Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 01/13/2011

White alert

By Tom Toles

c_01132011.gif

***

Another thing Obama got right

Since I am apparently the last person interested in defending President Obama, let me keep at it.

Whatever interpretation you'd like to put on the recent angry rhetoric about angry rhetoric, I think we can all agree that we all disagree. The intensity of vitriol and alienation on the right, regardless of its role in recent events, is real and has become startling in and of itself. It appears they won't be content until every liberal sentiment has been driven from politics or from the country, but that isn't going to happen, so where does that leave us?

It leaves us with the option of at least attempting to cool the verbal flame wars and trying to work together as fellow citizens. Enter President Obama. The repeated calls from the left for Obama to "get angry" and become more partisan would be fine in some country other than the one we happen to live in right now. He seems intent on sticking with his original no-drama plan. It may or may not be a "winning" strategy, but it's the healthy one, in a political discourse that has become quite sick. --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_01132011.gif

By Tom Toles  | January 13, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Congress, DC  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gun nuts
Next: The big picture

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

to pararanger2:
If you type "kill bush" in Google you get a little over 7 M hits; if you type in "kill obama", you get 18 M hits. Also Bush was in office for 8 years while Obama has only been in office for two. So which is the more virtiolic?
Basically, pararanger2 (like most of his/her ilk) puts out 'unfair and unbalanced' information.

Posted by: Rudesan | January 14, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

to pararanger2:
If you type "kill bush" in Google you get a little over 7 M hits; if you type in "kill obama", you get 18 M hits. Also Bush was in office for 8 years while Obama has only been in office for two. So which is the more virtiolic?
Basically, pararanger2 (like most of his/her ilk) puts out 'unfair and unbalanced' information.

Posted by: Rudesan | January 14, 2011 11:51 AM | Report abuse

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife. . . We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “I want you to argue with them and get in their face!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose a-s-s to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Posted by: DwightCollins | January 14, 2011 6:23 AM | Report abuse

What do you see as a viable energy mix in twenty years regarding electrical production. Conservation can only slow the increasing demand for energy.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 8:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dalyplanet, thanks for asking my opinion.

As PrairieDog60 notes, along with CO2 cap and trade (which I respectfully suggest we have established as a viable method of reducing U.S. pollutants in recent posts), we will have to cobble together a number of solutions to keep energy costs reasonable, that is, acceptable by the U.S energy market. And the market will do this for us....

It's gonna be many things together (analogously, like choosing a travel method to get from Dallas to New York has many choices), our U.S. electrical grid will be supplied by solar during the day, wind continuously (with new methods of storing that energy overnight, for instance compressed air storage---http://www.dotyenergy.com/Markets/CAES.htm---), nuclear energy generation during the day in the short term, geothermal in mountain state, etc.

How could the U.S. market respond in any other way?

The question, I respectfully suggest, is whether we successfully internalized those externalities to make the cost of fossil fuels reflect the true cost. If we continue to reject fossil-fuel alternatives like cap and trade (and I submit that dalyplanet and others lurking reasonably no longer do), it will artificially appear that the path we're on is the only way to go; and it's demonstrable not.

Posted by: redhead1990 | January 13, 2011 10:05 PM | Report abuse

redhead1990

I am pleased to see you here with a reasonable argument for cap and trade. The discussion needs to happen and I am looking for enlightenment. The example you give had a relatively easy solution though, use cleaner coal and implement scrubber technology. Plus part of the solution has been to burn nat gas for electrical generation and there is concern that this resource will become more expensive and has in the recent past. Cost has shifted from electricity production to food production with more expensive nat gas, so I do not believe this solution has been free.

There is a limit to renewable energy's contribution to world electrical demand in the nearer future. Some proposed solutions such as carbon capture reduce efficiency significantly and have potential serious negative consequences. Markets are prone to abuse and excesses.

You seem much more informed than the usual poster here including myself. What do you see as a viable energy mix in twenty years regarding electrical production. Conservation can only slow the increasing demand for energy.

Thank you for your reasoned input to this important conversation. I think that newspapers would be well served with a science writer to further discussion outside the political realm.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Reposts:
An increase between 1990 and 2006 of 35% electricity generation in the U.S. while at the same time a decrease of 45% for NOx and 39% SO2 all coming almost exclusively using the same power plants using cap and trade.

