Taiwan’s Premier Wu Den-yih announced that a New Energy Committee established on Oct. 29, 2009 would help Taiwan become a major producer of energy and energy technologies. Minister without Portfolio Lian Chi-yuan will preside over the committee, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) will handle administrative affairs. Wu noted that low-carbon policies to achieve Taiwan’s goal of being a “low-carbon nation” will improve Taiwan’s energy structure and bring growth to the production and technology development sectors.

The MOEA proposed an action plan for the Dawning Green Energy Industry Program, which will use comprehensive strategies to enhance the production value, increase private-sector investment, and create jobs in Taiwan’s green energy industries. In addition, the MOEA established technical and business service teams for green energy industries.

Having said that, before I go any further, let me emphasize that I entirely see where you’re coming from in reading the article the way you do. The fact of the matter is, Ms. Tucker is a bit ambiguous and elliptical in what she’s getting at, so if either you or I are misreading her, it has to do with that ambiguity, and not in any intellectual deficiency on the part of either you or myself.

For example, you say that Ms. Tucker does not specifically state that the United States needs to become Communist. And that’s true. She also never states specifically that we need to hurry up and start jumping on the green jobs bandwagon or the Chinese will overtake us. Eitehr conclusion must be inferred from what she has written.

I’m not sure it entirely matters whether Ms. Tucker wants the United States to become communist or not. For the sake of discussion, I’m willing to stipulate that she does not. It’s alarming enough that she and Thomas Friedman admire the ability of a totalitarian government–whether Communist or not, it does not matter–to “just impose” things on the nation, regardless of democratic process or the wishes of the people.

I agree that it’s unimportant who wrote the preamble, because I never said that James Madison did. I said he was the father of the Constitution, which is saying something very different.

Sure enough, the Constitution gives the government the power to lay and collect taxes. However, it needed to be amended to give them the power over income taxes, and in my view the progressive income tax is a violation of the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws. Further, to attempt to manipulate the tax code in order to favor one kind of business over another (a green business vs. a non-green business) is a similar violation of the equal protection of the laws. Similarly, the Congress cannot use the tax code in order to do things it was never specifically granted the power to do.

Sure, Communist nations do things that we also do, which does not make them Commmunist. But I don’t wish to argue about the Olympics, merely about the point of “imposing” things on a nation by fiat, which Friedman and Tucker to all appearances admire. Yes, the part of the Friedman article where he uses the term “just impose” is not the same as Tucker quotes. However, Tucker does use the phrase “state planning,” which is more or less the same thing, so I feel pretty safe in comparing what Friedman says to what Tucker says.

In terms of the definition of Communism, it is a system in which the government owns all business. Manipulating the tax code in order to create incentives and disincentives which would (to use Cass Sunstein’s word) “nudge” businesses to behave in a way the government approves of, is not Communism per se, but it’s sort of a half-way house toward Communism that is troublesome to me. The American government would never get away with outright taking over all businesses, but by manipulating the tax code in order to make it all but suicide for businesses not to comply with government wishes, they in effect end up doing that very thing by stealth. Call it Stealth Communism.

Perhaps in your skilled reading of the constitution, you overlooked section 8 of article one, where lo and behold, in the very first line, Congress is specifically delegated the right to “lay and collect taxes”…” to “provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States”. Tell me again why I’m wrong to believe it is in line with the Constitution for Congress to promote green jobs through tax policy, and that this is not “communism”?

You write “Moreover, saywhat, Ms. Tucker does not say that America needs to compete with Communism. She says that Communism will create high-paying jobs. She doesn’t say Capitalism will do this. She doesn’t say the Constitution will do this. She says Communism will do it.”

Again, your expert reading skills have failed you. You infer way too much, and way too little. Yes she does say communists, specifically China, will create high paying green jobs.But she most certainly implies (mostly by the selection of the quote from Friedman) that the US could and should do what it can to compete. NOWHERE does Ms. Mckinney state she thinks the US should start a green energy industry by autocratic methods. Show me where she does.Thats also a neat trick of yours to quote a different part of the article and attribute agreement with it to Ms. McKinney. I am sure if that was a part of the article she wanted to quote, she would have done so herself.

Just because a Communist nation does something, doesn’t make that something “communist”. China has an army, does that mean the US army is communist? China hosted an Olympic games, but so did the US, does that make us all communists? China promotes a green energy industry, does the US become communist if we promote a green energy industry? If Communists are able to create wellpaying jobs, are all people who have well paying jobs communists?

Of course this leads to the other point of her article, which you completely missed.The point was that people throw around terms like communist without any real sense of what it actually means. At least you were able to illustrate her point, even if it was unwittingly done.

Finally, I am relieved that you pointed out that my calling you a moron was not an ad hominem attack. I almost felt a little guilty for a minute or two. Since it followed a string of moronic statements by you though, “moron” was apparently used in the appropriate context and was just an adjective used to describe what I read.

Now, I’m not claiming I’m Jesus; far, far, far from it. My point is that there’s no sin at times in being … well, direct … if you think the situation calls for it.

My only point–and this is the last thing I say on the matter, I promise–is the difference between having some factual support behind your adjectives, and just throwing around adjectives for the sake of throwing around adjectives.

And tone, let us not forget tone. I followed your posts for three days and noticed a definite tone to attack. At first your posts were thoughtful but by day three you were name calling.

LOL.

In truth, I do see where you’re coming from. However, let me give a couple examples to try to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.

Look at Cynthia’s column entitled “Even crazies like Glenn Beck have their say.” In that column, she calls Beck quite a few names, but without citing anything whatsoever that he had said. That makes an ad hominem.

In her column from today, however, she refers to Republican congressmen as “hooligans,” but she ties that specifically to their booing and jeering of Obama. Now, she and I may disagree about whether or not this is true hooliganism, but the argument now is over whether the word “hooligan” applies to the situation in question, not over whether it’s an ad hominem. In this particular context, it’s not an ad hominem.

It’s all about context, and that’s where the necessity for discernment comes in. Since you brought up “tomatoes,” let me use that word to illustrate how context changes the meaning of something. Suppose I were to say, “Look at those lovely tomatoes.” Now, if I were in front of a fruit and vegetable stand, that sentence would mean one thing. But if a woman happened to be passing by at the moment, it would mean quite a different thing.

What makes a particular word an ad hominem is context, not the mere fact that it happens to be an adjective, even an adjective with negative connotations.

Toh-may-toh
Toh-mah-toh

“Snob,” “elitist,” “know-it-all,” “self-righteous,” and variations thereof all backed up with support, such as Thomas Friedman’s reference to China being led by a “reasonably enlightened group of people” who can “just impose” what’s good on the ignorant masses.

These are not ad hominems. These are adjectives to describe what I read.