posted
In his latest World Watch, OSC parrots the McCain campaign's comments regarding something Obama said in an interview last January about the future of coal.
He did not see fit to mention any of the rest of the interview, where Obama stressed that clean coal was needed and that he was against using the old technologies for burning coal, not coal itself.
He did not see fit to mention that McCain has hardly been a huge supporter of coal, and has given nearly identical positions on the future of coal usage and cap-and-trade programs, which would have the exact same impact on conventional coal plants.
He did not see fit to mention this release from United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil E. Roberts:
quote:"Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America.
Here what the McCain campaign left out of Sen. Obama’s actual words: ‘But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.'
Sen. Obama has been consistent with that message not just in the coalfields, but everywhere else he goes as well. Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal.
I noted that Sen. McCain even went so far yesterday as to say he has always been a supporter of coal. I wonder, then, how he can justify his statement at a Senate hearing in 2000 that, ‘In a perfect world we would like to transition away from coal entirely,’ and his leading role in sponsoring legislation in 2003 that would have wiped out 78 percent of all coal production in America?
Fortunately, UMWA members, their families and their friends and neighbors in the coalfields know all too well what is going on here. They’re not going to fall for it, and we urge others throughout America who care about coal to review what the candidates’ records on coal actually are. We are confident that once they do, and once they see the many other benefits to working families of voting for Sen. Obama, they will make the right choice for themselves and their families."
He also copies their baseless accusation that the tape has been hidden until now: "So why did this tape emerge now? Maybe some reporter or editor got an attack of honesty." That interview has been posted, in its entirety, on the San Francisco Chronicle since January.
I have no problems with anyone attacking a politician's ideas and policies on their own merits; we need that, and lots of it. There are some very real concerns about an Obama presidency, and about a Democratic supermajority.
But this, this is just sloppy and dishonest. It reads like he got a robocall about it over the weekend, got outraged, and chose to write a World Watch without finding out anything else even though it was debunked almost immediately. Not a mention of McCain's position at all. Not once. Both candidates have spoken about the need for cleaner emissions and their support for cap-and-trade programs, but OSC chooses to ignore that for an all out, scorn-dripping disaster movie description of how Obama is going to, literally, destroy America.
I really don't know how to express how disappointed I am. By going to these extremes, by crying wolf over and over, I fear OSC is making it impossible for anyone but the far right to take him seriously in the future, and if Obama wins tonight we will need people who are not dazzled by him to analyze his actions and keep us aware of the consequences.
[ November 04, 2008, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the end of the day, it's actually not a totally baseless charge. Don't get me wrong, when you leave out the facts that he left out, and when you cherry pick and for that matter omit McCain's nearly identical stance, it's a horrible way to approach an argument if you want to be taken seriously.
But clean coal, for the moment, remains elusive and extremely expensive. If either administration had set into motion their cap and trade system in the next four years, energy prices WOULD go up, and new coal plants would likely be halted en masse throughout the entire country. On the bright side, exports would probably skyrocket. There're no shoratages of coal plants elsewhere in the world. The DOE recently cut their funding for an experimental clean coal plant due to cost overruns and the unreadiness of the technology. Germany supposedly recently got one up and running, or at least they were planning on it, I don't remember the details. But currently "clean coal" exists entirely as an R&D goal, rather than a technological reality or possibiliy.
Thus, OSC might not be totally wrong in his attacks on people who would limit coal to "clean coal," as this would be utterly devastating to coal power and energy costs as we know them. It would entirely depend on how such a system is set up and phased in.
Some of the bright sides to carbon sequestration is recent efforts and technological breakthroughs have been made in finding uses for what is generally considered to be useless and costly carbon. Oil companies cool it to a liquid and inject it into spent oil fields, temporarily reviving them as the liquid CO2 loosens oil in the porous rock and causes it to rise to the surface. As a result, fields considered barren can be made profitable again, and when that oil is gone you just seal up the well and the carbon is sequestered in pretty much the perfect geological formation. Another way carbon is being used is via algae farms. There are many new designs being tested to more efficiently grow algae for a variety of purposes, but all of them involve carbon. In some cases, they hook the algae farms directly to the coal plant and pump the carbon into the tanks or pools. The algae can be used for a wide variety of purposes, not the least of which was recently perfected by Sapphire Energy to turn it into a chemically identical version of gasoline.
In other words? While he might have a point about the impacts of a cap and trade system on coal with clean coal power still being 5 to 10 years away and still very expensive, he totally overstates his case by going to hyperbolic extremes. The fact of the matter is, by looking at carbon as not only a waste product but as something that must be contained at any cost, science and business have teamed up to find a way to use carbon, turning it from a cost into an actual asset. It's been done with dozens of other industries who used to have to pay to have someone take their waste product away, and now are paid for the use of it. And so I think with a cap and trade system, carbon will actually be recycled in large quantities into other uses that will actually make the system far more economical than he lets on, and might create a great deal of wealth and economic growth as well.
