What does this mean?

[DrTodd13]

Quote all over drudge yesterday about how Obama said that the US can't continue to drive SUVs, eat to the point of obesity, and keep our homes at a comfortable 72 degrees and expect the international community to say "OK." WTF does that mean? Does this mean he's going to make efforts to curtail these things so that the international community is happy that our standard of living has decreased? I don't think it is his job even if he becomes president to force people to change their lifestyles so that the perception of Americans improve overseas. Certainly, even if the international community is aghast at some supposed luxurious lifestyle we have, what are they going to do? Let them use all the words they want...those are cheap. They going to attack us to make us drive miniature cars, go on diets, and suffer in cold and hot weather? Increasing energy prices are going to do that quite nicely without anyone's help.

[jdonn]

Take a deep breath...

[mike777]

:) Iguess it means slow news Monday as this seems to be all over the cable news and blogs when I got home. :)

 

My best guess for those who are already voting for him they will say this is just another example of his sane thoughtful approach to save the planet and stop our dependence on foreign oil and live healthier more caring lives.

 

For those who already are not voting for him this will smell like Jimmy Carter all over again.

 

All I can suggest is Jimmy won the first time he ran for president but got killed the second time. :) No one wanted another 4 years of Nixon(surrogate) in 76 and this may be the same race and debate all over again just insert Bush for Nixon.

 

It still looks like a huge win for the Democrats across the board.

[jtfanclub]

And this is different from what McCain said in Oregon how, exactly?

[luke warm]

obamba's attitude is one shared by a lot of people, believe it or not... we're no longer one nation [under God], indivisible, etc... we're very divisible

[DrTodd13]

Mostly Democratic sweep I would agree but not for the Presidency. I think the country is more racist than it is sexist and Hillary does well in the purple states. Obama doesn't seem to do well in the purple states. If even 3% of Hillary's supporters are racists (and therefore stay home or vote McCain) then that may be enough to swing key states to McCain.

[hrothgar]

Quote all over drudge yesterday about how Obama said that the US can't continue to drive SUVs, eat to the point of obesity, and keep our homes at a comfortable 72 degrees and expect the international community to say "OK."  WTF does that mean?  Does this mean he's going to make efforts to curtail these things so that the international community is happy that our standard of living has decreased?  I don't think it is his job even if he becomes president to force people to change their lifestyles so that the perception of Americans improve overseas.

I think its pretty obvious what the quote means:

 

Addressing global warming is going to require collaborative problem solving. Its probably too much to hope for anything approaching a consensus, however, it will require a broad based coalition.

 

In turn, this is going to require sacrifices on all parts.

 

The US is not going to be able to say "All of you need to change your behavior, but we're going to do whatever we want"

 

I know this you find this sort of thing abhorrent.

Your entire world view seems to consist of

 

"^%&! off, I got mine" and

"I should be able to piss where ever I damn well please"

 

Maybe, someday, you'll understand how grown ups behave...

[mike777]

Just my opinion but I think asking Americans to be charitable works but asking us to be altruistic may not be in our culture or winning politics. But it will be interesting to see if this becomes a theme and even more so if it becomes a winning political theme.

 

Netherlands pay over 9 bucks a gallon for gas and we complain like crazy at 3.50.

Even the American experience at home during WWII I think I would define as something other than alturistic.

Everyone had work and many had very well paying jobs for the times.

[DrTodd13]

Quote all over drudge yesterday about how Obama said that the US can't continue to drive SUVs, eat to the point of obesity, and keep our homes at a comfortable 72 degrees and expect the international community to say "OK."  WTF does that mean?  Does this mean he's going to make efforts to curtail these things so that the international community is happy that our standard of living has decreased?  I don't think it is his job even if he becomes president to force people to change their lifestyles so that the perception of Americans improve overseas.

I think its pretty obvious what the quote means:

 

Addressing global warming is going to require collaborative problem solving. Its probably too much to hope for anything approaching a consensus, however, it will require a broad based coalition.

 

In turn, this is going to require sacrifices on all parts.

 

The US is not going to be able to say "All of you need to change your behavior, but we're going to do whatever we want"

 

I know this you find this sort of thing abhorrent.

Your entire world view seems to consist of

 

"^%&! off, I got mine" and

"I should be able to piss where ever I damn well please"

 

Maybe, someday, you'll understand how grown ups behave...

The intellectually strong do not go around determining what is right or wrong based on what the international community says. If he wants to fight global warming fine. Stand up and say we must sacrifice and lose our fat asses for the sake of the world even if the rest of the world does not follow. I did not get the sense he was saying that we were hypocritical for telling others to fight GW when we were not willing to ourselves. We should not be hypocritical for sure but likewise he is supposed to represent US citizens and not the world so any reference he makes to the world opinion is a slap in the face to Americans and shows him to be weak. You are weak if you let the opinions of others dictate right and wrong to you.

