Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Never trust the words of a man in an ill fitting 3-piece suit.
Read the proposed treaty language (it’s a tough slog and still very alpha) and draw your own conclusions. You may be worried about the treaty for a variety of reasons – that’s good. Don’t take Monckton, or anyone else’s word for things.
Monckton? This guy who claims to be a peer of the upper house, favors compulsory blood testing for aids, is funded by tobacco and oil (Heartland Institute), and is a general wing nut. He’s also a colorful character – and the world needs more of those.
However, as someone who lives in the British Commonwealth, I’d offer this word of advice. Be careful when an over-bred, weak-chinned, upper class, failed aristocrat British twit starts sucking up to you. They don’t have your best interests at heart. For some reason so many Americans get sucked in by this, repeatedly.
A quick question, why are you quoting Article VI of the US Constitution? That refers to sorting out jurisdiction between state and federal laws, rulings, and treaties. In case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be upheld, hence it is “supreme”.
Article VI has no jurisdiction or relevance to international treaties. Am I missing something?
He lost me when he started talking about a “world communist government.”
That’s insane!
The US: Empire, obviously. Fascist(corporatist), arguably. Communist, ha!
My read on Obama and co. is that they are unable to address long term problems(widespread insolvency) because they are so closely focused on immediate problems(stock prices of insolvent companies).
Communism is dead. The Russians are state organized crime, and the Chinese are authoritarian capitalists. Somehow communists control the West? Please.
# 11
What kind of restrictions do we europeans have that you would not think off?
So for polluting the the world since the Industrial Revolution, we will give away money to 3rd world countries because of a guilt trip?
How exactly is giving money going to help the environment? All this money would do is make 3rd world counties develop into more polluting countries than the may already be.
Wouldn’t it be more wise to keep that money and use it to find ways to reduce pollution? “Spreading the wealth” isn’t going to “save the planet.” The money will just end up going to rich bastards who don’t need it.
#34–qb==actually Federal Law is NOT supreme in all cases, just most cases, but in all cases where the Sup Ct says they are.
It always comes down to the Supremes and what enforcement mechanism lies behind any entities judgment. All countries violate treaties all the time and the rest of the world then decides what to do about it===just as if there was no treaty to begin with.
I call it word shuffle as so many important issues are.
#38 bobbo
Fair enough. Does Article VI have any applicability to international treaties? I’m not American and haven’t studied the US Constitution for years so I’m not sure.
#39–qb==I am working on some croissants right now, but in context to this thread, Article 6 has NOTHING to do with this issue.
THE ISSUE as I take it is the ability of a treaty to be supreme over the US Constitution itself.
Article 6 just says treaties properly entered into are supreme over the 50 individual states of the union, THEIR laws, and their constitutions. Doesn’t address “the issue” at all.
It weird that treaties have the language they do, that the Founders would elevate them in any sense above the US Constitution AND that any judge ((especially “the liberal ones”)) would give that provision any force at all. “If I were a judge” I would strike it down as inconsistent with the body and clear intent of the remainder of the Constitution. Treaties should be “supreme” to the Constitution only if they go thru the process required to change the constitution itself and maybe that really is the way to “interpret” same should the issue ever come up on point.
Quote from #37:
“Spreading the wealth” isn’t going to “save the planet.” The money will just end up going to rich bastards who don’t need it.
% % % % % % % %
I’ll second that & add that it just encourages useless skanks to birth another damn baby.
#37 FRAGaLOT
I’m with you in a lot of ways on this. I think investment in emerging economies is the future but the problem I have with this treaty is it ties a large scale investment model with environmental improvements.
All I have to do is look at the US financial system to know that large scale models are a fool’s paradise. Also, large scale government subsidies in the mortgage and energy sectors have made the US uncompetitive in these sectors.
I think a model of easier direct investment in emerging economies is great. Personally I get very reasonable returns and actually enjoy investing. I think leveling the playing field from a governmental point of view (e.g. tax laws and tariffs) would encourage new investment without depending on inter-governmental agencies and NGO’s to supply the muscle is pointless.
Personally I think most people want to do the right thing, we’re just restricted from doing it since the only reasonable tax model is through havens like Churches and NGO’s. Both control your investment dollars with near zero benefits.
A treaty is not the “law of the land” until signed by the president AND ratified by 2/3 of the senate. See U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 2.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html
#37–frag==I’ll chime in my agreement too. It reminds me of an article I read about how USA “cleaned up” its air by moving all its manufacturing to Mexico and the Asian Tiger. Now, Mexico and China etc have all the money from that production but all the pollution too and America is “proud” of how air/water quality has improved over the years. We think it has something to do with “concern” over the environment====hah, hah!!!
No–I think whoever winds up with the money to do so needs to apply that money themselves to the SOURCE of the pollution. Certain interpretations of cap and trade say they get to that nugget, but it still is several steps removed with all kinds of wiggle room.
Given USA doesn’t pollute because it doesn’t manufacture==we should sign as many treaties resticting this as we wish==but those who do pollute in such ways won’t sign. And the world continues to stumble on. Course, we do burn a lot of coal. We can just exempt ourselves from the coal provisions then.
The fall is quite pleasant until the last two feet.
What a nob “green peace is communist” – i hear all europeans eat babies.
#43–chrish==and the important part of that high requirement is that Art % requires a 3/4 vote adoption by the individual states to amend the Constitution==an almost impossible burden==much higher, much more secure against corruption and insider dealing, than mere votes in Congress.
