Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged climate

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
John West

Obama Can Say 'Climate' After All | The Nation - 5 views

www.thenation.com/...bama-can-say-climate-after-all

obama climate

shared by John West on 12 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • “yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.”
  • Even George W. Bush, for all his resistance to tackling climate change, never made fun of it.
  • president’s own statements, before last night, have not been terribly reassuring either, if only because there have been so few of them.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Obama appears not to have brought up “climate change” publicly a single time in 2012.
  • promised to “be very clear in voicing my belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.”
  • Even as his own government’s scientists were affirming climate change’s connection to the extreme weather events of 2012, the president declined to use his bully pulpit to make the connection clear to the public, much less attempt to rally Americans to action.
  • assumed that talking about climate change turns voters off: it’s too dark, too controversial, too complicated
  • “Three out of four Americans now acknowledge climate disruption is real, and more than two out of three believe we should be doing something about it,
  • In 2008, it looked as though Barack Obama would be the hero to lead such a quest. Now, his speech in Charlotte has raised hopes among some environmentalists that Obama, after an extended absence, may be ready to rejoin the battle
  • John West on 12 Sep 12
     
    This article addresses a point that hit home with me from the Democratic National Convention: Obama brought up climate, but did not champion it in the same style and with the same conviction that he used to. Even while I was struck by his lack of gusto on the subject, the article is surprised that he brought it up at all. This issue has seen barely any coverage at all, with Romney in particular suggesting that even caring about climate change is shallow and ungrounded. He has continued to basically ridicule Obama's (self-proclaimed) devotion to the issue, which is not typical even for mainstream republicans. Obama himself has been almost entirely silent on the issue for the entire campaign (he brought up the term once in 2012). This article makes a really good partner for the first one Eli posted, which dealt with the variety of issues that the radicalization of parties has effectively silenced the debate over. As with the issue of immigration, we see the Republican Party leaning extremely right and making any productive discussion of the issue difficult. If Romney himself treats climate change as a joke and mocks environmentalism as a cause, how can the sides even begin to discuss specific issues of policy? I am honestly really doubtful of Obama's stance as an environmentalist: after the failure of one of his recent cap-and-trade policies, the term "climate change" was entirely avoided in his speech. I remember Dan saying in class that if Obama didn't claim to champion these issues during his presidency, you wouldn't be able to tell by his policy. From this article's description of his rhetoric for the last year, I would say that now he is neither talking the talk nor walking the walk, leaving his affiliation to this cause simply to the fact that he is a Democratic candidate and climate change is a "Democratic issue". To me, there is concrete proof that neither candidate has been taking climate change seriously this election. If both candidates are treating this
  • ...2 more comments...
  • mabel taylor on 12 Sep 12
     
    Climate change is just one of many issues that Obama must discuss in a specific way as to not seem too revolutionary nor liberal (I like how this article mentions that "Democratic politicians have shunned the "L word": liberal"). Every mention has to be well-tailored and as non-controversial as possible as to not offend a sensitive audience, which reminds me of how Obama addresses his views on social issues in front of more conservative audiences, where he either evades the topic at hand, whether it be about abortion or marriage equality, or presents his opinion in a simple and placid way. When discussing climate change, Obama employs a similar attitude, which I personally find maddening, especially since the article mentions that "the public... finally see for themselves... the reality of climate change" and that even if Obama took a more powerful stance on the issue, it would doubtfully make a big impact on his supporters, most of whom are already agree with Obama's alleged opinions. Beyond the very toned-down attitude Obama brings, it's also interesting what he chooses to note when mentioning climate change. Instead of honing in on details, he talks about events of the past few years that vaguely reference major problems and then focuses in on the aspects that could appeal to a broad range of voters, like when he talks about the "threat[s] to our children's future." This also serves to combat Romney's rather ridiculous claim that by focusing on the climate, it is impossible to also care about the American people themselves.
  • cody s on 12 Sep 12
     
