You mean like ignoring facts presented by sources one claims to be conservative or right-winged?
I thought I'd addressed this fairly fully above. Should you wish me to revisit that discussion, I would welcome the chance to do so; but I thought that if you had any objections to any of the points I'd raised, the sources I quoted or the observations I made, you might be willing to state which one it was so I could address it directly, instead of making an unsupported allegation.
Briefly, I have no objection to conservative sources or right wing sources so long as they offer facts and references that can be confirmed. I do not see your sources as troublesome because of their political content. I didn't like, for example, The Economist when it supported President Bush and the second Gulf War, but I had to admit they had their facts straight, because they did. I didn't like that, but it was true.
We had differences of opinion, there, and we still do. I would never suggest they they falsified a source or tried to mislead their readers, however.
While, on the other hand, if FOX news came out in support of President Obama today, I'd be very suspicious of what was going on, both with FOX news and with President Obama. I don't trust them as a source, and it wouldn't matter which political position they took. They are in the business of selling entertainment packaged as news, and they seem to be willing to do whatever it takes to sell advertisements. They also seem to have a Republican bias over here, but I am not certain if that is business or what, since they are very cozy with the Chinese on the mainland as well. They run the satellite service that China gets most of its outside feed from.
Speaking of responses, I'm sill waiting to hear an opinion about why Gore is skipping Copenhagen.....and, btw, what do you think about that video they began the conference with? Would it be out of bounds to call it fear-mongering, in your opinion?
Sorry about that. I do like to get back on stuff you ask about, even though, as you say, there's no obligation. It just seems to work better for me that way. However you work things is fine, of course.
Truth be told, I haven't been following the whole thing. On the more environmentally upset side of things, folks are not feeling hopeful that any sort of real agreement might be reached at Copenhagen in the same way that they were dejected at the Kyoto Protocols. They don't think there's enough in it to create any change or to prevent any sort of actual environmental catastrophe from happening. I'm in agreement.
Were I to speculate simply on the matter of internal environmental politics, I'd say that could be a good reason. Basically, that there seems nothing to be gained by going and throwing marshmallows back and forth that nobody intends to toast anyway. I suspect that may be some of the reason for President Obama's waffling on the matter as well, if you see him as being waffling as clearly as I believe I do, that is.
I haven't seen the video, so I'll try to have a look at it if you have some reference for it.
One of the things that I've learned from working with some of the most crazy people you could imagine is about paranoia. And there is a degree of paranoia to the fears that people have about global catastrophe, it's simply that there's disagreement about exactly how much. The thing about paranoia is that there's always a piece of truth in there someplace, and that if you're going to deal with the person with the paranoia, you have to help find out what that reality is. Like when you have some of the militia types talking about black helicopters and the United Nations taking over the world and the need to get together some sort of resistance, there's at least a piece of reality there having to do with globalization of the economy, right?, and the feeling that control feels like it's slipping out of local hands.
There may not be any U.N. Operated black Helicopters trying to subvert the government literally, but there's a grain of something real there, that feeling of powerlessness and anger at least.
On the left, some of that paranoia settles on the sense that the whole world is dying from environmental disaster. There's some paranoia there, and some reality.
Right wing paranoia is something I'd rather not talk about right now, since I'm not trying to rile you, and it'd be hard to talk about paranoia on the right without it feeling that way. Everybody takes their own paranoia seriously because it seems so real to them, of course, and because there always is that piece of reality to it, which is so often difficult to evaluate.
If you can get me the reference to the video, I'll give it a look. It sounds interesting.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven