Comments Natural Patriot has made

  • that voice

    Darth,

    We've already spent eight years listening to the voice of George Bush and, more painfully, the "thinking" behind it.  How much worse could Hillary's voice be . . .?!

    The Natural PatriotOn The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 10 months ago 32 Responses

  • I never understood the Hillary buzz

    She's got a lot going for her, no doubt.  She's smart, and she's tough as nails (the latter of which, alas, will probably still work against a female candidate in modern America).  She's a battle-hardened political survivor.  She's got a well-oiled political machine. She'd probably make a damn good President.

    But can anyone imagine a realistic scenario that would end up with her winning the general election?  Consider this: 1) She is possibly the most polarizing figure in American politics of the last few decades.  We can be reasonably confident that not a single Republican would vote for her in the general election, possibly with the exception of a handful of New Yorkers.  That means she has to get literally every Democratic vote in the country to win (since a Hillary candidacy would probably be a more effective get-out-the-vote weapon for the GOP than anything they themselves could muster).  2) Then there is the news from Iowa that she led only among the over-65 crowd (I think I remember that correctly).  That doesn't bode well with an electorate seething for change.  That she is the ultimate insider also doesn't help in that respect. 3) I still can't shake the suspicion that, in the final moments alone in the voting booth, too many of our fellow Americans will blink before they can vote for a woman President. They will vote for a black man first. Just a hunch.

    Despite her many merits, I just can't see her winning. I'm with Obama.  Or whoever the other Dem will be.

    The Natural PatriotOn The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 11 months ago 32 Responses

  • An alternative view

    Hey guys, let's step back for a moment.  Yes, Gingrich is a divisive hard-core politician.  Yes, the book is superficial and breezy.  That's because it's not written for the choir at Grist to whom you're preaching.  Instead, it aims at a much more important purpose, which is to reach the average American, or even the average Republican -- many of whom still don't believe in global warming, some of whom still think (to paraphrase the late Jerry Falwell) that environmentalism is Satan's way of distracting us from society's "real" problems, presumably gay marriage and abortion.  And probably none of whom read Grist.

    This book is not intended to be a detailed tome on how to fix the environment for a simple reason.  Few people, least of all that critical conservative demographic whose minds need changing on environmental issues, would read it.  On the other hand, they might well read this one and come away with the sense that a hard-core conservative (former) leader believes that global warming is real, that environmental degradation is a major problem, and that doing something about it should be a core American value.

    If the book succeeds in converting even a relatively small fraction of that audience to a more sympathetic view toward environmentalism (or perhaps I should use the preferred conservative term "stewardship"), it will have done a lot more than hundreds of essays in a liberal echo chamber have. And, as a committed, life-long liberal, I would consider that real progress.  
    On A review of Gingrich's new book on the environment posted 1 year, 12 months ago 3 Responses

  • Patriotism revised (new and improved!)

    Hey Andy,

    Many thanks for the plug and link to The Natural Patriot.

    And thanks, Caniscandida, for the comments. Teddy Roosevelt probably said it best:

    "Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation."

    and . . .

    "Conservation of our resources is the fundamental question before this nation, and that our first and greatest task is to set our house in order and begin to live within our means."

    And -- credit where it's due -- let's not forget Richard Nixon:

    "Environment' is not an abstract concern, or simply a matter of aesthetics, or of personal taste--although it can and should involve these as well. Man is shaped to a great extent by his surroundings. Our physical nature, our mental health, our culture and institutions, our opportunities for challenge and fulfillment, our very survival -- all of these are directly related to and affected by the environment in which we live. They depend upon the continued healthy functioning of the natural systems of the Earth."

    In addition to the Natural Patriot, heavyweights Environmental Defense and Tom Friedman of the NY Times are on the same page.  See, for example, Friedman's compelling article, The Power of Green.

    Arise Patriots!

    Emmett DuffyOn A few random notes posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

  • Who needs a huge political coalition?

    Dave is right, I think, that little real-world political support will be forthcoming from the Republican party for progressive approaches to environmental problems, at least in the near-term future.  The party is too beholden to the hard-core activist elements of its base (as is of course also true of the Democrats). That could change, slowly, if they take a few more drubbings at the polls.

    But maybe we don't need a huge coalition with centrist libertarians (whether small or large L) and so forth.  All that's needed is the proverbial swing voters.  After all, George Bush became leader of the free world in 2000 because of only a few thousand votes (no wait, Al Gore was elected! Oh never mind). If enough centrist Republicans come to believe that their leaders are out to lunch on climate change -- which would not be a hard conclusion to reach -- they may just pull the lever in the opposite direction.  And if the candidates are as evenly matched as they have been for the past several years, only a few such flip-floppers (did I say that?) would be needed.

    The bigger problem we face, which I don't think has been mentioned in this long thread, is that the environment is down around # 346 on voters' list of priorities after terrorism, health care, imagined child kidnappings, the "death tax", etc. etc. etc.

    The Natural PatriotOn There's a coalition waiting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 60 Responses

  • Both sides now

    Congrats Jason -- looks like you touched a nerve with this one. At the risk of retreading the long path beaten past this post, I would only emphasize the point that people from across the political spectrum are slowly but surely beginning to "get it" about the seriousness of climate change specifically, and the centrality of the deteriorating global enviroment to human civilization generally. This should be cause for celebration (as Dave Roberts noted in a post some weeks ago).

    Taking an optimistic view of this, one hopes that the sheer number and diversity of people spawning ideas about solving these colossal problems will increase the possibility that a few (or many, by the silver buckshot analogy) effective solutions will emerge, and pretty darn soon.

    It's worth listening to those on the right that take the environment seriously and are making reasoned arguments about how to move forward (as opposed to the nutjobs on both sides of the aisle),even if they're dead wrong -- in which case we should explain why, as Grist is quite effective at doing. A good idea should be judged on its merits, not on whether its source is someone we find ideologically repugnant, or even on the other ideas surrounding it.

    I'm reminded of hearing Paul Begala (probably quoting someone else) distinguish commentary from journalism thus:

    "People use commentary the way a drunk uses a lightpost -- for support, not illumination."  

    I generally find Grist illuminating (and, yes, also supportive of my views, to be truthful).  But it can sound a bit like an echo chamber sometimes.

    The Natural Patriot
    In order to fomr a more perfect union
    On There's a coalition waiting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 60 Responses

  • Thanks for the analysis!

    Thanks, everyone, for the informed discussion onthe dilemma of when to go hybrid.  My wife will be happy to hear that she was right about this (I thought about calling "car talk" but probably wouldn't have been able to get through.  And who knows whether those guys could offer this kind of advice?).

    I love this site!On Duh! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses

  • But should I trade in?

    Promising news, this.  If I were on the market for a new car I would get a Prius (since the plugins are not yet available and I am too lazy to haunt the local fast food joint for biodiesel). So here's a practical question:  My wife has been trying for a year to convince me to trade in our (very heavy 6-cylinder) Camry for a Prius.  I am sympathetic and would like to do so, but our Camry is less than 3 years old.  My suspicion has been that trading it in for a new Prius amounts to having a whole new car added to planet earth after only 2-3 years of active service for the old one. My gut feeling (which is no more informed than that) is that this would be a net detriment to the global environment. I would be very interested in a reputable analysis of the costs and benefits such a tradein.On Duh! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses

  • Look under the bridge

    Not to worry, Ana.  Responding would be counterproductive. The individual in question has already blown his cover elsewhere as a
    troll .
    On Tell it like it is, Nancy posted 2 years, 9 months ago 4 Responses

  • There's one in every crowd

    Last week I happened across an interview with Senator Inhofe on one of the morning gab shows and I had the strange and unprecedented experience of feeling sorry for him.  After years as a powerful madman, devolving into a comical irritant as the tide of evidence (and, much more slowly, public opinion) turned against him, and finally, with his party's fall from power and the loss of his bully pulpit, he has now become merely pathetic. In the bright light of the new IPCC report, Inhofe's well-worn talking points sounded so transparently silly and desperate that even he seemed uncomfortable with them.  He looked like a cornered animal. The Senator must be feeling a bit like the last dinosaurs did as the rug was pulled out from under them.  On The 411 on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change posted 2 years, 10 months ago 6 Responses