    I think that Obama has been smart to stay mostly silent on climate change. Yes, it's a big issue, but had he made it a major cause of his campaign he would have been even more vulnerable to depiction by Romney as a head-in-the-clouds kind of guy. During an economic crisis, the voters want the president to be focusing on immediate steps for the good of the American middle class - more jobs, lower taxes, cheaper healthcare. Climate change can and obviously does evoke strong emotion in certain voting blocs, but for the majority of middle-class Americans who are still reeling from the recession, they want their president to be focused on their immediate recovery. I think Obama only brought it up here as a direct response to Romney's challenge - to not address it would make him seem weak in his stance. I also think it's worth noting that in this brief mention, he ties it to the immediate future, to help ward off that daydreamer image that Romney evoked.
  • Anna Schutte on 17 Sep 12
     
    I recently heard an interview with Michael Lewis who wrote an article for Vanity Fair that involved spending a lot of day to day time with Obama. One of the things he talked about was Obama's view of his ability to use his position as president as a "bully pulpit." Obama told Lewis that his experience had been that he, in particular, was such a lightning rod for negative response, that when he took a position conservative journalists and politicians automatically responded so negatively that it was more useful for him to operate more subtly. I would imagine that he was using his speech at the convention to let voters know that he still wants to do something about climate change, and takes it seriously. Hopefully, he will be in a position to do this when he is not thinking about re-election.
  • Eli Melrod on 18 Sep 12
     
    I think the way Obama has treated climate change as an economic issue is very compelling. One of the main issues that people have with renewable energy is that isn't currently economically sustainable. I think Obama can work on the issue of climate change with the economy in mind and that is what he is doing. The issue that Obama faces on bringing the climate change issue into the economic realm is the Solyndra investment that the government made under his administration. Obama needs to walk the fine line between championing climate change and doing what's best for the economy.
Jonah Schacter

Obama's Best-Kept Secrets - 3 views

www.nytimes.com/...-obamas-best-kept-secrets.html

barack obama election education auto

shared by Jonah Schacter on 24 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Jonah Schacter on 24 Oct 12
     
    There has been a lot of talk around this election that has been about how bad Obama's term has been. People are always so negative when it comes to polotics and when something does not work right away they jump to conclusions. Here is an article about something positive that Obama has been doing. It is nice to see evidence of success from Obama's term. With four more years he could do a lot of good for this country and its future.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Cameron G on 26 Oct 12
     
    I think this article is very very biased and warps facts to make it seem like Obama has done a better job than he has. The only statement I totally agree with in this article is that medium-skilled, high wage jobs are done. The simple fact is that regardless of what is said about education, there are still vast numbers of jobs left unfilled in the more important fields of computer science, engineering, etc. The number of computer science graduates in the country are not enough fill the number of jobs, leaving millions of positions unfilled. Also, for every engineering job filled, 3 more jobs are created and need skilled workers with degrees. In the end, if a president's best aspects are so unknown that they are considered secrets, then they cannot be that great.
  • John West on 29 Oct 12
     
    The question for me is not if these claims are accurate, like Cameron questions, but why in the world Obama hasn't been presenting them in the same way the Friedman is. Whether or not the content of the column is 100% true, which I'm sure it isn't (it's a presidential race, after all), these two programs seem like a phenomenal way for Obama and his team to make the past four years look better. Above all, that's critical to his reelection. For all of the bashing of one another that's going on, all of the "jumping to conclusions" that Jonah mentions, I'm really surprised I hadn't heard more about this. I think Obama should start bragging more about programs like this, substantial in reality or not, because I'm positive I am not the only one who has heard very little about them (particularly the Race to the Top one). While I dislike the negativity in the same way as Jonah, I have no problem with the president's hyping themselves up.
  • Anna Schutte on 09 Nov 12
     
