Seven Reasons Why An Obama Presidency is Bad For Malaysia and the World

UPDATE 5 NOV 2008: Below post is made more relevant because Obama is now President.

As the U.S. presidential campaign gets underway, it is a common assumption that Barack Obama as the next U.S. President would be better for us – the rest of the world apart from America.

A McCain presidency is viewed as merely a continuation of Bush’s two terms, with more aggressive posturing and military hawkishness. Whereas, an Obama presidency looks to be one of gentler diplomacy and dovish dialogue.

Thus around the world, many are hoping that Obama will win the U.S. presidential race this year.

However, I believe that an Obama presidency will actually be detrimental to the rest of the world, including Malaysia in a direct way. We have to look beyond the singular military power aspect, and focus on the many bread and butter issues.

Speaking on behalf of Malaysia and the world, here are the simple and clear-cut reasons why an America that follows Obama’s policies will be bad for us. (And please, don’t try and paint these as attacks on Obama’s race – they clearly are not.)

FIRST, Obama wants to withdraw troops from Iraq just as peace and stability are finally being achieved. This will free up the international terrorists who have been busy targeting (and being killed in the tens of thousands by) U.S. troops in Iraq for five years, who will then return their focus to less well-defended places like Southern Thailand, Bali, Bali again, Madrid, and the London Underground.

SECOND, another destabilization of Iraq would mean that its quickly recovering oil production will drop down to zero again. Just at a time when world demand for oil is outstripping supply, this will cause fuel prices to rise even higher. Iraq has a proven oil reserve of 112 billion barrels, behind only Saudi Arabia as the largest in the world.

THIRD, Obama opposes drilling for oil in and around America itself. If the U.S. opened up just an incredibly tiny, miniscule fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), within 5 years they could begin extraction of a proven 10 billion barrels of oil. This would massively reduce American demand for imported oil, thus freeing up supply and driving down prices for us.

FOURTH, Obama strongly supports biofuels. A correlation has been found between biofuel production and rising food prices and food shortages. It’s basic common sense – food crops are practically being burnt in vehicular combustion engines, while food farmers are shifting to growing more profitable biofuel plants like jatropha. An Obama presidency actively encouraging biofuel demand and expansion would only excerbate this dire and immediate humanitarian problem.

FIFTH, Obama supports various measures to curb carbon emissions in the name of combating global warming. The debate over global warming’s factual basis aside, such measures have already cost several hundred billion Euro in economic losses in Europe. Trying to implement carbon capping schemes worldwide surely cannot help our own growing economies.

SIXTH, Obama has shown protectionist and isolationist attitudes regarding free trade. He has already stated his intentions to abandon the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Obama also supports continuing the U.S. Farm Bill which heavily subsidizes American crops, thus making them cheaper priced than locally grown crops. Such unfair trade practices make it impossible for smaller countries to compete against the U.S. economic giant.

SEVENTH, Obama’s various policies – no oil drilling, windfall profits taxes on oil companies, higher capital gains tax, carbon caps, SCHIP universal health care – are all forecasted by economic analysts to have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. America is Malaysia’s largest trading partner, in 2007 importing USD 32.6 billion (RM 106.4 billion) worth from Malaysia and exporting USD 11.7 billion (RM 38.2 billion) worth to Malaysia. Lessened U.S. demand will deeply impact Malaysia’s economy, as well as most of the world’s.

By contrast, McCain stands diametrically opposed to Obama on all the above policies, except for biofuels and carbon caps. Even on those issues, he is less enthusiastic than Obama is – a fact which gained Obama the endorsement of the biggest proponent of biofuels and carbon caps, Al Gore himself.

In conclusion, though McCain’s stance on Iraq and Iran may seem ominous to some, on the whole his policies actually stand to be far less damaging to the rest of the world than Obama’s.


