Critical Brain Candy

The debate seemed rather uneventful. I thought Edwards did better, but trying to negate my bias the only conclusion I can draw is that it was a tie.

However, I think that’s all pretty irrelevant. The best part, for me, was much more subtle. The exchange they had over gay marriage, where Edwards praised Cheney and his family, and Cheneys only “rebuttal” was “I’d just like to thank the Senator for his kind words about my family” was amazing. (I realize Cheney wants to stay away from that subject because he disagrees with Bush, but it doesn’t diminish their actions.) Politics has gone so crazy here that moments like that are rare but important. Modern-day politicians generally try not to show why they are better than an opponent but rather why their opponent is an enemy of the country. Both men, in that moment, showed that politics can still be civil and productive.

I hope all the other politicians watching the debate took that lesson.

Russia has made movement to signing the Kyoto Protocol. Cheers.

Here’s a really good article talking about some of the history/issues surrounding it:
Putin Signs Kyoto Protocol, U.S. Clings to Fantasy

I really do find it interesting that some people still don’t believe we are causing irreperable harm to the planet that will start affecting us in the short term. It is also interesting that the sector of the political spectrum that is usually against environmental protection are the same groups that argue against an Estate Tax because they are “trying to ensure the well-being of their childre.” So, these people are willing to bet that their children may not be able to support themselves monetarily, but they’re not willing to guard against the chance that the planet may not have many habitable regions within their grandchildrens lifetimes.

To put that in perspective, while these people may not agree that there is proof of the ill effects, I’m assuming most would concede that there is decent evidence that something bad may happen at some point in the future. Given that, anti-environmentalists are therefore knowingly making a good bet that they will harm their direct decendents.

Do I feel like an argument similar to this will persuade any current anti-environmentalists? No. The reason being that this same section of the population happens to generally be the wealthy. The driving factor is then, of course, money. They are not willing to use their wealth to help their decendents if it means the cash leaves their bank account. If it stays in there, great. It also happens to make some more interest for themselves that way too.

I don’t want to hear anyone say they’re against an Estate Tax for the benefit of their decendents again, as it’s total crap.