Has this process of deceasing acid rain emission components over the past decade in the U.S. using a market-based approach caused an increase in the average cost of electricity in the U.S.?

Short/clear answer: no, it's gone down slightly. Data I've posted here come from:

(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/international/china/JES_USexperience.pdf; The Electricity Journal, 20(7), 47-58).

Cap and trade in the U.S. for those pollutants has allowed us to significantly drop their emissions with basically no cost to electricity consumers, decrease in company profits, or cost to U.S. tax payers.

How come?

It's because putting a cost on previously external factors (NOx and SO2 emissions that cause acid rain) internalizes that cost in the production of U.S. electricity, and thereby raises the cost of NOx and SO2 emissions from electric power plants, and so the market naturally responds by avoiding that cost.

This is the same as PrairieDog60's call for a carbon tax, but it is, I propose more politically palatable than "a tax" and yet works inside the energy market. And the past results with NOX and SO2 are hard data of proven success in the U.S.

So the market naturally responds by avoiding the newly internalized cost and incorporates new technologies, some unimagined when the acid rain cap and trade was first proposed.

dalyplanet's question of how much CO2 cap and trade can accomplish over the next 30 years is an excellent place to go next:

How will an electric company (indeed the entire U.S. electricity market) respond to the small financial cost of CO2 emissions over 10 years when the CO2 emissions credits increase systematically every year? PrairieDog60 has already set the stage for some answers....

Posted by: redhead1990 | January 13, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

spigzone

I think you nailed it - Bush only harder and faster!!!

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Pdog

California is trying to pass legislation to get to that point by 2020 act I think it is to 33% but they might be smoking some of that medical pot they have out there or they will cook the books to achieve that number.

Your tree hugger link was funny They are for sure on something. Read the first response.

We probably may be able to catch enough wind over time to power the world but the hurdle is smoothing or storage as the wind may not blow. Minnesota is one of the more reliant on wind and the stats look good on paper, but when the wind blows the coal plants boil water with thier excess power so the savings are wasted, the efficiency drops.

Nat Gas power plants can operate in a variable mode but nat gas is what heats the world so in 100 years it will get expensive to stay warm if we burn it up making electricity. Garbage and wood can fire periodically and shut down when it blows but still takes about 24 hours to come back online.

Check out the us department of energy to see some real numbers. If you AGW types are right, you will have to get over your dislike of Atoms for power.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Look at what he's DONE.

He has successfully pushed forward the entire panoply of the Bush/Cheney/MIC/Wall Street policies and agenda while effectively silencing opposition from the left AND BRINGING A LARGE PORTION OF THE LEFT INTO AGREEMENT WITH THOSE POLICIES.

Obama is smoke and mirrors on nitrous.

A 'health care' bill written by the corporations that do NOTHING to control costs. A 'financial bill' written by Wall Street that does NOTHING to fix the practices that led to the meltdown ... and will lead to an inevitable, even more catastropic, meltdown.

You think this whole 'extend and pretend' economic b.s. is going to end in anything but a catastrophic end when nothing was FIXED and Peak Oil has now transformed into Declining Oil?

Obama has continued EVERYTHING Cheney got going. The wars, indefinite detention, illegal rendition, butchering of the rule of law and constitution, it goes on and on and on. NO investigations and indictments of massive rampant criminal activity by the Rich and Powerful. How craven for a touch of velvet on the iron fist are you?

Here's a cartoon idea for you ...

Wizard of Oz in reverse. A mild mannered non-threatening soft voiced 'wizard' as the public face and behind the curtain a giant evil eye glowing humanoid machine pulling the levers.


Posted by: spigzone | January 13, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Look at what he's DONE.

He has successfully pushed forward the entire panoply of the Bush/Cheney/MIC/Wall Street policies and agenda while hamstringing the left's opposition to them.

YOU included.

You think this whole 'extend and pretend' economic b.s. is going to end in anything but another, even more disastrous end when nothing was FIXED and Peak Oil has now transformed into Declining Oil?

Obama has continued EVERYTHING Cheney got going. How craven for a touch of velvet on the iron fist are you?

Here's a cartoon idea for you ...

Wizard of Oz in reverse. A mild mannered non-threatening soft voiced 'wizard' as the public face and behind the curtain a giant evil eye glowing humanoid machine pulling the levers.


Posted by: spigzone | January 13, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Amen! Again.

Please run for Congress! We sorely need reps with wisdom and compassion (and humor).