    I agree with John. I cannot remember any talk about Race to the Top or the Clean Car program in a debate or a commercial. When you consider that voters think education is an important issue, certainly not as important as the economy and jobs, but very important, it seems like Obama's campaign should have highlighted this success. Race to the Top involves policies that reflect many of the same ideas given by the Republicans and is pretty controversial with the Teacher's Union. That may be why they haven't brought it up. I wonder how the auto-workers and the automobile industry feel about the Clean Car program. It may have been that these programs were not supported by important, Democratic groups.
  • Eli Melrod on 11 Nov 12
     
    I read an interesting piece on environmental sustainability being actually cost effective. It talked about how Regan go people on board to confront the holes in the ozone layer by talking about the economic impacts of more people getting skin cancer with such a thin ozone layer. I think the climate change debate has the potential to go in that direction. Storms like Hurricane Sandy cost the economy tremendously, and it is pretty clear that storms of that proportion are happening due to climate change. I think the economic impact of climate change could certainly change the debate. Maybe Obama should go in that direction.
Jonah Schacter

Why I Am Pro-Life - NYTimes.com - 2 views

www.nytimes.com/...riedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html

life choice election tea-party conservatives conservative_values

shared by Jonah Schacter on 28 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Jonah Schacter on 28 Oct 12
     
    Here is a piece around abortion issues and the problem with the term "pro-life". The author states "Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected - not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life.". We have talked about the terrible applications of terms pro-life and pro-choice, it should be pro-choice or no-choice. The problem with the conservatives and tea party is that on one hand they want as small as government as possible, but on the other hand they want to take away or our basic right to freedom of choice. 
  • ...3 more comments...
  • John West on 29 Oct 12
     
    This definitely feels like a war of words to me. I agree with what you're saying about a certain contradiction in which areas of our lives the parties want to see freedom, and I personally have the same trouble you have with reconciling these differences. I was interested to see the quotes that the author chose for the first paragraph: news outlets have been treating the Todd Akin debacle like the only ignorant thing politicians have been saying about the topic of abortion, and the author shows us that we have plenty to choose from. While I agree with you about the inequality of terms, I don't necessarily think "pro-choice or no-choice" would be any more fair: some pro-lifers could feasibly argue that "no-choice" is inaccurate because it doesn't account for the needs/"choice" of a fetus. I think any change in naming that isn't insane (anti-abortion vs. anti-anti-abortion) would have the same inherent inaccuracies.
  • cody s on 30 Oct 12
     
    Okay nothing against you, Jonah, but I saw this article earlier this week and I really dislike it. I think it's such a silly argument - this guy is saying that conservatives don't deserve to call themselves pro-life because they don't support gun regulations and support a larger military? They would say the exact same thing about him because he supports gun regulations and stopping wars but doesn't believe in (in their opinion) stopping the murder of a fetus. I agree that there is something paradoxical about the conservative philosophies on social vs. economic matters, but I think this article goes about exploring that paradox in a really condescending, unproductive way.
  • Anna Schutte on 09 Nov 12
     
    It's amazing to me how labeling a complex issue can give it powerful meaning. People have been doing this for a long time. The original "family values" were in response to changing views about the LGBTQ community. It was easy for people to think that of course they cared about "family values" without exploring what was exactly behind that movement. I think Friedman does a good job of exploring the use of the term "pro-life'" because really, who isn't pro-life?
  • Eli Melrod on 11 Nov 12
     
    While I agree with Cody that Friedman's cockiness can be difficult to read, I personally agree with what he is saying. I think there is a problem in the this country with respecting the scientific community. How can people still doubt climate change? The data is there. How can people really think it is a good thing to allow people to carry weapons? The murders are there. While I think this is a potentially divisive way of stating the issue, some of the far right opinions on abortion, gun rights, and climate change seem equally as absurd to me. There is a lot of good that can come out of conservatism, but the conservatism around rights, I don't think is very productive and people will eventually look back on it and scoff.
  • mabel taylor on 11 Nov 12
     