See also related at this post on why some Americans won’t support Obama.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

39 Responses to “Seven Reasons Why An Obama Presidency is Bad For Malaysia and the World”

  1. wits0 Says:

    Obama’s presidency would be even a graver return to Dhimmi Carter’s moral moronic barf. No, we do not need another such fakir to make the world a more dangerous place.

  2. pro-obama Says:

    You think it’s a BAD thing that he supports biofuels, wants to cut carbon emissions, and doesn’t want to drill for more oil? These things will force us to move to alternative fuels and help keep the earth cooler. Your reasons are all short term and money centered. Where is your global awareness?

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    1) Biofuels are causing massive food shortages and price hikes. If they kill us off in the short term, we won’t be around to enjoy the long-term benefits.

    2) Additional carbon emissions have negligible effect on world climate. Historically, carbon dioxide levels rise 800 years AFTER temperature levels, meaning higher temperature causes higher CO2 levels, not vice versa.

    3) Making the earth cooler will be worse than making the earth slightly warmer anyhow.

    In other words, Obama is all drawback and no benefit on the above.

  4. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    1) International terrorists only take a foothold on Iraq with Bush’s illegal Iraqi War. The lawlesness allowed terrorists to take a foothold.

    2) Iraqi people only benefit 25% of the their oil revenue. The remainder 75% is as a secuity in case Iraq destablises again and also for reconsrtuction. Destabilisation and destruction of facilities were brought on by the illegal war. And the Iraqis have to pay for the war. The rogue Iraqi regime spearheaded by Saddam Hussein was an American sponsored ‘dictator’ as a proxy war to Iran-Iraq war. The sufferings on the Iraqis do not justify this. We live well at the expense of injustice to the iraqis? I can’t stomach that.

    3) Artic ecosystem is very fragile. Wild-life should be protected. America has the one of the most inefficient (if not the most) usage of oil amongst the developed world. Instead of preaching for less oil wastage and more efficient use of resources. The republicans are encouraging them to use more. Oil prices wouldn’t have been that high if Bush had gone for efficient energy usage policy 8 years ago. And McCain is to continue his wasteful policies. The wasteful policies do not benefit ordinary americans especially in the long run but the big oil companies in the US who just stand to gain more from inefficient and wasteful usage of oil.

    4) As for bio-fuel. It is not as bad as it seems. Using waste cooking oil to generate diesel, waste bark, sunflower husk, etc, do not compete with the demand for food. Bio-fuel is good when it comes to commodity crops that do not compete with food crops. Also, free market might come into play and might possibly help propel a richer African continent. Personally, it is hard for me to tell if high crop prices are bad or good. Your excessive blame on Obama over bio-fuel is unjustified without thorough understanding of renewables. For more information.

    5) One of the reason of huge economic losses (I wouldn’t even say huge losses, but rather, reduce competitive edge due to higher costs) in Europe when it comes to reducing carbon caps is due to the fact that America pulls out from Kyoto agreement (under bush again), which China conveniently follows the leader…… Europe wanted to trade with carbon credits but Bush does not want to. This gave American better competitive edge to Europe.

    6) I am a centrist when it comes to free trade. MNCs stand to gain the most not only in America usually at the cost of small scale farmers due to economies of scale. But I do agree that America’s crop is heavily and obcenely subsidised.

    7) High oil prices as Saudi Arabia admits, is dominated by excessive speculation (rather than demand) on oil commodities. Many reasoned that this is due to Bush’s threat to attack Iran being the 2nd largest oil exporter, antipating a war they speculate oil [rices too much. The price of oil has more to do with foreign policies than just simple economics of demand and supply.

    8) Global warming theory is not perfect, but it does not justify inefficient use of finite resources at the expense of future generations. You might be sceptical if global warming is man-made due to imperfection of scientific understanding. But what if global warming is really man-made and it takes 20-30 years for more complete understanding of the science behind global warming. Would it then be too late to reverse the damage? Is it so hard to just advocate for maximising the efficient use of oil without excessive pofiteering from large oil MNCs such as Exxonmobile, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and Texaco (etc)?

