"We burned down your White House once. We can do it again."

One more reason to take your water. :=)

"Don't forget there's a LOT of land in central and South America too!"

Yeah, but that's a lot farther away. It would require a lot more fuel to invade Central and South America which, in turn, would contribute to global warming. Being such an environmentally sensitive bunch, we could never bring ourselves to even contemplate such an atrocity, especially when there's all that pristine, cool, clear water a few clicks north. And if we got rid of that ante bellum architectural obcenity in DC in the bargain, so much the better. ;}

"Yeah, but that's a lot farther away."

Depends on where your troups are deployed from. Camp Pendalton is as close to Central America as the Canadian border, and if you're talking northeastern Canada, even South America isn't looking like too far to go!

"Depends on where your troups are deployed from. Camp Pendalton is as close to Central America as the Canadian border, and if you're talking northeastern Canada, even South America isn't looking like too far to go!"

We'd never send those guys at Pendleton down through Mexico. By the time they got to Central America they'd be so stoned they wouldn't be able to tell fresh water from salt water. Besides, David Ure promised me that if we invaded Canada they'd burn down the White House. ;)

"By the time they got to Central America they'd be so stoned they wouldn't be able to tell fresh water from salt water."

I don't think they need to go that far to get stoned!

"Besides, David Ure promised me that if we invaded Canada they'd burn down the White House. ;)"

Good point. I wonder if the Canadians will wait 'til the white house is full of all the top brass??? That would be worth invading for alone, without the water and other natural resources thrown in ;)

"I don't think they need to go that far to get stoned!"

You're probably right. They'd probably get about as far as Tampico and things would start to sound like a Cheech and Chong rap. End of the line.....

"I wonder if the Canadians will wait 'til the white house is full of all the top brass??? That would be worth invading for alone, without the water and other natural resources thrown in ;)"

Maybe we wouldn't even have to invade. Maybe we could just do a trade?

"Maybe we wouldn't even have to invade. Maybe we could just do a trade?"

Maybe you could just have ours and keep yours at the same time....; )

Something I've been curious about for a while now: why and when did conservatives in the US (and following on, conservatives in Australia) decide that climate change was a left-wing issue? I did a meteorology subject in my Science degree and recall discussion then of climate change - this was around 1985 - but the issue only seems to have been politicised in the last few years.

Denmark's government is very strongly green and also into renewables (because they want to minimise their dependance on imported fossil fuels - does that sound familiar?) but it is a CONSERVATIVE government. Before the Copenhagen summit last year Connie Hedegaard, the Danish Climate and Energy Minister did an interview with Australian television and said, in respect of climate change:

“I never understood back in the 70s and the 80s, I did not understand why this should be a special leftist issue. Of course it shouldn’t be."

"why and when did conservatives in the US (and following on, conservatives in Australia) decide that climate change was a left-wing issue?"

When they decided, (at least in the US), that appealing to fear, hatred, and a whole bunch of ignorance was the best way of getting elected.....

There's a big difference between U.S. (and AUS) conservatives and conservatives in Europe. Many liberals in the U.S. are more conservative than those conservatives in Europe.

The conservative movement in the U.S. has largely been hijacked by reactionary cultural warriors who scoff at conservation efforts in general, regardless of their rationale. "Global warming" may be their primary target, largely because its detractors are so well-funded, but they've been scoffing at recycling, conservation of natural resources, more efficient fuel standards, regulation of toxins in widely available and used products, etc. as "tree-hugging" for years and years.

It really goes back to the 60's when the reactionary right decided en masse that anything the dirty f***ing hippies liked, they were against 100 percent, regardless of whether it made sense, in whole or part, to consider the issue.

Our country would be a lot better if the conservative leadership here would get over the culture war of the 60's, move into the 21st Century and start coming up with some common sense solutions to these problems rather than throwing around cheap red-meat bromides for their ravenous hordes of largely uneducated and ignorant sycophants.