It would have made “sense” to make treaties on the same level as Constitutional provisions==that way the Supremes could strike the provision down by express authority. Now, they can only do so by their authority gained by respect.
Wow, this guy is just a rapid fire BS machine, isn’t he?
1. Treaties are signed “*under* the authority of the United States”; thus *below* the US constitution, not above it.(article VI).
2. 2/3 of the senate needs vote for the treaty as well (article II sec 2).
3. ALL commerce with foreign nations is exclusively regulated by the US congress, not the president (Article I sec 8).
4. Global Warming is real… Argue about specifics in terms of *how much* we’re contributing to it vs natural environmental factors, but there’s no real argument about *whether* we are.
#47–Pedro==as defined/demonstrated by #35==of course communism is dead. “Moving closer to the US” sounds meaningful but is rhetorically void.
Times change my cold warrior.
#48-simongiln-Global Warming is real.
I see that you are behind the times – didn’t you get the word from Algore that it’s back to global cooling.
If you are going to fleece the sheep you should at least recognize what is happening on the planet before you commit to another false global disaster.
Global warming – I hate disorganized con jobs.
#50–Dr Doodiepants==got a link? I stopped following global warming issue but I would guess with Algore’s financial backing of carbon credits he will be rotting in his glacier covered grave before he would hint warming is not the trend.
Got a link to what you misread?
On the cooling issue: yes, last year is the largest temperature “ever” recorded according to:
http://dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
I would have thought the temp drop after that volcano erupted would have been a bigger drop?–but maybe second place.
Yes==too many variables for the bumper sticker crowd to comprehend. Keep your panties filled Dr.
#51-boob-got a link?
Who needs a link? I can freeze the brass monkeys just by walking outside.
Yes, you are right about Algore ever denying global warming, but it does make you wonder if carbon credits will be the new currency of the New World Order.
bobbo
In a nutshell, if we see more variability in a closed system then we’re buggered. By 2050, it will all be a moot point one way or another.
Some things are clear. Species are being wiped out at a tremendous rate. That can’t be good for our own species’ health and survival and has ethical implications. Also, our economic system is deriving diminishing returns from a heavily subsidized carbon based economy. The price curve will eventually throttle growth.
Staying the current course is what losers do. Winners innovate and switch long before the old dies away.
How much can Obama get for the US?
I’m sure he’d sell us for the right price…
bobbo, you were baking and you didn’t invite me over?
#53–qb==you are leavening a smorgasbord of issues there. I’m not being too disengenuous to challenge you thusly:
1. Define variability? Over what length of time defines “a trend?”
2. I think our population growth/resource utilization is so steep that in a vacuum without descriptions or definitions, yea, I kinda agree==most “things”/issues will be moot by 2050. Or not: “How long will this smell last?” comes to mind.
3. I think almost all species can be wiped out without little to no impact on homo sapiens. The only real issue is we don’t know which ones, which combinations of ones, is critical to our own survivial, or survival in numbers we want to have. I think nature is going to force that issue on us.
4. I see NO MORAL ISSUES at all. Other than existential ones you wish to make up for yourself.
5. What would unlimited free energy do to any price/consumption/sustainability curve?
Yes, baking is good for the soul. I hear juggling is too but you can’t eat bowling balls. Drop by anytime and you can lend a hand. Don’t cook-don’t eat:
http://drinksmediawire.com/upload/images/cdp/grand/croissant_clayetteHD.jpg
even better: pastry viennesse
Dr Dodd==I’m pretty sure future economics for the “haves” will be carbon credits backed by government guaranteed debt swap insurance certificates, but the peeples will have switched to the taco for daily transactions. Change in chips.
#57–Pedro==I recognize YOU are the expert in all things south of the border. I just don’t know why you won’t cure my rash.
I don’t think any part of South America starting with Mexico has enough social adhesion to go commie. Strong Man dictator is all they have beside corporate thugocracy. Thats not communism.
=====”So, care to re-state that argument of yours?==== Well, if you think Carl Marx was a communist, thats our disagreement right there. Marx was, Marx was – – – – well, a Marxist!!!
Your analysis is as stoopid as calling the Catholic Church a follower of Jebus. Jebus would give no tithe to the religion in and of his name. Neither would Marx.
I assume either one of us could define communism so that it included or excluded whatever we wanted to? Therefore, you post only to argue about it. Something I am too pure to do.
#59–Pedro==flags? FLAGS??? They have to be waving, coming in my direction, flown from a bayonet to get my attention.
Flags/bumperstickers–“¿Cuál es la diferencia de puta”
Ah shoot. It was in the back of my mind and I forgot to reference/integrate it.
Yes, Peru has really turned itself around. So has most of SA past Venezula. Each country has something to show the world. Boliva holding onto its mineral rights, Argentina going green, Chile–slips my mind right now but they did something. I wonder how far they “all” could advance if the USA kept its dick out of their affairs? We’ll never know.
Hah, hah. Pedro, you are funny. Nothing you say is within the context I clearly laid out. You are blowing a trumpet from the wrong end and claiming it doesn’t work.
Even a short study of Marx will reveal the same gap between the man and the philosopy as applied by real world power hungry politicians as would a short study of Jebus and the TV Evangelicals/Pope with his candle sticks. Same issues revealed in two different contexts. Philosophy corrupted in application.
Read my comments regarding Peru and SA with a broader pallet and not your own private reference points.
I can think of five communist countries. Last time I looked, none of them were in South America.