Pajiba

Ok first, thank you so much for this review and to Nicole for putting it on Pajiba. I love Zakaria and think he's one of the most thoughtful political voices around.

Secondly, I'm taking this as a challenge: I'm going to read this, too. Since the 2004 elections (yes, that long), I've sort of buried my head in the sand, politically. I was horribly burned out. Now all I do is barely look at Wonkette once a week and laugh at the snark.

So: this will be my challenge to myself to get back into this subject and not burn myself out this time.

Thanks, it sounds like a great read. I find myself agreeing with Zakaria a lot but NOT all of the time, which I appreciate. What fun is there in listening to/reading someone I totally 100% agree with?

Oh and erm, that header pic is NOT the best one of him.

Funny this was posted this morning. I find myself increasingly disillusioned by politics and government in the U.S. So much so that Mrs. Bullet and I are talking seriously about leaving once she finishes her master's degree.

It is an interesting book, I also enjoyed "The Future of Freedom" as well!

Fareed Zakaria is one of the smartest men on the planet, for my money.

Robert's reaction to the title is typical, unfortunately. It's an attention-getter, sure, but perhaps he ought to have gone a different way. He means it in the same way you might use the term post-modern or post-irony. These aren't passe.... but they've changed the landscape of ideas. America is a lot like that.

On the other hand.... America has also become exactly what we set ourselves up against. In that regard, if we don't get off our asses, it really will be a post-American world the way it's a post-hula hoop world or a post-Rome world.

But one example: we were founded on the notion that all men are created equal and that everyone should have a level playing field... but nowadays we have less economic and class mobility than England, which is notoriously the most socially and economically rigid country in Europe.

That's a slightly scary proposition.

Way to add to the discussion today, Eric.

And it's not that the people here are unwilling to listen to a different viewpoint, it's that you set out to be antagonistic without presenting a substantive position or even the vaguest attempt of engaging others. You oversimplified and grossly mischaracterized the position you are attacking and immediately shut down any prospect of further debate or understanding.

You can sulk behind your keyboard, smug and defensive, telling yourself that the insular Pajiba community refuses to accomodate other viewpoints but that's simply not the case. If you have a different opinion your welcome to share it. The only requirement is that you do so in a mature, reasonable manner. In other words, If you can't take the time to say something nicely, just say nothing.

We expect better, even of anonymous and unaccountable internet comments. And usually we get it.

This book sounds incredibly interesting. Thanks for the review, Robert.

EricD, you might actually want to listen to what the man says. He's actually very moderate.

How you know that is that some people try to discredit him by calling him "liberal" and others try to discredit him by calling him "conservative."

When two opposing labels that are equally meaningless in American politics get slapped all over the same guy, he's either way out in left field or smack in the middle where reality lies.

Great review Robert. I'm with Tracer, thoroughly disgusted with American Politics and wanting to live elsewhere (though not entirely because of politics). This country needs to quit warring among it's own people and get past the oppositional party bullshit in order to move forward. The old adage that we have to help ourselves before we can help anyone else applies.

First of all, what the rest of the world believes is hardly a sound arguement for anything. But even given that, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of investing in renewable energy research. It is the flip side of the coin where the problem lies. We need energy now, not just fifty years from now after the technology has been developed. China and India are both building new power plants, one article I read put them at a rate of about one per month. But here in the U.S. we hamstring ourselves because of the nonsense spread by books like this.

"We need energy now, not just fifty years from now after the technology has been developed."

Are you serious? The technology is here.

Eric

To begin with, I don't think you really know what the book is about. "This book is about how America needs to lead the world in becoming green" isn't very accurate. You admit to not reading the book, but perhaps you are misremembering the interview as well? Zakaria had an interview with another author, Thomas Friedman, which aired on CNN. Friedman's book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America is more consistent with your statements (but that's just one possible explanation; I have no idea what's really behind your lack of knowledge of the subject).

Regardless, you once again undermine any hope of reasonable discourse by presuming no one will listen to you and use that as a weak justification to be attacking, insulting, and defensive. You underestimate the people here and do no favors to your argument.