 

I find your attitude paternalistic and offensive. You talk about being an adult yet you want to treat people like stupid like children. They do not know what is good for them and need big daddy government run by smart guys like you to guide their every move. You are evil. Collectivism is immoral and evil. You have no right to dictate how people should live even if it kills them.

[Winstonm]

Quote all over drudge yesterday about how Obama said that the US can't continue to drive SUVs, eat to the point of obesity, and keep our homes at a comfortable 72 degrees and expect the international community to say "OK." WTF does that mean?

 

I believe what is says is quite simple and quite reasonable. To continue this present lifestyle requires that Foreign Central Banks purchase about US $2 billion a day of U.S. debt. Without those bids, yields (and interest rates) would spike, while the U.S. standard of living would fall.

 

Collectivism is immoral and evil.

 

Wow. I guess that story about feeding 5,000 with 5 loaves and 5 fishes must really piss you off, then.

[jdonn]

We should not be hypocritical for sure but likewise he is supposed to represent US citizens and not the world so any reference he makes to the world opinion is a slap in the face to Americans and shows him to be weak.  You are weak if you let the opinions of others dictate right and wrong to you.

True, why correct your own misconceptions based on the knowledge and experience of billions of others when you can shut your eyes, plug your ears, and say LALALA until they all go away? I would argue that the USA has a great interest in what the international community thinks. We do have many interactions with other countries in which it would be in our own best interest to have many of them on our side. Wars, trade, loans...

 

They do not know what is good for them and need big daddy government run by smart guys like you to guide their every move.  You are evil.  Collectivism is immoral and evil.  You have no right to dictate how people should live even if it kills them.

Sorry if it makes me evil too. It's not even that so many are too dumb to know what is good for them, although that is true (as much about me as anyone in many cases). It's that I for one, and I'm willing to bet this view is widely shared, am quite glad there are a great many decisions that I don't have to make for myself. I am even willing to accept that some of them will in my opinion be wrong, simply to avoid the cost of having to figure out how to make them all for myself.

 

Here is the part you always seem to miss. It's not that I am so high and mighty that I wouldn't, for example, reap many of the benefits of (for example) a cleaner environment even if I hadn't made a contribution to it becoming cleaner. It's just that I wouldn't expect anyone to care what I thought if I whined my ass off when people asked me to take a role in creating or preserving that new cleaner environment that I enjoy.

[hrothgar]

The intellectually strong do not go around determining what is right or wrong based on what the international community says. If he wants to fight global warming fine. Stand up and say we must sacrifice and lose our fat asses for the sake of the world even if the rest of the world does not follow. I did not get the sense he was saying that we were hypocritical for telling others to fight GW when we were not willing to ourselves. We should not be hypocritical for sure but likewise he is supposed to represent US citizens and not the world so any reference he makes to the world opinion is a slap in the face to Americans and shows him to be weak. You are weak if you let the opinions of others dictate right and wrong to you.

 

I find your attitude paternalistic and offensive. You talk about being an adult yet you want to treat people like stupid like children. They do not know what is good for them and need big daddy government run by smart guys like you to guide their every move. You are evil. Collectivism is immoral and evil. You have no right to dictate how people should live even if it kills them.

If folks were just killing themselves, I wouldn't give a damn...

 

The main issue with global warming is one of externalities. The folks who are pumping out all the carbon dioxide are imposing significant costs on the rest of the world.

 

In turn, that gives the rest of the world some rights to question - or even sanction - that behavior.

 

You might think that its weak to care about the opinions of others. I think its being mature. Moreover, when you're dealing with the entire rest of the world I'd go so far as to say that its being prudent.

[blackshoe]

Netherlands pay over 9 bucks a gallon for gas and we complain like crazy at 3.50.

It's already up to 4 around here.

 

Besides, you can drive anywhere in the Netherlands on a gallon of gas. B)

[Gerben42]

We should not be hypocritical for sure but likewise he is supposed to represent US citizens and not the world so any reference he makes to the world opinion is a slap in the face to Americans and shows him to be weak.  You are weak if you let the opinions of others dictate right and wrong to you.

 

No, this comment shows him to be strong. Wouldn't you rather have a president who only tells you what you want to hear?

 

Fact is that the image of the average American is people driving SUVs even to drive only 2 blocks away where even the most lazy European would not even consider taking the car. I know most of you are not like this (I hope) but there you go...

 

One good thing about the high oil price is that now that we're at $8.50/gallon in Germany (less taxes than in the Netherlands) people are starting to think about driving less.