    I am also interested in the role of language here, both within the actual issue and in this piece, and what you mentioned, Eli, about how people maintain their viewpoints that are continually in opposition to almost undeniable facts. With both issues it seems that unspoken rules and assumptions carry such weight. It mostly just confuses me.
Jonah Schacter

Sandy and Chris Christie: Lessons from Hurricane Betsy in 1965. - Slate Magazine - 4 views

www.slate.com/...m_hurricane_betsy_in_1965.html

lessons hurricane obama federal election

shared by Jonah Schacter on 04 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Jonah Schacter on 04 Nov 12
     
    This article shows that in times of need the federal government can really help states. With hurricane Sandy the majority of New Jersey was destroyed and the republican governor Chris Christie was welcome to the federal aid that was given. If Romney was president at the time of the hurricane he would have left it up to the states to rebuild themselves. Sandy is a clear example of how the federal government is for the benefit of the country its inhabitants. The author also brings up Hurricane Betsy, which took place in 1965 and how the governor of Louisiana (who once thought about seceding from the country) realized how the federal government is a necessity in this country. 
  • ...2 more comments...
  • John West on 07 Nov 12
     
    The whole Chris Christie response has been fascinating to me during the Sandy aftermath. The way he completely shifted on Obama was really clear on the news clip I saw, where his agressive attack on Obama's ability to lead the country was superimposed with his really profound praise for him during FEMA. I agree with what you're saying about Sandy saying something real about the rhetoric of government spending. It's one thing to criticize government programs like FEMA during a period of calm, and much, much harder when they are being implemented effectively right in front of you. In the end, though, Christie's switch might not have been much of a switch at all. As someone mentioned in class, FEMA is already in large part state run and in large part private. He was likely showing a better understanding of it.
  • cody s on 08 Nov 12
     
    This is an interesting article. You could (for fun, not really as a legitimate exercise) expand this as a metaphor for the problem with conservatism: it works for the rich, or the people unaffected by the hurricane, but to the poor and the hurricane-affected liberal philosophy is clearly superior. I wonder how much Sandy and Christie actually helped Obama - I read somewhere that Obama jumped a whole percentage point the day after Christie praised him, though who really can ever explain a poll bounce with any certainty.
  • Anna Schutte on 09 Nov 12
     
    It is important to keep in mind the difference between FEMA's response to Katrina during the Bush Administration when it was led by someone who had little disaster experience and FEMA's response to Sandy. This article shows that when political rhetoric is dropped, people do want government to help with disasters. It would seem that government organizations during administrations that take government roles seriously are more likely to have strong government services. I guess that might be wishful thinking.
  • Eli Melrod on 11 Nov 12
     
    I pretty much agree with what all you guys are saying. I think Hurricane Sandy has been a good reminder of the need for government services and problem we have with climate change. Hopefully, people will learn from this horrific storm.
Eli Melrod

Week 7: The South's Enduring Conservativism - 5 views

www.nytimes.com/...-in-the-southern-united-states

the_south conservatism

shared by Eli Melrod on 11 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Eli Melrod on 11 Oct 12
     
    This piece talks about why the South continues to be extremely conservative politically. I've never been to the South and have always wondered what's going on with the political conservative climate, because it seems to me that conservative economic policy actually hurts a lot of regions in the South. These "Room for Debate" pieces on the NY Times are awesome, because they provide a lot of different perspectives. I'd love to hear all your guys take on this: San Franciscans and Atlanta peeps alike.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • John West on 14 Oct 12
     