Posted by: lufrank1 | January 13, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

bobmoses,

It speaks volumes when you got Republicans quitting their own party because Tea-tards are threatening them and their family. Ponder on that one for a bit.

Posted by: bushidollar | January 13, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet, you have a bad habit of throwing statistics out there with no reference. Who says renewables can only provide 30%? California was already getting 31% from renewables in 2006!

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4530

Here's a story about a study from some guys at Stanford saying that 100% renewable energy worldwide is possible by 2030, and they don't even talk about conservation.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/100-percent-renewables-by-2030-plan.php?campaign=th_rss

Again, the political will to do this is all we need. The technology is already there.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | January 13, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bobmoses | January 12, 2011 9:33 PM
"Tea party = John Birch AKA k00ks"

Ah those tolerant liberals. Didn't I see you here with all of these other tolerant people?

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html"

Actually, you would never see me there. Oh, and for the record, I voted for Bush the 1st time around. I figured that even if he was a utter failure in life, his dad's crew would set him straight. That did not work out so well for me.

Posted by: bushidollar | January 13, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Pdog

The most optimistic estimates guess 30% electrical generation from renewables in 30 years. The balance is coal and nat gas and nuclear. How will cap and trade fix CO2 except force a shift to nuclear. Should we burn our heating gas for electric for a small reduction in CO2 output.

Cap and trade has roots outside politics. Lobbies press for Cap and Trade. Gore is for cap and trade. Energy producers are for Cap and Trade. Oil companies are for Cap and Trade. Follow the money in your search. I agree carbon tax is a real solution but am not convinced it is needed today.

What can replace coal in electrical production given 30% renewable is the optimistic estimate in 30 years.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Can any respondents simply condemn vitriol and careless denunciation from all parties? Sure, we all think our own views and the expression of them is reasonable, but it is really childish to discuss national problems in such violent and insulting language that the language becomes the topic and the problem is not addressed. Why can't we (and the Congress) welcome reasonably expressed opposition and respond reasonably.

Posted by: juliakennedy1"

===================

You make what should be an excellent point, the problem is that when two ideologies are diametrically opposed, their arguments simply do not sound reasonable to each other.

The most stark example that comes to mind immediately is evolution. To the science minded this appears obvious, here we have fossil records and what appears to be a clear path from the past to the present, what kind of simple minded dolt could possibly ignore all this evidence? To those of a religious mindset the is but one clear answer to the origins of man, God did it, it says so right here, what kind of simple minded dolt would doubt the word of God?

This is but one example. The problem lies in the fact that when you confront someone's faith in their beliefs, you will most certainly have a long, uphill slog and will likely not get anywhere. Or as I am fond of saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float on his back, you've got a Circus act."

Two disparate ideologies cannot be reconciled, unless one or the other already has a kernel of doubt. In which case you are converting someone to your belief, not reconciling the differences. We have to _choose_ to coexist peacefully.

Posted by: pete1013 | January 13, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Tom Toles:

Amen, Brother.

Posted by: billh39 | January 13, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse


Great column. The "right" has been wrong for too long. They're the hypocrits.
Posted by: COLEBRACKETT

Good point, my comments…
It is time for the Republicans to get honest with themselves and try and repair the damage they have done. They remind me of my younger brother. He would blame me for everything he did wrong and got away with it.
The Jared Loughners of the world are not nearly as dangerous as the Sarah Palins of the world.
We have had ten years of living on the edge of disaster thanks to the Republicans and they will take no responsibility for anything.
If Sarah Palin becomes president; she will have her finger on the nuclear button and her shoot first and ask questions later will set us up for World War Three.
Is that what we want?
Extinction is not a happy time.
There are better solutions to our economic problems than World war Three.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | January 13, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

When you look at how much he's gotten done in two years--or even only in his first year--it's clear that "no-drama Obama" is actually a winning strategy. Consider everything he got done by November 2010. Even health care reform, which was denounced by some on the left for not going far enough, was still a huge "get" for the Democrats. As was financial regulation, and ending DADT, credit card reform, student loan reform, that $20 billion fund from BP, and so on.

And the continuous calls from the professional left for Obama to get angrier is particularly hilarious when you notice that most of those calls are coming from whites, telling a black man that he is not angry enough. This may actually be the first time in American history that such a thing has happened.