 

They going to attack us to make us drive miniature cars, go on diets, and suffer in cold and hot weather? Increasing energy prices are going to do that quite nicely without anyone's help.

 

I hope energy prices will go up even more. That'll teach us.

[sceptic]

Quote all over drudge yesterday about how Obama said that the US can't continue to drive SUVs, eat to the point of obesity, and keep our homes at a comfortable 72 degrees and expect the international community to say "OK." WTF does that mean?

just because someone can afford to drive SUV's. heat their house to a nice temeperature , or even aircondition it (using massive amounts of a dwindling resource) eat until they become a burden on the state, does not mean that market forces will curtail it, nor does it mean, you have a right to excess, just because you can.

 

If a future president does not have the right to tell us what to do, or at least make policies that are looking to benefit future generations of people, whos responsibility is it?

 

Life style is something people attain through choice or circumstance, Increasing energy prices, will make less choice of lifestyle attainable by many due to circumstances, at least Obama (and probably every other politician) sees that there is a problem looming, I do not understand how you can not see that there is a problem looming and it needs to be tackled NOW, before it is too late (and by too late, may not neccessarily mean in our life time)

[sceptic]

You are weak if you let the opinions of others dictate right and wrong to you.

 

What about if other peoples opinion is correct and your opinion is wrong? I do not think it makes you weak, it makes you more reasoned and capable of making better judgements (imho)

[helene_t]

I am too lazy to find the exact quote but it does smell of social engineering.

 

I probably agree with most if his intensions on this matter but the wording, as Todd refers to it, is too paternalistic for my taste. I would prefer something like "let's increase the taxes on energy to cover for the externalities associated with energy consumption". If, and if so how, people adjust their lifestyle is none of the politicians' business imho.

 

Especially the thing about obesity. Obesity is a tragedy for many people and I think adding a moral burden to it is uncalled for.

[Gerben42]

I probably agree with most if his intensions on this matter but the wording, as Todd refers to it, is too paternalistic for my taste. I would prefer something like "let's increase the taxes on energy to cover for the externalities associated with energy consumption". If, and if so how, people adjust their lifestyle is none of the politicians' business imho.

 

Sure, it is much better to tax undesired behaviour and subsidy desired behavior than to make laws against it.

 

Especially the thing about obesity. Obesity is a tragedy for many people and I think adding a moral burden to it is uncalled for.

 

But way too many people are too fat in the western world. For particularly unhealthy food maybe the value added tax should be 38%, not 19%.

 

Also, only serve real food in schools (I think the idea of "Jamie's school dinner" is superb, and get rid of the candy bar machine!)

[luke warm]

Collectivism is immoral and evil.

 

Wow. I guess that story about feeding 5,000 with 5 loaves and 5 fishes must really piss you off, then.

winston, it's possible todd was referring to the loaves and fishes also, but imo he's speaking of systems of gov't, a'la ayn rand... he's saying (again, imo) collectivism, as a form of gov't, is immoral and evil... do you disagree?

Sorry if it makes me evil too. It's not even that so many are too dumb to know what is good for them, although that is true (as much about me as anyone in many cases). It's that I for one, and I'm willing to bet this view is widely shared, am quite glad there are a great many decisions that I don't have to make for myself.

no need to be sorry, you're right... most people are sheep, so it's not surprising that you're one of the sheeple

Maybe, someday, you'll understand how grown ups behave...

do grownups behave like you, daddy? wouldn't the world be a much better place if everybody did what you wanted them to do, thought like you wanted them to think?

[kenberg]

It is often difficult to be sure what someone meant. Here, we have a paraphrase of a Drudge report of what Obama maybe said. This is like a Rorschach test. Various images will appear to various readers.

 

There are some things that appear sort of obvious to me, along the lines of we can't have six billion people in the world all driving SUVs. Yes, I know, some of the six billion are children and anyway Saudi women aren't allowed to drive. So make it four billion. But we are straining our resources. While we may think the solution is for us to drive SUVs and the Chinese to ride bicycles, it's possible that the Chinese have a different view.

 

Maybe he meant something along the lines of gas prices won't be going back down to a buck fifty a gallon. Countries that have oil reserves are actually more interested in getting a good price for their product than they are in having us like them. The oil companies also like money, I have heard.

 

Maybe he was tired and didn't speak clearly. Or maybe he was tired and inadvertently said what he really thinks. This happens now and then with even the cleverest of politicians.

 

Beats me what it all means. I'll stay tuned.

[hrothgar]

Maybe, someday, you'll understand how grown ups behave...

 

do grownups behave like you, daddy? wouldn't the world be a much better place if everybody did what you wanted them to do, thought like you wanted them to think?

