about 15 completely different categories"
Nine.
"I assert that because the statistics via alexa are about 2 to 1 in favor of infowars, if you put both of them together in just the political arena its more like 30/1 more popular than this site."
Your math is based on each section having uniform traffic. I don't have access to those numbers. But, sure, yeah, more people read IW than they do BC Politics. If you're trying to refute the dismissal of IW as a crackpot site, just look at what I did with PerezHilton.
31 - Ruvy
Pablo,
I know I say a lot of provocative stuff that some folks think is over the top, but I try very hard to stay away from the personal attacks. All it does is raise your blood pressure to go on and on with personal bickering.
There are some folks (I won't name names) who seem to thrive on that sort of thing, but when I get pissed, it's over an issue, not a personality. A personality is a given. An issue can be discussed.
Look at it this way. You barely ever publish here, and that's where you really run across Dave Nalle and Clavos. That is where they can hurt you, either by gutting your article or holding off on publishing it. They've never done that to me, either of them, so what I'm saying is not an accusation, it's merely an example.
So Nalle called you a nazi. Big fuckin' deal! From the point of view of a commenter, he's no more than pixelated "reality" somewhere in a compound near Austin. If I really thought about it, I probably could say far nastier things about him, things that would really cut. I have a long memory. But it just ain't worth it. So I don't. Life is too fuckin' short for that kind of shit. And as far as Nalle goes, he's done some damned decent things, things that I wished I could have done, but couldn't. He gets high marks for that decency.
So it all cuts both ways.
Anyway, dude, check out those links in comment #17. One of them is a developing story. I had hoped I could stay up to follow it, but I don't have to work tonight, so there is no reason to. I won't be home a good portion of tomorrow so I won't be able to write about it then either.
It's gonna be a bad news day for this country, Pablo. The schmucks at the CFR (this is their gig) really have it in for a whole bunch of decent people. Something very bad is liable to happen here.
32 - Clavos
Woo Hoo!!
WELCOME back, pablo! SO good to see you back here again, things were getting very staid and boring around here.
It's so nice to have someone livening things up again on these threads!
33 - pablo
Matthew,
I was not trying to refute anything of the sort, I was simply saying that the site was more popular than blogcritics, again I am re-asserting that I never said anything or implied anything of the sort that infowars was superior than blogcritics, they cannot be compared in that fashion as I already demonstrated. Yet you continue to assert that was my implication. IT WAS NOT.
An apple is not superior to an orange, they are different creatures. Now if you would like to to compare say Rush Limbaughs site to infowars thats completely different, and I would argue then that infowars is a far superior site.
So no I did not imply anything of the sort, and your reading comprehension skills are clearly lacking as I explained that quite clearly in the last post. IT WAS NOT MY IMPLICATION.
34 - pablo
Yes Clavos you give me that warm fuzzy feeling, the same kind of feeling that I get from Homeland Security keeping me all safe from the boogeyman.
35 - Clavos
You have good instincts, pablo...
36 - Baronius
Just as long as Clavos doesn't give you the same feeling you get from a TSA cavity search.
37 - Clavos
Not to worry, Bar. Even if I liked boys, pablo wouldn't be one of 'em...
38 - Dave Nalle
Yes Clavos you give me that warm fuzzy feeling, the same kind of feeling that I get from Homeland Security keeping me all safe from the boogeyman.
Pablo, I wouldn't think Homeland security would be an issue for you in your squalid new island paradise?
Dave
39 - Zedd
Ewww get a room already.
40 - Zedd
Dave,
This article is too reasonable.
Is this the new strategy? Act all indignant about the extremist element in order to gain credibility?
Good article.
41 - Dave Nalle
Zedd, all my articles are reasonable. They just sometimes appear unreasonable to those who happen not to agree with them. Reality is subjective.
Dave
42 - Christopher Rose
Hey everybody, look! An actual example of the rare Nalleian sense of humour. Oh how I laughed!
43 - Zedd
No Dave they don't always add up.