Posted by: dkp01 | January 13, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

When you look at how much he's gotten done in two years--or even only in his first year--it's clear that "no-drama Obama" is actually a winning strategy. Consider everything he got done by November 2010. Even health care reform, which was denounced by some on the left for not going far enough, was still a huge "get" for the Democrats. As was financial regulation, and ending DADT, credit card reform, student loan reform, that $20 billion fund from BP, and so on.

And the continuous calls from the professional left for Obama to get angrier is particularly hilarious when you notice that most of those calls are coming from whites, telling a black man that he is not angry enough. This may actually be the first time in American history that such a thing has happened.

Posted by: dkp01 | January 13, 2011 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Hmm...seem to be wondering off track a bit here today, but I'll throw in my two cents.

Cap and trade for CO2 was a compromise solution designed to appease Republican demands for "market-based" solutions. It is not going to be as easy to pull carbon out of coal emmissions as it is to pull SOx and NOx out. A big part of the "market" for carbon has to do with carbon offsets, which, as written currently in the cap and trade proposal, are very forgiving in what is allowed as an "offset". I don't like the idea of cap and trade for carbon, as I don't think it's a viable solution.

That being said, I also think it's disingenuous to harp about cap and trade for carbon as if it's the only solution. There are many things that can be done, that need to be done.

Efficiency and conservation are huge, and don't get the media they deserve. Insulating homes, making sure homes have efficient newer furnaces, quick transitions to LED and CFL lighting...all these would go a long way toward cutting down carbon emissions.

A carbon tax would be an excellent idea. The more CO2 you belch into the atmosphere, the more you pay. Of course there would be exceptions for this in certain circumstances, but the practice of producing CO2 needs to be less appealing if we want it to decrease.

A new and improved electrical grid nationwide (all our war money over the last several years could have paid for this easily), where the grid goes where local energy can be produced...windy areas, sunny areas, geothermal hotspots, etc. Maximizing production and use of local available renewable energy is something we must do, and this includes making it more affordable for homeowners to use their own solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, etc. The more each home owner can renewably supply their own electricity, the less need for power plants.

There will likely always be some coal-fired power plants, until coal runs out or becomes prohibitively expensive. We'll need them for a while to provide back up energy when other sources aren't producing as much (cloudy days, etc.). But the percentage of power provided by coal can be reduced very easily. It merely takes political will. Conservatives fight this at every turn, and it has to do with a couple things. 1) A political wedge issue, whereby they can paint Dems as trying to decrease our standard of living or "kill jobs" (silly, considering how many jobs would be created if we did this right), and 2) There is BIG money in the status quo for conservatives. Oil, coal, trucking, mining, natural gas, etc...are spending HUGE amounts of money to prop up the denial of climate change and re-elect those who subscribe to this. And money = power, so candidates will do all they can to appease those with the biggest purse strings.

Transition to a sustainable energy economy CAN be done. We just have to want to do it.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | January 13, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Using clean coal and tech to reduce is easy with these emissions but comparing NOX\SO2 to CO2 is way past apples to oranges.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 9:31 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Successful cap and trade with NOx and SO2 over the recent past has little to do with a change in energy source. It just points to a successful implementation of acid rain emission component decreases using a government-initiated but market-based cap and trade process.

The production of NOx in coal-fired power plants is not affected by coal source. The nitrogen and oxygen in power plant NOx comes from the air, joined together in the heat of the fuel combustion process. For SO2, lower sulfur content coal is important but that coal is more expensive; however, SO2 scrubbing has also taken care of that successfully. And the cost of that scrubbing has gone down as the cost of cap and trade trading permits goes up. The market makes it cheaper to cut emissions than to buy more and more expensive permits.

My only point in this post series is that cap and trade has clearly worked for NOx and SO2 emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants.

Has this process of deceasing acid rain emission components over the past decade in the U.S. using a market-based approach caused an increase in the average cost of electricity in the U.S.?

Posted by: redhead1990 | January 13, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Can any respondents simply condemn vitriol and careless denunciation from all parties? Sure, we all think our own views and the expression of them is reasonable, but it is really childish to discuss national problems in such violent and insulting language that the language becomes the topic and the problem is not addressed. Why can't we (and the Congress) welcome reasonably expressed opposition and respond reasonably.