"the environmental movement is a hoax and just like every other liberal agenda is about putting more control over individuals into the hands of the government, I not only reject the solutions Mr. Zakari offers, I reject his fundamental premise."

This despite the fact that you don't know, by your own admission, what his premise is and what those solutions are. You assume "There is no middle ground on the environmental movement" which is ridiculous and insulting.

Despite the fact that climate change seems a little off-topic, I assure you that the diversity of intelligent viewpoints that gather here are more than capable of a rational discussion of the complexities of the issue which you falsely belive has no middle ground. We can start with something like this:

The Earth has limited resources, we are using non-renewable resources at a rate that far exceeds the replenishment rate, populations are increasing (especially in developing nations), and the standard of living is increasing (also dramatically in large developing nations), productivity is increasing (which is good) but so is competition and demand for scarce resources. Ultimately, the current course is not sustainable for a whole bunch of reasons and we will eventually be faced with a reckoning.

Without making alarmist claims as to what the effects will be we can acknowledge, too, that unprecedented changes to the environment are occurring as a direct result of the energy we are producing and consuming. I don't think we are going to be living a Roland Emmerich film but releasing massive amounts of C02 into the atmosphere or the oceans or else polluting freshwater sources (or, again, the oceans) will have some effect that is probably detrimental and unnatural on all varieties of life on earth. Ignoring these facts wholesale seems like willful ignorance to me.

Now, we can also concede that the politicization of this issue, which is ridiculous and harmful to society, is something both "sides" are at fault in. Both seem willing to sacrifice scientific integrity in order to be right. Many of the proposed "solutions" seem to be filled with unintended consequences and many well-intentioned individual efforts end up doing more harm than good.

Ultimately, I think a middle ground is vital and the only way for anything truly beneficial to be accomplished. It's a shame so many people, like you, are hell bent on denying it's existence.

Have fun thinking you're right.

I need something explained to me.

I don't understand how green energy is anti-private sector. There are tons of solar, wind, water and insulation (conservation of energy) companies that are ripe for expansion, thus creating jobs and making us less dependent on foreign oil.

Even IF global climate change and the whole environmental movement is a hoax, what is the harm of living a little more carefully- recycling, walking, biking, less plastic bags, cleaner factories etc.?

If the person who wrote this review did not read the book I certainly dont see why I have to read it to respond. And there is absolutely nothing in the review to indicate that Robert did in fact read the book.

But thank you for pointing out that the inteview was with Friedman. The stuff about America leading the world in being green was from Friedman's book. Zakaria's book is about how the the industrialization of China and India somehow means we need to go green faster. Or something. I guess I could read the jacket cover like Robert and find out more.

Even IF global climate change and the whole environmental movement is a hoax, what is the harm of living a little more carefully- recycling, walking, biking, less plastic bags, cleaner factories etc.?

Absolutely nothing provided it actually does some good. For example the seperate thrash bins that most cities are using now to encourage people to seperate their recyclables which actually generates more waste and polution.

The biggest problem I have with the environmentalist is they use the same agruement to not pump raw sewage into a river to not build needed power plants.

Wow Robert! You're being accused of not reading the book by a guy who hasn't read the book!

I think I'm a little jealous, I mean how often can you say that happened to you?

@ Snuggiepants

Since we left the original topic behind long ago, I wanted to ask if you saw the post about the Pajiba Book Club from last week. Will you be gracing us with your presence, if not if February (Lolita) then in future months?

Outside of a couple companies in California, this tech doesn't exist in the United States.

Okay, one of your solar salt plants is being built in Nevada. It is being built by a California company so I don't know if that confirms or contradicts your statement. But again, one plant is being built. Is it a test site before hundreds of them spring up? Why just one?

@EricD

If you had a point, you've lost it. Take a deep breath and regroup. Arguing tangential points just because they were part of ZombieScientist's comment don't help. Taking a position of anti- anything green is even more illogical than blind faith in the green revolution.

Thanks for the review, Robert. This book sounds ossom -- I'mma have to check it out.

