Andrew is a 20 year old Conservative political theorist. He doesn’t believe in your silly Global Warming Religion. He is a Theist, but not a Creationist. Andrew does not appreciate elitists who think they are better than him, and generally doesn’t trust politicians. Andrew still likes President Bush, and thinks that people need to leave him, and String Theory, alone. Andrew is a self described “Pro-war, Pro-life, Pro-family, Pro-Border Security Libertarian” and may hold unorthodox views about drug laws, although he doesn’t himself use them. Andrew believes that Judges have no business modifying the Constitution, and that it is not, nor was it ever intended to be a “living, breathing, document” since, if that ever happened, it would just become a dead letter. Andrew doesn’t understand how “right to privacy” means “right to kill a fetus”, and doesn’t agree that a fetus is anyone’s property to do with as they please. If you piss him off, he might call in his Right Wing Backup.
Andrew is not in anyway funding by Big Oil, and he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman, depending on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
EDIT: Okay, alot of people are confused by the tongue-partially-in-check nature of this about page. “Pro-war” doesn’t mean I am for going around killing people and getting people killed-it means that I recognize the necessity of war in some circumstances to deal with the forces of evil in the world. Also, it is getting to be a pain in my ass to deal with everyone wanting to comment on the about page. Comments on my pages that aren’t posts are now going to be turned off.
EDIT AGAIN: Blog buddies and pests can contact me at this email address:
crazybean13-@-gmail-.-com
Just get rid of the dashes.
Hey I didn’t realize that you’re a fellow high school global warming denier! I have to ask – are you a senior? Do you know where you’re going to college?
Um, I’m actually a Junior-and I have no idea where I’m going to college! I should really think more about that. I see your finding alot of the various pages on this site. I post on stuff besides climate so I hope my political stuff doesnt offend you-I find most teens are to the left of me. Well, enjoy looking around, I suppose.
Oh I’m all with you, don’t worry.
Don’t worry, I’m with you all the way.
Hi-in the future, please try to use just one name so I only have to approve your comments once. Also, I assume that you only meant to comment once, but I won’t delete it without your approval-and I’m probably going to move this little conversation over to another page later.
I am glad there are a few reasonably objective thinkers out there still.
As a young man, you will find yourself incredibly frustrated by a continued stream of insipid stupidity coming from the “leadership” we have been blessed with.
Also, as one of your articles seems to suggest, there are people who think that the ownership of a computer gives them the right to be self ass inspecting morons.. While that might be true, they need to be constantly reminded of the underlying root of the current troubles. A steady stream of common sense without getting excited (like mr Hall’s blog, where I found your info) will ultimately save the souls of a few.
Keep up the good work. Use history as your guide, and tolerate no looters.
Jason
I appreciate your support, Jason. Thanks!
Andrew, congrats on opening your own blog.
However, I hope you keep considering your “Pro-war, Pro-Border Security” positions. It might help to spend a little time at Lew Rockwell`s, Anti-War and the LMVI`s pages, in particular their blog comments to various main posts.
And on climate change, you might want to consider not only why Exxon actively supports carbon taxes, but why Rob Bradley both denies this and prefers to ban people like me who disagree with him and his other commentators from market- and libertarian principles (which is the reason I was unable to continue one of our earlier conversations): http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/11/rot-at-the-core-rob-bradley-at-quot-free-market-quot-masterresource-blog-shows-his-true-colors-as-a-rent-seeker-for-fossil-fuels.aspx.
TT
Tom, I understand the libertarian objections to war etc. They have merit, but I have my reasons for disagreeing with them. I obviously can’t get into them this moment, but I can assure you that I take nothing lightly. As for Exxon supporting carbon taxes-what is your point? I’m not “pro-industry” but pro-competition and pro-market, so that Exxon supports something doesn’t mean I just except it-quite the opposite. I am appalled at what Exxon is doing. In your post, however, you accuse Rob of being fossil fuel funded, while at the same time saying that the organization he is involved with is no longer funded by them-and then you actually call him a rent seeker! Er, forgive me if I am asking a bad question, but why do you think Exxon is backing a carbon tax? Obviously they intend to benefit from it! Where I come from, Exxon would be considered the rent seekers…
And you go on about “deniers”. Hey, guess what Tom? I’m a bigger denier than they are! But don’t worry, I don’t block people from posting (unless they get seriously out of line, but I don’t think you would do that).
Andrew, you fail to distinguish between coal, oil and gas, even though the distinction is clear to anyone with familiarity with the industries and with where the carbon actually comes from on a per BTU basis. Can I suggest you do a bit more study?
I noted only that IER is no longer being funded by Exxon, which has good reasons not to be in the climate denial business, first of which being that oil/gas are far cleaner than coal, both from a carbon standpoint and classic pollution perspective. As to my accusation that MasterResource is funded by coal, and that the underwriters` money has trumped Bradley`s dedication to free markets (and to truth, even on a readily documentable issue as to Exxon`s advocacy of carbon taxes) is not only a natural conclusion, but Bradley`s deception and blocking of me is undeniable.