Posted by: juliakennedy1 | January 13, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Tom,

'It may or may not be a "winning" strategy, but it's the healthy one'

I disagree about the winning strategy comment. Mr. Obama has been the adult in our relationship for the whole time. The left and right pundits only have half-brains. I suspect zombies have eaten the other half.

Leading up to the next election, the voting public will hear from all the candidates and Mr. Obama will stand tall as the adult. The voters will choose the adult for President every time.

Posted by: orinski | January 13, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

redhead1990

Shift in source of coal.

A Shift to nat gas will reduce CO2 but in the long term will reduce our ability to heat our homes

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

redhead1990

I was so surprised by your informed question here, I left out this line;

So in regard to nitrate and sulfate emissions cap and trade is viable.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 12, 2011 11:21 PM


Using clean coal and tech to reduce is easy with these emissions but comparing NOX\SO2 to CO2 is way past apples to oranges.

What is your solution to actual powerplant CO2 reduction?

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 13, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

So in regard to nitrate and sulfate emissions cap and trade is viable.
Posted by: dalyplanet | January 12, 2011 11:21 PM

and

I would agree that in your example a shift in source over time was beneficial but the choice is available. What is your answer for shift in electric production related to fuel available. Plus I am concerned about gas supply for heat over the long term.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 12, 2011 11:00 PM

dalyplanet and PrairieDog60

I don't see where any shift in sources for electricity has occurred under the market-based cap and trade in the U.S. An increase between 1990 and 2006 of 35% electricity generation in the U.S. while at the same time a decrease of 45% for NOx and 39% SO2 all came almost exclusively using the same power plants using cap and trade. As discussions here have described, alternate energy sources (NOX/SO2-free) are still very small and can't realistically explain this. How could these gains have been made if cap and trade isn't viable?


Posted by: redhead1990 | January 13, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

The difference between someon who plays loose with facts and vitriolic language and someone who scolds is profound.
A comparison/equation between Beck and Olbermann is a false one.

Posted by: GeneTouchet | January 13, 2011 8:59 AM | Report abuse

No need to blame the left or the right - there is plenty to pass around. For every Beck there is an Olbermann who scolds without relent. Time to educate the people to sort out the messages and toss out the false or misleading. Until then, we have to rely on proven sources - like the Post and not every one who can post on the web.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | January 13, 2011 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Redhead, nitrates are still an issue with coal fired power plants. The technology to remove them isn't up to speed with sulfur compounds, thanks to the cap and trade program for sulfates, there has been a 35% reduction in sulfur dioxide pollution from power plants going back to the mid-1990s. So it's been a pretty fair success story so far.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | January 13, 2011 12:11 AM | Report abuse

redhead1990

I was so surprised by your informed question here, I left out this line;

So in regard to nitrate and sulfate emissions cap and trade is viable.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 12, 2011 11:21 PM | Report abuse

redhead1990

A surprise visit from a bit of a scholar here!!! ~~you did not answer my survey though!~~

I would agree that in your example a shift in source over time was beneficial but the choice is available. What is your answer for shift in electric production related to fuel available. Plus I am concerned about gas supply for heat over the long term.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 12, 2011 11:00 PM | Report abuse

: EthelredtheUnready

both are AGW questions

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 12, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Deny means you disagree with the statement as written Agree means you accept it as true.

Do you all here agree that the current plan to stop global warming through cap and trade will do nothing except make a few well connected rich folks richer and do nothing to slow carbon consumption?

Would you agree that it is not a conspiracy theory anymore when the group that stands to make hundreds of billions of created money spends 3000 to 1 to prove their position.

=======
I don't understand the connection. The first question pertains to climate change, while the second clearly refers to for-profit health insurance companies.

Posted by: EthelredtheUnready | January 12, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

And day 3 of "No, you!" continues with no end in sight.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 12, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like time to build another manmade global warming igloo on Capitol Hill and invite Al Gore so he can warm it with this type of fire.

"He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place." Al Gore Feb 8, 2004, Nashville, Tenn...As several hundred Democrats roared their approval.

Posted by: billybeer6 | January 12, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

"Tea party = John Birch AKA k00ks"

Ah those tolerant liberals. Didn't I see you here with all of these other tolerant people?

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html

Hypocrites.

Posted by: bobmoses | January 12, 2011 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Nice partisan screed.

"Let's agree to disagree, but lets also agree that conservatives are not only wrong, but they are evil".

Tom Toles is no different than Glenn Beck. They are both disgusting and hateful partisans.