And ZombieScientist is right: REAL conservatives are all about self-sufficiency. It's a real shame that there are so few real conservatives left in the GOP.

Only one in the States. Some of the same companies are building plants in China, Germany, and other places. There are also consumer solar companies in California and a few other states. This is the real future of solar, for all of me. With the newer nanocrystal tech and what not, photovoltaic solar cells are getting light, portable (even rollable), efficient, and cheap. In a couple of years, you'll be able to roll out attractive looking solar cells onto your roof that will pay for themselves within less than a year.

And that's the relatively inefficient electricity-producing type. Solar hot water already pays for itself within a year, even in climates like upstate NY and Vermont. The companies that make them, however, are small and lack huge advertising (*cough*propaganda*cough*) budgets.

The long and the short of it is that solar in particular is a pretty big boon to the consumer. Not so to large, unwieldy corporations who are heavily invested in existing infrastructures.

EricD, you're assertion that I did not read the book is damn insulting. I'm sorry that in a review I wrote two days ago of a book I read two months ago I didn't go into enough detail for you. My apologies for not having photographic memory to please your majesty. Further apologies for pairing down my overhwelming book collection to something that actually fit in the space I had, which included selling my copy of The Post-American World to ensure that Budget Travel Through Space and Time didn't wind up in a landfill.

The fact is I had to read this book for a class where I was given the choice of writing a term paper on this book or failing the course. I chose the former. It was a heavily guided paper with a topic I struggled to fill out to 16-20 pages without wanting to walk into traffic, but I managed well enough. Here's the introductory paragraph:

As nations like China and India show rapid economic growth, it would appear that other nations, like the United States, would somehow be forced to relinquish power on a global scale to accommodate new competition. Fareed Zakaria explains in his 2008 book The Post-American World, “Economics is not a zero-sum game – the rise of other players expands the pie, which is good for all – but geopolitics is a struggle for influence and control…This does not mean becoming resigned to chaos or aggression” (44). Instead, the United States needs to adapt to a growing international framework for economics, politics, and cultural influence. The United States should embrace the “rise of the rest” because the advancement of the world as a whole encourages a better quality of life, domestically and internationally.

Not my best work, but it was enough to get a B in the class after bombing the midterm.

So, I apologize, sir, for not doing a book report summarizing every chapter to meet your tastes. I would love to know what book reviews you are reading that spell out every single detail in a book so you can make knee-jerk reactions to a political agenda and stick to it no matter what the text actually says.

I'm so proud: I've started a flame war on Pajiba. Chalk that one off the bucket list, folks.

You know, EricD has been trolling around for a while trying to raise hackles. He commented on every thread the day of the Massachucetts special election looking for someone to take the bait. No one did.

It sort of killed me inside. I desperately wanted someone to respond to his sad attempts to sling insults at the liberals so that I could coursen the discourse by calling him stupid names. I responded as the rest of Pajiba did that day. I ignored him.

But now look! Trolly McTrollerson (R-MD), er EricD finally caught someone's attention and I get to call him names even though everyone else, regardless of political affilation, has engaged him on a higher level. I will not. I will stoop to his level.

GO AWAY YOU SLUG!

*sigh* I feel So. Much. Better.

Aw, my little heart is warming. The Cannonball is getting popular enough to attract its very own troll!

My normal policy is "don't feed the trolls," but there's something I'd like to speak to here. EricD, you've got an axe to grind, or so it would appear. I've said before that one of my main goals of this here Cannonball Read is to foster discussion and differing points of view. However, when you attack someone by saying that the review obviously reflects that the reviewer didn't read the book, well, I get offended. See, I pick the reviews. I read all of them, I choose the most insightful/thought-provoking/entertaining, and they magically appear here on Pajiba. It was obvious to me that Robert not only read the book but cared enough to review it. Trust me, I can tell. It's why I run this thing. So, sir, with all due respect, and to quote one of my favorite morning show personalities, "Shut. Your. Hole."

(The easiest way to get my dander up [do I have dander? Or is that only aminals?] is to attack a Cannonballer.)

This read was really worthy, the words was absolutely amazing! non-stop writing.