44 - Zedd
"The ratification of the Kyoto global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures."
These loonies will tag anything "American" or "ant-American". What in the world does that mean? There are jerks and really nice people all over this land. What does anti-American mean?
45 - Dave Nalle
In the context of Kyoto it means that the measures in the treaty unfairly single America out for economic harm.
Dave
46 - Zedd
Single America out? Are you really that uninformed or is something wrong with you?
You are back.
47 - Dave Nalle
Indeed, something is wrong with me. I read the Kyoto treaty and it made me realize that its purpose is to hamstring commerce in developed nations while allowing less developed nations to run wild and reap the profits.
Dave
48 - Zedd
So America is currently running wild and reaping havoc and has done so for centuries more than anyone else and shouldn't be stopped because it makes them money? So there can't be a switch off where those who have been the polluters slow down their activity and start to develop a green economy and let those who haven't been the culprits develop until they get to the point where they will have the infrastructure to create a green economy? Are you saying that everyone should expand their emissions because it's good for the American economy? Is that your "reasoning"?
What part of that is not dumb?
49 - Dave Nalle
No Zedd, I'm suggesting that countries like China, India and Mexico which have virtually no regulation of pollution ought to be required to bring themselves to a level of pollution control at least somewhat comparable to the United States before we start going after the enormously cleaner industries in the US for their relatively minuscule level of pollution output.
Dave
50 - Zedd
That makes absolutely no sense. Even in a relationship, that type of reasoning doesn't work.
51 - pablo
Nalle,
And what makes you think I am in an island paradise?
Looked in the mirror lately Davey? Spookiness runs in your blood, and I pity you.
52 - Mark Eden
Zedd - if climate change alarmists are correct then the earth cannot tolerate the new mega polluters. Agreed, the US and the developed countries as a group have been way over the line for decades (or is that centuries?) but a better treaty needs to be negotiated.
Mark
53 - pablo
Clavy #37
Do your really read what you write? If so, take a look in the mirror, cuz you only make yourself look just a weee bit silly guy.
54 - Zedd
Mark
The U.S. has been the largest culprit. If they are THE major cause, THEY (WE)have to be curtailed. It's just that simple. Does that not make sense.
55 - Mark Eden
Yes Zedd it does make sense to me. 'Green' development should be the goal for all polluting industries. This goes for those in the developing countries as well as for our long standing profligates. But, as with Truth Commission, 'pay back' should not be the driving logic of this development.
Mark
56 - Dave Nalle
You guys aren't up on your pollution stats. China passed the US as the leading producer of pollutants in 2006 and the developing world now counts for 53% of all carbon output, and their output is accelerating rapidly while the developed world is slowly cutting output.
Contrary to Zedd's assumption and that of many who have bought into this anti-US global warming as the hammer of socialism nonsense, the US is far from the major culprit.
The sensible way to assess carbon output is to measure it relative to GDP, because GDP represents contribution to the world economy from the industry which creates that pollution, among other things. On that basis the US ranks low among the major polluters, because it produces so much more wealth than other nations relative to the amount of carbon it produces.
The US produces 1.5 billion tons of carbon with a GDP of $13.8 trillion. China produces 1.8 billion tons of carbon with a GDP of $3.3 trillion. India produces 430 million tons of carbon with a GDP of $1.1 trillion. Russia produces 432 million tons of carbon with a GDP of $1.3 trillion. The EU produces 2.2 billion tons with a GDP of $16.9 trillion. Mexico produces 650 million tons with a GDP of only $1 trillion.
So the top polluter of the big six is clearly Mexico, followed closely by China, and here they are sorted by ratio of carbon tons to GDP:
Mexico .65
China .55
India .4
Russia .33
EU .13
US .11
So, as you can see the US pollutes the least relative to economic productivity, 1/6th as much as Mexico, 1/5th as much as China and a quarter as much as India. Yet Kyoto aims all the restrictions at the US and EU and other developed nations while letting the top polluters get away with anything.
Dave