You might be shocked (or not) to find out just how ignorant people are in this country. It's almost like being ignorant is a badge of honor around here. Consider the Senatorial Candidate Rand Paul who was just so proud of himself for having failed to form an opinion on the age of the earth....a fact widely agreed upon in the scientific community, and with hard geological and archaeological evidence. But, many here simply choose not to believe in science. It's been thoroughly politicized, and ensconced as a pillar in the culture war. Evolution and climate change versus God and the American Way of Life(TM).

Nevermind that regardless of climate change, the planet would be well used over if everyone consumed at the rate of the obese mob of illiterates that make up a fairly large (literally) chunk (figuratively) of the Republican party's (re-branded as "Tea", which they only drink if it's sweet) base.

Edited by Rezniem on 07/07/2010 11:47:05 MDT.

I think the divide in the US is that, on balance, "Conservative" has nothing to do with conservation, and everything to do with being conservative. Conservative takes the stance that change is bad. Period. Add to that the fact that conservatives on whole have more wealth, and a lot of it is derived from industries that pollute. This has been especially true in recent times when the heads of state had very vested interests in industries such as oil...most conservation efforts mean higher costs, lower sales and lower profits to these industries.

And since this is a flame war, I will also add something that will be offensive to many, but again it is a generalization and does not necessarily apply to individuals. Basically, choosing conservation and changing the way we operate as a society is and educated and intelligent choice. To quote but one research paper on the topic " Macro-level analyses show that nations with higher average intelligence are more liberal (have greater highest marginal individual tax rate and, as a result, lower income inequality), less religious (a smaller proportion of the population believes in God or considers themselves religious) and more monogamous. The average intelligence of a population appears to be the strongest predictor of its level of liberalism, atheism and monogamy."

Now, before you get to heated up, this is a generalization and does not apply to all individuals!

Edited to reflect Douglas' comment below.

Edited by retropump on 07/07/2010 16:26:03 MDT.

"this is a generalization and does not apply to individuals!"

All generalizations apply to individuals! Just not all individuals...... ;-)

Edited to agree with Douglas ;)

Every culture thinks their culture is the best.

They know how it works, what their responsibility in it is,
and can see how there is a process to deal with problems.

When we look at another culture, we don't see the whole
process, only how what they do would mess up things in our
culture.

Socialist society "those capitalists are so selfish,
what about the down trodden? Who will take care of them?

Capitalist society " those socialist's are so controlling,
how can anyone provide for themselves when they are so
taxed and regulated?"

Patriarchal society " those capitalists and socialists,
giving jobs to just anyone. What about my extended family? Everyone has to move to
the far winds to find work. How will I protect and look
out for them?"

etc.

"Maybe you could just have ours and keep yours at the same time....; )"

The water or the brass? ;}

Doug - What is the claim that all the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 or that billions of people's homes will be under water in the near future but an appeal to fear?

When class warfare is promoted and one group's political opponents (corporations, investors, the "rich", etc.) are demonized, what is that but an appeal to hatred?

When policies are put forward that are arguably unsound, contradictory, or just don't make sense, who does that appeal to but the ignorant?

Nate- My therapist has forbidden me from reading your posts, my dosage is already maxed out. So I don't even know what you wrote.

"The average intelligence of a population appears to be the strongest predictor of its level of liberalism, atheism and monogamy."

I'm not so sure, Lynn. Is is intelligence or ignorance? I say that because the US population is composed of people from every nation on earth and I assume they bring their intelligence with them when they emigrate to the US. Unless you want to make a race or ethnicity based argument for intelligence, it would seem that people in the US are as intelligent as anywhere else. What they do with it is another matter entirely, and I admit that I am tempted to buy into your argument at times when I see how stupidly people act here, in depressingly large numbers. I am belatedly ascribing it to an abysmal education system and a toxic set of cultural norms born of ignorance and greed. Still, I wonder sometimes.

"There's a big difference between U.S. (and AUS) conservatives and conservatives in Europe. Many liberals in the U.S. are more conservative than those conservatives in Europe.

The conservative movement in the U.S. has largely been hijacked by reactionary cultural warriors who scoff at conservation efforts in general, regardless of their rationale. "Global warming" may be their primary target, largely because its detractors are so well-funded, but they've been scoffing at recycling, conservation of natural resources, more efficient fuel standards, regulation of toxins in widely available and used products, etc. as "tree-hugging" for years and years.