As for the sheer dishonesty of such an essay: Chris, are you really surprised? He's talking to a targeted audience, and obviously they respond well or he wouldn't keep writing such articles. The only thing I really fear from his articles is that they serve to cement an existing sectional divide in the electorate, and in doing so makes it harder and harder for us to ever achieve at best unity, or at least a civilized dialogue. But articles like that make it hard to even talk, let alone come to a compromise.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The only reason I continue to be "surprised" by articles like these from OSC are his statements a few years ago about how articles such as this are, I don't remember the words he used, but damaging to the country was the gist of it.
I wish he could see his own hypocrisy on this matter, but I long ago gave up on that.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I'd love to see a real discussion about coal and carbon emissions such as that, Lyrhawn. Of course there will be economic ramifications of any steps we take toward clean coal, but this wasn't such a discussion. It was an attack on Obama, nothing more or less, and less than useless as a discussion on the actual issue.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If OSC had written an article like Lyrhawn's post, that acknowledges Obama's nod to clean coal but then explains problems with it, and argued that we need to be very careful about over-regulating coal before we are ready - then it'd have made me think, and possibly encouraged me to question Obama's position.
The article as written had me rolling my eyes almost instantly. It portrayed Obama as an unthinking robot, and unfairly robbed him of his acknowledgment that coal is still important (which is at least a promising indication that Obama isn't going to purposefully destroy the economy to prevent global warming).
OSC? Are you listening? (Kristine, maybe?) You could make your points so much more effectively. You don't need to be so LOUD. You can acknowledge what Obama got right, and present facts that don't fit into your "New Puritans" or "Leftaliban" model, and it will make your arguments stronger.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to really enjoy reading Card's various articles, they used to be (or at least they struck me as being) full of common sense and well thought out. You may have disagreed with them, but they were almost never unreasonable.
It really pains me to see how, over the last 4 or so years, he has either totally sold out or lost his marbles. I hate to say that but I can't think of any other way to describe an article like the one he just wrote. He has turned into a parody of himself, become filled with the vitriolic hatred he decries.
I say that as someone who voted for McCain today, who in many respects agrees about the kind of man Obama might be. But good Lord, take it down a notch, stop sounding like the wild-eyed man on the street corner screaming about the end of the world. It's destroying your credibility and, I can't believe I'm saying this, but it almost makes me think twice about buying a new book from my favorite author.
The way to defeat your enemies is with considered, well-reasoned logic, not knee-jerk hatred that preaches to the choir.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe the same person who wrote "Speaker for the Dead" is writing these articles. Where is the subtlety, the sophistication, the empathy, and intelligence that we see in his fiction? I am also someone who voted for McCain, and who has many misgivings about Obama, but I don't think articles like the latest one are doing much for our side. Like BryanP says, where is the common sense? I seriously doubt that Obama is going to take down the global economic system in his 4 years (let's hope not more) of his presidency because of his stance on coal. I suppose the possibility is there, but unlikely. And when it doesn't happen, where is OSC's credibility?
We don't need more empty rhetoric and exaggerated forecasts of doom in this country's political arena. We need people who offer well considered, intelligent solutions and opinions.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
<i>Where is the subtlety, the sophistication, the empathy, and intelligence</i>
In Obama.
I don't think OSC ever understands that when you accuse another man of being a maniacal fanatic, you'd better not be foaming at the mouth while you're doing it.
Perhaps Obama is indeed as arrogant as OSC claims. Perhaps Obama is indeed as fanatic as OSC claims. Perhaps Obama is an fanatical arrogant far-leftist.
But Obama always presents an image of modest moderation and thoughtful sanity, and OSC keeps presenting the exact opposite.
If anything that illustrates that Obama atleast knows how he *ought* be.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Card was simply campaigning. Many of the articles from the last couple of years are not opinions but rather a sales pitch. He is likely to realize very well the more complicated nature of things but you do not put sophistication in a campaign slogan.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Crocobar: I think that Card was simply campaigning. Many of the articles from the last couple of years are not opinions but rather a sales pitch. He is likely to realize very well the more complicated nature of things but you do not put sophistication in a campaign slogan.
This is probably true, but it still destroys his credibility and is, frankly, simply embarrassing.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think that Card was simply campaigning. Many of the articles from the last couple of years are not opinions but rather a sales pitch. He is likely to realize very well the more complicated nature of things but you do not put sophistication in a campaign slogan."
He's been doing it for 8 years now. Thats an awful long campaign.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's kind of funny, actually, cause I think the first post I made at Hatrack complemented him on a recent World Watch article.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: At the end of the day, it's actually not a totally baseless charge. Don't get me wrong, when you leave out the facts that he left out, and when you cherry pick and for that matter omit McCain's nearly identical stance, it's a horrible way to approach an argument if you want to be taken seriously.
Let us be frank. You are the person who gains credibility by approaching the problem with honesty and forthrightness. OSC's argument is, aside from its insensible removal from even the shadows of the facts, is incoherent, and ultimately quite deeply pointless.
I think you, seeing the reason that could have been, are willing to lay down the benefit of the doubt, and trust that OSC has that same reason swirling around in his brain. I longer believe that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recall a time not too long ago where he was stuck in the middle between the two candidates... I'm still wondering what he could have possibly seen to warrant such a turnaround. I hope he isn't just basing it on Obama's periodic tendency to put his foot in his mouth... After all, isn't OSC a supporter of Bush?
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