    9) Your seventh reason on poor obama’s economic policies are too superficial and generalistic. I would like you to prefer to elaborate on each of Obama’s economic policies in detail. Most economists acknowledge that Obama has better economic policies than McCain. If you disagree, you have to give evidence and elaborate in detail why each policy is bad. A mere short paragraph which in itself is inadequate even for a short story.

    And please don’t take this as an insult. I am merely presenting constructive criticism.

  5. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    High oil prices are also a result of oil cartel, OPEC. When oil prices drop from 140 something US dollar to 106-109 US dollar. OPEC is actually worried about oil prices dropping further down. They are trying to collude amongst OPEC nations (Malaysia being one of them) to try to reduce oil production to prevent further drop in oil prices.

  6. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    You will know more about Obama if you read up on Jeremiah Wright (his father figure) incident and the Hillary Clinton controversy whereby Obama actually defended Clinton while both of them were competing for democrat presidential nominee.

  7. Scott Thong Says:

    Very well met, jingo. And much, much more constructive and well-informed than 95% of the usual commenters who disagree with my views!

    My article is meant as a partisan attack on Obama rather than a peer reviewed analysis – basically saying he will make everything worse. Fittingly enough, your own rebuttals seem to pin most of the blame on Bush – basically saying that he is to blame for everything bad that I think Obama will make worse.

    Furthermore, while I favour an increase in production and development (that leads to more efficiency in the long term, which I did not mention), you favour more efficiency and conservation as the means.


    On the issue of energy, I support a wide-spectrum solution. To wit, drill for oil now to keep the economy going. Build many more nuclear power plants (France has had no problems with 80% nuke energy). Research and develop wind, solar and biofuel energy more until they are viable enough. Abandon the pointless Kyoto Protocol (Europe increased its CO2 output under Kyoto, while America has been slowly reducing it without coercion). Pump much more funding into the promising Bussard (aka polywell) clean fusion reactor research.

  8. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    There is a fine line between educating people and propoganda. Making a lot of unsubstantiated partisan attack brings to mind UMNO and their propoganda. I am a rebel with a CAUSE. It is because I have done my analysis thoroughly, that is why I think Obama is for the better. You got me totally wrong, you thought I blindly ‘fall in love’ with obama, then I did my analysis to try to justify supporting him blindly.

    From the facts that I have gathered, Bush is generally incompetent. Do you want me to say that even with the facts that I have gathered proves that Bush is incompetent, you still want me to say that he is competent?

    How is increase in oil production going to lead to long term efficiency? It is just a statement. It has to be substantiated. I would like to see your reasoning behind this.

    Drill for oil does not keep the economy going, fiscal and monetary policies are. The world economy is not bright and it wasn’t actually motivated by high oil prices. It was caused by US housing bubble burst, notoriously from subprime mortgaging where many homeowners default on their loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two largest mortgage agencies mismanaged resulting in insufficient liquidity hence sluggish economy.

    If you want to reduce oil-price, you have to convince OPEC to abolish their cartel.

    Kyoto Protocol isn’t exactly (literally) about reducing carbon emission. It is about reducing the GROWTH rate of carbon emission. The net carbon emission will still increase, only at a much slower rate if Kyoto Protocol is practised. No country can actually reduce its CO2 output, not even America. If America’s net carbon output actually decreases as you claimed, then your sources are seriously flawed.

    Wind, solar and biofuel can already be used in practice but it can be a tricky subject due to energy soveriegnty. Bio-fuel and sustainable especially is my area of research, apart from bioethanol, the technology is already there which does not compete with food crops if properly planned. I have already given my argument above. And I wouldn’t want to repeat myself here again about bio-fuels. I am for Nuclear by the way.

    Kyoto protocol can actually enhance Research in green technologies. Please read up more on Kyoto protocol and carbon credits before discrediting it without substantiating you dislike of it.