It really goes back to the 60's when the reactionary right decided en masse that anything the dirty f***ing hippies liked, they were against 100 percent, regardless of whether it made sense, in whole or part, to consider the issue.

Our country would be a lot better if the conservative leadership here would get over the culture war of the 60's, move into the 21st Century and start coming up with some common sense solutions to these problems rather than throwing around cheap red-meat bromides for their ravenous hordes of largely uneducated and ignorant sycophants.

You might be shocked (or not) to find out just how ignorant people are in this country. It's almost like being ignorant is a badge of honor around here. Consider the Senatorial Candidate Rand Paul who was just so proud of himself for having failed to form an opinion on the age of the earth....a fact widely agreed upon in the scientific community, and with hard geological and archaeological evidence. But, many here simply choose not to believe in science. It's been thoroughly politicized, and ensconced as a pillar in the culture war. Evolution and climate change versus God and the American Way of Life(TM).

Nevermind that regardless of climate change, the planet would be well used over if everyone consumed at the rate of the obese mob of illiterates that make up a fairly large (literally) chunk (figuratively) of the Republican party's (re-branded as "Tea", which they only drink if it's sweet) base"


Bravo, Nate I could not agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom, I think the bottom line is education. Although education does not always=intelligence, it appears that folks who attend tertiary education are more exposed to a variety of ideas and become more open-minded, ie liberal. Ergo, liberals tend to have higher education and therefore a different view of the world. They find change less threatening, and adopt a more national/global view of the world. They may care more about the world environment and put somewhat less emphasis on their own parochial interests. Again, it's just a generalization, as there are many conservatives who have higher education. But don't forget that one's upbringing (if your parents are more liberal/conservative, then you also have that tendency) has an influence too. It has nothing to do with class beyond some classes do not have as much access to higher education.

Edited by retropump on 07/07/2010 17:38:09 MDT.

"Doug - What is the claim that all the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 or that billions of people's homes will be under water in the near future but an appeal to fear?

When class warfare is promoted and one group's political opponents (corporations, investors, the "rich", etc.) are demonized, what is that but an appeal to hatred?

When policies are put forward that are arguably unsound, contradictory, or just don't make sense, who does that appeal to but the ignorant? "

Hi David!

For the first, well, it's a fine line. If there is evidence that our world could change drastically, and affect millions in the process, I believe it's important to discuss that evidence, and the conclusions drawn from various camps on that evidence. When it's stated as fact [ie, you will die if you don't change your ways to the ways I want you to change them to], that's trying to win the argument through fear, I agree with you. But saying that evidence seems to suggest, based on empirical observation, that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, and we think this is why (and we think that it's not that, but this), that's not fear based, just evidenced based, and discussions that should be had.

On the second, I view this as a bit of a conservative canard, at least as far as the class warfare bit. Pointing out that the wealth of this country continues to go to fewer and fewer individuals, and that our tax system is often regressive and should be fixed, is not promoting class warfare. I'd instead argue that the unbridled greed of a fortunate few and their 'friends' in congress do more to promote class warfare than anything else. I will, however, agree that demonizing one's opponents is an appeal to, if not hatred, at least intolerance. And it's not helpful at all.

On the third, ah, that word arguably. Whether or not a policy is unsound, contradictory or just doesn't make sense often depends on which side of the fence you graze. From my experience, there are so terribly few open minds any more. Most everyone takes a side, and any idea or policy put forth from the other side is automatically bad or unsound, not even worth considering. And that's quite sad.

In closing, I'll add that I'm not a fan of either of the two major political parties in the US. I think most of our elected representatives, from both parties, are clowns and buffoons with very little integrity, a heapin' helpin' of dishonesty and so full of hypocrisy I'm surprised they can see straight.

So, to what I gather your overall point was -- the left does it too! -- I'll agree wholeheartedly. I would hope we could agree that when either side is doing it, and they both do it often, it disgraces and dishonors our political system, and does nothing to truly solve the many problems we face today.

Edited by idester on 07/07/2010 17:47:07 MDT.