    The question the author brings up about "solidarity across race lines" has always been in the back of my mind during elections like this, when poor or working class whites side with fiscal policies that simply aren't designed to benefit them. I'm pretty much on the same page as you, Eli, in that the extremely deep-running religious and class lines that the author uses to characterize Southern voters in general is pretty foreign to me. The idea that the author puts forth in the last paragraph, the bargain of working class Southern voters to remain "'real' whites" in exchange for losing economic clout, is a pretty compelling part of party politics that I wish the author elaborated on a little more. I'm also curious why, based on the religiousness that the author points to as such a large factor, these working class voters don't simply participate as fiscal liberals and social conservatives?
  • mabel taylor on 16 Oct 12
     
    I really liked this article, both because of the discussion of Southern demographics, like Eli, I wish I knew more about the political situation in the South, and the introduction to remaining racial lines (I also wish this piece had gone on longer) that go beyond open prejudice or discrimination but can be observed in voting patterns and political allegiances. I think the power of tradition here is fascinating and I'd be interested to understand specifically what is sacrificed to remain within this balance of "morality, class and race" or how they play out beyond the South somewhere like San Francisco.
  • Anna Schutte on 17 Oct 12
     
    I think this article brings up important ideas. I'd like to know more about how affluent whites used whiteness in the 1940s to align lower class and middle class whites with their political views. I do know that cities like Atlanta have had famous black mayors who shared religious beliefs and economic goals with both black and white voters. It is definitely something I would like to know more about.
  • miles henderson on 20 Oct 12
     
    Great post Eli. I think this article makes many valid points because in the south, the conservative history is very apparent. Being from Georgia especially during election, President Obama is not widely respected and people often criticize his policies harshly. I hate to say it but I do believe that racist southern ideals are partially the reason for some of the unpopularity of Obama in the south. Relating to the conservative tendencies in southern states, I believe the reason the south has remained predominantly right sided is because tradition is such a big part of southern culture, and with southern tradition comes conservative values.
  • Jonah Schacter on 21 Oct 12
     
    For me this brings up evidence to support people not being able to move past their moral compass even if it means progress in their socioeconomic outlook and progress in the nation. It makes sense to stay true to their self, but it is not justifiable to hurt yourself and your nation by preventing forward progress. In theory it makes sense to try and change their minds, but it is a lot easier said than done and would take a great amount of time and we have to be patient about it.
Eli Melrod

Week 9: Debate's Omissions Highlight Skewed World View - 3 views

www.nytimes.com/...ghlight-skewed-world-view.html

debate foreign_policy swing_states

shared by Eli Melrod on 24 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Eli Melrod on 24 Oct 12
     
    This article spoke to what I thought about the presidential debate. I would be really interested to hear what the candidates had to say about the Euro-zone crisis or other real issues, but they were forced to tailor their comments to appealing to people in Ohio and other swing states. Classic American political system messing up real conversations from taking place.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Jonah Schacter on 28 Oct 12
     
    I think there were two reasons why the debate was so bland and avoiding of issues. 1. so close to the election neither candidate wants to stir things up and make a fool of themselves and 2. the world is a big place and it would take a long time to cover all the issues around the world. Also they agree on a lot of issues surrounding foreign policy so how deep could they really go just agreeing about topics.
  • John West on 29 Oct 12
     
    When you brought up how absent the Eurozone crisis was during class, Eli, I realized two things. One, I hadn't heard one mention of it in the past three debate and two, this hadn't struck me as odd. I know way less about this than, say, Iran, and I don't think I'm alone in that across the US. That being said, I think a lot of what the FP debate missed out on is about accessibility to a wide audience. That would be the third thing I would add to Jonah's list: the "real" issues in foreign policy like the Eurozone crisis are both more complicated and less clear-cut/good vs. evil/"American values" based than the Middle East and China, for instance, and are thus way harder to spin to favor the candidates. In that way, like Eli's saying, I think it's even more important for the candidates to bring up "real" issues like these.
  • mabel taylor on 29 Oct 12
     