  9. wits0 Says:

    I tend to view the bursting of the housing bubble like the failing of a share market that led to the Great Depression but in this case, it won’t be as bad. This is what happen when houses are touted as if the prices will forever rise! Like as if it’s a sure fire “investment” but has possessing low intrinsic material value wrt the price gorging and accompanying predatory lending.

    The Kyoto Protocol also empowers the likes of UN bureaucrats to have more power to serve their own self-agenda by taxing ordinary people in various ways. Easy revenue collecting with little responsibilty/accountability like a regular government might need to provide directly.

  10. wits0 Says:

    Obama’s well-heeled friends benificiaries of earmarks
    Ed Lasky

    Barack Obama has a long and expensive history of earmarking. He has used them to benefit political allies in Chicago (Pastor Wright, Father Pfleger, Reverend Meeks). He has also used them to benefit financial donors (the slumlords and newly minted felon Tony Rezko).

    Now a new one comes to light-courtesy of the Washington Times. Senator Obama tried to direct a 3 million dollar earmark to a museum that has as its chairman one of Obama’s largest fundraisers.

    Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama tried to direct more than $3 million in taxpayer funds to a Chicago museum whose chairman is one of the Illinois senator’s largest campaign fundraisers.

    Mr. Obama has twice since fiscal 2006 sought to have taxpayers foot the bill for a new theater projector and other equipment at the Adler Planetarium on the Lake Michigan waterfront. Neither of the requests, which totaled $3.3 million, was approved by Congress, the museum said.

    The planetarium’s chairman, then and still, is Frank Clark, chief executive of ComEd, a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Energy. He has pledged to raise more than $200,000 for Mr. Obama’s run for the White House.

    Moreover, the Adler Planetarium is represented by the lobbying firm National Group LLP, co-founded by William Oldaker, who helped launch Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s political action committee in 2005. Mr. Oldaker, a partner with the Delaware Democrat’s son in another Washington lobbying and law firm, is no longer involved with Mr. Biden’s PAC, Unite Our States.

    Frank Clark is chief executive of Com Ed, a unit of Exelon Energy. Those two names ring bells. Bill Ayers is one of Obama’s radical friends and a man who launched Obama’s political career with a fundraiser at his home. Bill Ayers father once headed Commonwealth Edison – the precursor of Com Ed.

    What also might be striking is that David Axelrod, Obama’s campaigns strategist, runs a lobbying firm that benefited greatly from running a phony “grassroots campaign” for ComEd in that utility’s quest to charge higher rates to Illinois consumers.

    Those are the little people Obama is supposed to be fighting for, right?

  11. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    Kyoto Protocol is NOT about tax! Again please read up thoroughly on Kyoto Protocol before prejudging. The function of Kyoto Protocol is to prevent governments from gaining revenues from tax. Taxing on carbon emission is not going to benefit clean technogies since government may use tax revenue for other non-environmental purposes. Kyoto Protocol is based on trading on CARBON CREDITS! The basis behind it is like trading in gold, demand and supply, which can help improve emission technology. Government sign up Kyoto Protocol to provide basis for PRIVATE organisations or companies to trade on CARBON CREDITS! You got it all wrong……

    I am all for house prices going down, but I am not an american citizen anyway so whatever the house prices like in US, does not affect me. What affects us is Fannie and Freddie, owning combined 50% of the US property market (over $a trillion worth). The banks all over the world are stake and shareholders to these two mortgage giants, including Bank of China, Bank of England and Bank Negara. Recession is inevitable and I am for recession, it is the degree of recession that I am against. Mismanagement by Freddie and Fannie can have disastrous consequences to the world economy and it has nothing to do with OIL!

    I am not going to comment about your copy and pasted obama article. I used my time to present my thoughts and analysis out orderly. Presenting other people’s opinion in a quick copy and paste manner is disrespectful to the amount of effort I have put in into my critical thinking.

    I am not blaming Bush for everything, it is you who are trying to associate every Obama’s policy and action into armageddon hastily.