By the way, you might not have noticed, by I make it a point to discuss “skeptics” rather than “deniers”; you can feel free to choose your own appellation. I mention denial only in the case of Bradley`s behavior, not his substantive positions. Beware of this group, they are not real libertarians and their positions are being funded by large, status-quo rent-seekers.
Er, forgive me if I am asking a bad question, but why do you think Exxon is backing a carbon tax? Obviously they intend to benefit from it! Where I come from, Exxon would be considered the rent seekers…
I forgive you. But pause for a minute and think – how, exactly, does Exxon benefit from backing a carbon tax? How are they advantaged by being taxed? Exxon is simply not on the menu; the economics (and climate perspective) all favor O&G to a great extent over coal. Further, you forget that Exxon has had scientists on the IPCC for years; they are engineers and a very conservative company, and would not take a climate-mitigation and adaptation policy unless the engineers agreed. Same is true with IBM, Dupont, etc. They`ve realized that there`s a problem, want to deal with it proactively, and want the best policy, rather than the trainwreck that cap and trade, EPA regulation and a lot of pork barrel subsidies will be.
Oh, my, I am ignorant of the difference between sources of energy! Do my homework! Harsh. But whatever.
“status-quo rent-seekers”
As opposed to “Hope’n'change” rent seekers?
“exactly, does Exxon benefit from backing a carbon tax?”
Wow, er, may I suggest, humbly, that you use your imagination? Industry backs anti-market things all the time, because they see an opportunity to benefit from government market distortion. Like many energy companies, they have plans to use a carbon tax to help them form an alternative energy oligopoly. Which should be obvious. Right now, they are the only ones with capital to develop those sources, but the sources of energy are to expensive. Exxon et al. know they will make a killing if they can get the government to force people to switch to alternatives while the prices are still high and competition is low. That is what I call rent seeking. Asking to be left alone, is not.
“Exxon has had scientists on the IPCC for years”
Sh! Don’t tell the black helicopter greens that!
“a very conservative company”
HAHA! This is hysterical. I hear it from the left all the time. Corporations are not “right wing”-that they have politics at all is only to defend themselves from government intrusion.
“They`ve realized that there`s a problem, want to deal with it proactively, and want the best policy, rather than the trainwreck that cap and trade, EPA regulation and a lot of pork barrel subsidies will be”
You’ll excuse me if I doubt that acting in their own self interest is not their motive. I’ve read a little to much Adam Smith you see.
“trainwreck that cap and trade, EPA regulation and a lot of pork barrel subsidies will be”
Well, at least we agree on that.
Andrew, you misunderstand me. I have no intention to diss you; in that case I simply wouldn`t bother. Rather, because I assume you`re commenting in good faith, I`m left to puzzle out how you could confuse Exxon and coal firms, and was guessing that you were aware of the difference in carbon/BTU yield.
“As opposed to “Hope’n’change” rent seekers?”. In part, sure. But my point is that only someone with his eyes wide shut ignores the 800 lb. gorrilla in the room who`s long been getting special deals from government.
“Like many energy companies, they have plans to use a carbon tax to help them form an alternative energy oligopoly. Which should be obvious.”
Obvious only to the uninformed, Andrew. Exxon will some day be shifiting its business model as O&G run out, but that`s nowhere near to happening. Their alternative energy investments are peanuts, and (as Rob Bradley has noted more than once) they continue to insist that they won`t invest in anything that requires government fiat to be profitable. The trend if for the O&G industry to DIVEST from alternatives, as a matter of fact.
I agree that Exxon is acting in their own interests, as they uinderstand them. The part that you leave out is the possibility that they are actually concerned about climate change. When dealing with an important commons, everyone one has a shared interest in better management (even as they may not want to bear burdens unfairly and might want special deals). One can take what they say with grain of salt without dismissing it outright. Dupont and IBM, and Swiss Re are other sophisticated, forward-looking firms that are profitting from managing their own carbon footprint while supporting carbon pricing.
That should be “were unaware”.
Oh, and this “HAHA! This is hysterical. I hear it from the left all the time. Corporations are not “right wing”-that they have politics at all is only to defend themselves from government intrusion.”
You`re too busy playing partisan games, Andrew, which is why you misinterpret me. By “conservative” I was talking about how Exxon handles business decisions and risks, not their political leanings. I`m not “on the left”, by the way; I`m a right-leaning libertarian. You, on the other hand, don`t appear to be particularly libertarian, as far as I can tell so far.
Tom, I didn’t suggest you were on the left, but my misunderstanding of you lead me to think of something which is a myth that leftists believe. I apologize for misinterpreting what you mean. However your suggestion that I don’t appear to be particularly libertarian is over the line.