    I noticed the same thing Eli and also become frustrated when politicians' definition of foreign policy is dominated by historical problem countries in the Middle East. It's especially confusing considering that situations in Europe can be more relevant to the US' economic situation and future and that America really has little power when it comes to influencing the Middle East. I don't know a lot about the Euro-zone and I think that really relates to how little politicians bring it up, the problem is cyclical, if people don't talk about Europe, not a lot of people will know about it, and if few people know about Europe, politicians aren't going to want to talk about it... It's not that productive.
  • Anna Schutte on 09 Nov 12
     
    It does seem like the debate and most of the election focused on foreign policy issues that involve controversies about trade, oil, and military intervention. The broader issues that effect the world like climate change, nuclear proliferation and the economic troubles in Europe are not as compelling.
miles henderson

Legalizing Marijuana - 3 views

www.nytimes.com/...legalizing-marijuana.html

obama marijuana economy election

shared by miles henderson on 17 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • miles henderson on 17 Sep 12
     
    As the election approaches, some Americans are begging to wonder what stance each candidate has concerning marijuana legalization. The article points out that more than 70% of voters are in favor of medical marijuana but a reason for marijuana prohibition could be for excess use of marijuana for those who already illegally use marijuana. I believe the "black market" created by the use of marijuana in so many Americans could be used to stimulate the economy if marijuana were legal. If marijuana was controlled by the government and taxed liked alcohol the profits made would be tremendous. The millions of dollars our government spends locking people up for marijuana possession could be used on other things that would help to promote the welfare of our nation. Due to the growing support of Americans, marijuana legalization is now not so far from reach and could possibly be a deciding factor in the upcoming election. Thoughts anyone?
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Eli Melrod on 18 Sep 12
     
    Miles, I think the idea that "Americans are begging to wonder what stance each candidate has concerning marijuana legalization" is a huge overstatement. I think Americans are begging to wonder who can fix the economy for the most part. I don't think it will be a deciding factor either. While I support marijuana legalization, I don't believe many voters will decide their vote based upon a candidates stance on marijuana. I think that the amount of people that put marijuana legalization as their top priority will not be a large enough electorate for either candidate to really put any effort into trying to sway this group. This issue is also very complicated, because many marijuana advocates, the kind of people that would base their vote upon a candidate's stance on marijuana, want marijuana to remain under a medicinal classification like it is many states. I really just don't see this becoming a big issue.
  • miles henderson on 18 Sep 12
     
    I believe marijuana legalization is not widely recognized as being an aspect that can stimulate our economy, but if more American's were open to the option many economists predict that the savings made by the U.S government would be in the tens of billions of dollars... PER YEAR(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/economists-marijuana-legalization_n_1431840.html). If marijuana were legal it would be one of the largest grossing cash crops along with corn and wheat. Despite Marijuana being illegal it already generates a lot of money that could be used to help pay for schools,roads,public buildings...ect instead of being an "under the table" deal for the most part. Marijuana legalization would not be just for your everyday pot-head, Hemp productions would go through the roof ranging from products like paper to clothing. Some of our founding fathers including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp, and the first draft of The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. The benefits as a result of Marijuana legalization would be tremendous for our struggling economy. In conclusion I disagree Eli, Marijuana legalization has the potential to play a big role in government relatively soon.
  • John West on 22 Sep 12
     
    I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I can't help but agree with Eli that this may not be a key issue in the election (this one, at least). The party radicalization our group has been talking a lot about informs my opinion on this. With the growing rift between Democrats and Republicans, and the increasingly radical that are now accepted as mainstream, it seems unlikely to me that legalization will be taken as seriously as it should. Before all of the logistics that Miles brings up could even get debated, I think the issue itself would get wrapped up in a huge amount of party rhetoric (free enterprise, policing moral values, etc.) and the dialogue would get shut down. It seems like the only big topic that can get any traction in terms of debate is the economy/jobs. Even things like climate change and immigration aren't being talked about constructively, so I see legalization going the same way. I think the points you brought up about it are totally true, I just imagine the candidates losing sight of an issue like this.
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20▼ items per page