  12. wits0 Says:

    Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Credits, two scared cows. AlGore’s relations.
    Over pricing houses is what the world would follow as an example, if it could, to the same degree until the bubble similarly bursts. Man made situation and well participated in by many. Mismanagement is possibly just one aspect of it.

  13. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    I apologise if I appear to be too confrontational in the last paragraph. Wasn’t intended to be that way.

  14. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    I will leave Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Credits as it is. You can choose to believe in myth of two scared cows, or you can choose to ponder over the facts I have presented and make a rational conclusion of your own is entirely up to you. It Is your right.

    I have already fully substantiated my claim. all I am trying to say is economic slump is started from housing price not oil as you claim (the Obama part). you can’t solve economic problem without identifying the root of the problem.

  15. Scott Thong Says:

    I agree that Bush is not the best of leaders, even if his intentions are good. But what gives Obama any edge over him competence wise?

    I disagree with the soundness of Obama’s policies on many points. One example is on his tax policies: He has voiced his intention to increase the capital gains tax. When the interviewer pointed out that historically, lowering the capital gains tax resulted in <higher government income, Obama reiterated that he would raise the tax anyway. Isn’t that a display of dogmatic philosophy rather than pragmatic realism?

    I have my own views on carbon caps and Kyoto from much reading of my own, and from that I believe it to be a highly inefficient and easily abused system that does little to achieve its hoped-for goals of reducing CO2 emissions and spurring development of clean energy.

    I favor a more natural progression to clean fuels based on the law of supply and demand. As oil prices rise due to demand and instability of supply, alternative energy will become economically competitive. This is actually a sound strategy, if the world is not going to catastrophically end from CO2 emissions as global warming claims.

    I think McCain-Palin have it right – drill now, restart the economy, and use the flow of wealth to build more alternative energy. If they stick to their word, of course…

    The slump in the stock markets and financial sector may be caused by the housing fiasco, but does it impact actual economic activity the way that oil prices do? A rise in oil prices causes higher expenses for almost every economic activity – transportation, manufacturing, power generation.

  16. chandran Says:

    “all I am trying to say is economic slump is started from housing price not oil”

    Poppycock. Get learnt up on the subject before you post jingo material.

  17. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    Thanks for your well thought-off reply Scott. I truely appreciate that. Just a quick note before I leave.

    “I favor a more natural progression to clean fuels based on the law of supply and demand. As oil prices rise due to demand and instability of supply, alternative energy will become economically competitive. This is actually a sound strategy, if the world is not going to catastrophically end from CO2 emissions as global warming claims”

    If demand and supply law dictates more oil is drilled to lower oil prices (assuming that outside factors remain constant), what then is the incentive for alternatives like WInd, nuclear and Solar? there will be sluggish demand for alternatives if oil prices are low relative to the renewables.

    Show me your analysis and evidence then. 😀 A one-liner is poorly thought out. Read everything I have posted not just the conclusion. 😉

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    Apart from removing political power and finances from various despotic and terror funding.supporting states?

  19. wits0 Says:

    “all I am trying to say is economic slump is started from housing price not oil”

    Supposing I’m an American citizen with an earning of just above 24K a year, and barely making it wrt to the monthly bills etc, I’m sure an increase of gas from below $3 per gallon to around $4 may upset my finances significantly. And the food price increase being due to the Ethanol craze is also linked to oil prices. The ripple effect from oil cannot be simply denied away by choice.

  20. Harcharan Says:

    “A one-liner is poorly thought out. Read everything I have posted not just the conclusion” – jingo

    I say Chandran has encapsulated all that has been written by the “jingo” in the perfect word – poppycock.

    I am into CPO (we have mills/refinery in Indonesia), and a former Banker (20 years), I monitor pricing of various markets for obvious reasons. The problem began with the steep increase in oil prices that led to the inevitable rising costs and layoffs resulting in increasing NPLs in Banks.