Posted by: bobmoses | January 12, 2011 9:31 PM | Report abuse

"Do all you Libs here deny that the current plan to stop global warming through cap and trade will do nothing except make a few well connected rich folks richer and do nothing to slow carbon consumption?"

Posted by: dalyplanet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How did the previous/present U.S. cap and trade formulae work out for nitrate and sulfate emissions from coal-fired power plants over the past decade? Not the process---tradeable permits for their legal emission---but the results from that market process?

Posted by: redhead1990 | January 12, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Somebody has to stay calm and who better than the president? Although it's pretty obvious not many are following his lead, on both sides.

Posted by: vicknair | January 12, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 12, 2011 3:49 PM
"Everything you wrote about the right being extreme and the cause for the 'uptick in violence with regard to politics in this country' is just plain wishful thinking."

--

Dude, you need to get a grip. The right wingers are frothing at the mouth so bad, that they got their own running scared.

http://tinyurl.com/4k9jtlq

Tea party = John Birch AKA k00ks

Posted by: bushidollar | January 12, 2011 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Due to the denial of any left leaning past or present 'angry rhetoric', I got to thinking about some of the other pointy stick pokes posted in Toles blog yesterday. So I thought I would survey here. I am serious, I really want your answer. Two questions, but you have to pay attention with your answer.

Deny means you disagree with the statement as written Agree means you accept it as true.

Do you all here agree that the current plan to stop global warming through cap and trade will do nothing except make a few well connected rich folks richer and do nothing to slow carbon consumption?

Would you agree that it is not a conspiracy theory anymore when the group that stands to make hundreds of billions of created money spends 3000 to 1 to prove their position.

Please answer both questions. Editorialize after the answers. Remember no name calling today as we are all being nice.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 12, 2011 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Toles writes

~~~The intensity of vitriol and alienation on the right~~~

Reviewing yesterdays posts here I say HUH!!! surely you mean right and left

Nobody was that vitrio1ic here and for the most part fingers were pointing equally from both sides.

This is one of those group think consensus things that if you say it enough it must be true. But it is not, Probably both parties are a little nearsighted when it comes to their own vitriol.

Funny cartoon!!! and true ~ glad to see the less vitriolic side again.

Posted by: dalyplanet | January 12, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Great column. The "right" has been wrong for too long. They're the hypocrits.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | January 12, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Phew! Tom Toles, if you're thinking that our president has taken the right road, and I am thinking our president has taken the right road, maybe others are thinking the same thing.

Do you suppose?

Posted by: goodgovernment | January 12, 2011 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe I am hearing calls for calm and civility from Tom Toles. Dude, you are the biggest unguided missile on the WaPo editorial page, and that is saying something...

Posted by: sold2u | January 12, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I don't think violent anti-Republican rhetoric excuses violent anti-Democratic rhetoric. Violent rhetoric is simply not acceptable.

Also, individuals with signs should not be equated to party leaders.

Posted by: will12 | January 12, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Is it me or have conservatives been really touchy about all this stuff? I mean really, really, really just jump up and down having a tantrum touchy.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 12, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Toles, you're full of it. The vitriol and hate and threats against Bush were the worst I've ever seen. I don't remember you writing one darn thing counseling Libs to tone it down.

Hypocrite.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 12, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

In fairness, he didn't have a blog. Also, as someone stated in the other comment thread, a few fringe liberals making signs is not the same as mainstream Republican LEADERS saying vaguely threatening things.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | January 12, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Toles wrote:

["The intensity of vitriol and alienation on the right, regardless of its role in recent events, is real and has become startling in and of itself."]

-----------------

Toles, you're full of it. The vitriol and hate and threats against Bush were the worst I've ever seen. I don't remember you writing one darn thing counseling Libs to tone it down.

Hypocrite.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 12, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

PrairieDog60,

Everything you wrote about the right being extreme and the cause for the 'uptick in violence with regard to politics in this country' is just plain wishful thinking.

Take 60 seconds and look at the Liberal vitriol collected in photos and drawings on this website:

http://www.google.com/images?q=kill+bush&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=i70tTdjcKoKBlAfbkvH8Cw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQsAQwAA&biw=1280&bih=670

In seconds your point will vanish - recommend it for all the bloggers here.

Posted by: pararanger22 | January 12, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Good one Toles on all counts!

Posted by: bertzel | January 12, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company