DrTodd is a nutjob. He a Manichæn biblical literalist whose entire world view seems to consist of absolutes.

 

I'm quite upfront with my own prejudices. I consider this type of philosophy abhorrent. I think that the world would be a better place if folks didn't hold these views.

 

However, please note: I am not arguing that DrTodd shouldn't be allowed to speak. I am not arguing that DrTodd or Mike777 or any of the other folks that I disagree with should be rounded up and put into FEMA run death camps.

 

I do, however, believe in actively confronting these individuals when they show up and start spewing their crap.

[Winstonm]

winston, it's possible todd was referring to the loaves and fishes also, but imo he's speaking of systems of gov't, a'la ayn rand... he's saying (again, imo) collectivism, as a form of gov't, is immoral and evil... do you disagree?

 

Yes, I disagree. Perfect colletivism would probably be an ideal, a utopia, but as it is impossible to obtain this perfection an imperfect collectivism becomes useless, budensome, and abusive.

 

It is not evil - it's just lousy.

[helene_t]

winston, it's possible todd was referring to the loaves and fishes also, but imo he's speaking of systems of gov't, a'la ayn rand... he's saying (again, imo) collectivism, as a form of gov't, is immoral and evil... do you disagree?

 

Yes, I disagree. Perfect colletivism would probably be an ideal, a utopia, but as it is impossible to obtain this perfection an imperfect collectivism becomes useless, budensome, and abusive.

 

It is not evil - it's just lousy.

I think collectivism is a somewhat necessary evil, but often less necessary than most people think (and politicians like to us to think).

 

This is a bold statement and could obviously be interpreted as to make it absurd: of course H. Sapiens is a social species and of course modern societies face a lot of inherently collective decisions, protection of the environment being one of them. But ....

 

When I was young I believed very strongly in Communism/Socialism (with capital C/S for its similarity to religious faith). I thought life was ideal in the USSR. I learned it wasn't. So I thought that what they has in USSR was pseudo-socialism. But in China, life was ideal. China turned out not to be ideal either. Cuba then .... ooops .... but at least Cuba could have been an ideal society if it wasn't for the US obstruction. Or maybe Albania ....

 

At a certain point I realized that such large collectives were prone to corruption, but maybe at the smaller scale it could work. So I went to Israel to do voluntary work in a kibbutz. The kibbutz was a very democratic and very safe society. Per capita income was higher than in Israel as a whole. Elderly and disabled people enjoyed the highest level of comfort and everyone contributed to society, even the half-lame half-blind half-deaf lady whose daily achievement was peeling three or four potatoes in the communal kitchen. The residents had a lot of spare time while the kibbutz generated a substantial financial surplus that was spent on support for new kibbutzim.

 

To me it was an ideal society but to most people it wasn't. Most temporary residents despited it. Some 70% of young people would move to the cities after having completed military service. And it was quite hard to attract new members with the skills needed by the kibbutz.

 

What I learned from that experience was that it is a rare subspecies of H. Sapiens, including me and some 2% of the Israeli population, that is willing to sacrifice personal economic freedom, even if the collective decision processes work as democratically and as effectively as they did in the kibbutz. Actually I don't think I would like it today, I have become more individualistic since then.

[luke warm]

winston, it's possible todd was referring to the loaves and fishes also, but imo he's speaking of systems of gov't, a'la ayn rand... he's saying (again, imo) collectivism, as a form of gov't, is immoral and evil... do you disagree?

 

Yes, I disagree. Perfect colletivism would probably be an ideal, a utopia, but as it is impossible to obtain this perfection an imperfect collectivism becomes useless, budensome, and abusive.

 

It is not evil - it's just lousy.

well ok... i guess your experience with that form of gov't differs from mine, in an historical sense... my historical memories go somewhat beyond "useless, budensome, and abusive"... btw, what would make a "perfect" collectivism?

[kenberg]

Helene's estimate of 2% of Israeli society may well be right. But there is a strong current of idealism in many Israelis. Across the world the percentage is likely to be much lower.

 

I see things roughly as:

 

A. We are ultimately on our own. Until this is grasped, no clarity of thought is possible.

 

B. If we are lucky, we expand our concept of self to include family and some others.

 

C. We can pursue affiliation based on self interest. If I am a miner who would like better pay and safer conditions, a union can be very useful. Trust should be given very carefully.

 

D. After we get out own lives in shape, it is reasonable to see what we can do for others and to have a sense of history and hopes for the future.

 

Thinking this way, I don't get surprised when people who have very little are too busy pursuing A,B,C to give much thought to D. Of course there are some saints, or exceptional people, who rise above this. Now and then.

 

As to Ayn Rand, my wife has read Atlas Shrugged and I think some other stuff. I started either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead once. Boring.