But do we not agree that there is something perverse about Exxon or coal companies ore anyone else lobbying the government either for their own benefit or out of “concern”?
Andrew, I`m still learning about what you profess to believe, but support for what what has been an expensive and state-growing war hardly looks libertarian. Did I miss your post explaining your position?
By the way, I am the last one to really care about labels.
I`m curious what your position is on the war on drugs as well.
While I sympathize with you on the living Constitution point, it`s really been our Presidents, with lack of backbone from Congress, that is responsible for the chief assaults on the Constitution. The two political parties have contributed by falling over themselves to grow central government in catering to rent-seekers.
I understand where you`re coming from on abortion, but does your preference for protecting fetuses mean you have the right to force someone else to carry a baby to term? Why can those who want to protect fetuses simply negotiate with pregnant mothers? JUst asking.
FWIW, I don`t believe in a “silly Global Warming Religion”, and I don`t know anyone who does, from the Pope to Ruppert Murdoch. But no doubt many “believers” and “skeptics” have rather simple and uninformed views, as tends to be the human wont given our limited time and competing demands on our attention.
Tom-my position is that the role of government is to protect people from external threats, and that a liberal democracy should promote that system abroad, which is what Jefferson believed.
My position on the War on Drugs is that it has not gone so well-when government tries to go beyond its proper place that tends to happen. I detest the drug culture and I think that they are harmful, but I don’t see why government needs to protect idiots from themselves.
I find it hard to believe that you can be so focused on seeing harm to the Constitution from the Executive that you can completely overlook the damage that the Judicial branch has done. At least Presidents and Congress have to be responsive to the people-they have much stronger checks on their power.
“Force someone to carry to term” Sex is usually optional. But people have to accept responsibility for the consequences. I’m not forcing anyone to do anything. To my mind, the right of an unborn child to live overrides the “right” to shirk responsibility. What’s more, I have nothing against negotiating to convince women not to terminate their pregnancies. I think that there should be such an effort as long as abortion is still around. But I don’t believe that they have the right to treat the unborn as their property with which they can do whatever they want. All individuals must be protected. However, I acknowledge that if you disagree with me on this, the chances of me convincing you are pretty much zero.
As far as the religion thing goes, I really do believe that many have an unshakable, faith based belief in AGW. My beliefs are not “simple” in my opinion, and they are evolving. See the Klimacht category.
By the way, speaking of competing demands on my attention, please be aware that while I like to respond to most comments, the narrow periods in which I can do so, being a student, making it difficult to keep up sometimes.
Andrew, thanks for the further comments.
You are exactly right about the war on drugs, which is not merely an unjustified paternalism but a tremendously costly folly, at home and abroad; this war has the effect of criminalizing inner cities and dampening other economic activity, fuels the police state and generates corruption and violence abroad. I`m surprised you don`t see the link and take a similar position on our counterproductive wars (which are beneficial to a huge industry and other rent-seekers, and in which politicians find a lot of short-term benefit). Free trade is the way to go, while being ready to defend.
On abortion, while I am sympathetic unfortunately we can`t put a technology genie back in the bottle. As a result, unless we are talking efforts to persuade mothers to bear all of their babies to term, “protecting” a right of fetuses to be borne means forcing an unwilling mother to be a personal home to an unwanted baby – and probably to support the baby for 15+ years. I believe that leaving this choice to the mother is simply the course that infringes the least amount of freedom. I hear you on irresponsibility, but a chief reason that young mothers choose abortion is because whoever the father is is unwilling to bear his own responsibility. Restrictions on abortion in some cases be seen as a way to compel women to do what men are unwilling to bargain for.
Gotta go. I think you`re heading in the right direction, but would suggest that you will find your path more productive if you challenge and ask questions before you choose to cast quick judgments. And never forget to ask, when criticizing one group pushing for change in government policy who benefits from current policies.
“I`m surprised you don`t see the link and take a similar position on our counterproductive wars” I don’t “fail to see the link” and simply asserting “counter-productivity” doesn’t make it so. However, I agree that more free trade is needed in the World. But I also believe in sticking up for liberty here ~and~ abroad. I’m sure that Communist China’s Democracy agitators are really enjoying that open trade policy of ours!
As for your comments on abortion-the point, as I see it, is that their is no “freedom from burden” but even supposing there was, it would be lower on my priority list than life itself. If the mother really doesn’t want to have to take care of the child, she should put it up for adoption.
How can you be pro-war and pro-life at the same time? Wars kill people, mostly civilians. Or perhaps you just meant American wars which of course are always justified and for the greater good – and even give lots of jobs to cluster bomb makers.
Many people don’t seem to get what I mean by “pro-war”. I am not “pro-war” in the sense that I believe in war generally. I believe that war is sometimes necessary. Completely different.
It is also worth noting that I would hardly think it “pro-life” to simply sit back while murderous dictators and radicals attack our allies-or us.
Nice snide remarks about cluster bomb manufacturers though. Real mature.