    Chandran was dot on target. Jingo very obviously needs to learn more than wagging the liberal tail on solar/wind etc power. It is the liberals with that demonical stew of climate change etc that created the problem that led to more than tripling prices.

    But those like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi have made tons of money. On a somewhat lighter note I`d say that all “Jingo” got was a kick in the teeth as inflation spiralled.

  21. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:


    I didn’t say high oil commodity does not influence microeconomic purchasing power, it will, i pay bills, i know the pain. It does affect the growth of macro economy as well. In fact the arabs state have one of the largest reservoir of liquidity. It does slow demand and supply growth but it didn’t iniiate economic recession. What initiates economic recession was housing slump whereby there is a lack of liquidity in the market in general. Homeowners can’t get the liquidity, or should i say real cash from loans. If they can’t get real cash from loans, their purchasing power drops. Banks go bust because there are too many default loans, the banks that survive tighten up their credit even more, forcing even less liquidity in the economy to stimulate growth. People start losing jobs when companies go bust. Furniture company is affected, heck even magazines such as Reader digest and Toys r Us are affected. OF course high oil price does not make life easier for average people, but it is not the root cause of liquidity bottleneck which is what causes economic recession.

    Scott thong

    They have not found any link with Iraq former regime Saddam Hussein to terrorism. No WMD was found. Afghanistan was the right war in my opinion, iraq was the wrong war. Anyway this is deviating about the war we are talking about.

    I will get back to you on capital tax, once I have time to read and digest

  22. Harcharan Says:

    “What initiates economic recession was housing slump whereby there is a lack of liquidity in the market in general. ”

    Extremely simplistic and probly something touted by the Guardian. Lack of this liquidity was a shifting of funds into the commodity markets as Al Gore`s save the world effect took place.
    Share values dropped, young boy, as liquidity in stocks dried up further impinging Bank lendings.

  23. Harcharan Says:

    I won`t bother with some of the other material by jingo, there`d be too much to write.

  24. Harcharan Says:

    Suffice to say for the moment that there still is a lot of liquidity – if one knows where to lokk. And that again is saying too much.

  25. Harcharan Says:

    “lokk” oh busy busy, that should have been “look”.

  26. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    lol, i am all for sustainable development. you already prejudged me thinking that i am against oil at all cost… SUstainable development means i also support oil in a sustainable usage. wise man like you prejudged too quickly. But my major is in energy efficiency and energy and technological development. I know perfectly well what life cycle analysis means and the costs and opportunity costs of alternative. I know the pros and cons to energy technologies. there is another topic for another day. a wiseman like you should be showing leadership by example, courteous ,to the young reckless desperadoes like me 😀

  27. blaster Says:

    “a wiseman like you should be showing leadership by example, courteous ,to the young reckless desperadoes like me”

    Cocky bugger. In the wild west they used to get ventilated.

  28. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    Scott, do you mind me linking your blog to the dandelions? Cheers.

  29. chandran Says:

    “Under the Kyoto targets the supply of credits will outstrip the demand,” said Jepma. “We are going to see the same scenario as with the ETS whereby the price for a tonne of carbon starts high and then collapses to close to zero by the end of the scheme… which is precisely the wrong message.”

    And the result of all this is :

    He added that such a scenario would not only remove the financial incentive for countries to invest in clean technologies that help them stick to their emissions targets – as it would be cheaper to continue polluting and just buy credits – but it would also discourage investment in carbon reduction projects in developing countries as they would have to pay for CDM approval only to find they could not get a good price for the carbon credits they generate.

    So as the Fish Wrapper and the rest of the MSM continue to complain the George Bush didn’t sign on with the Kyoto protocols (even though it was voted down 95-0 by the Senate in 1997, when Slick Willy was still President), they are pretty quick to ignore the inherent flaws.

    But don’t count on the other side of the story to be reported by the Fish Wrapper. They don’t like to let facts get in the way of their liberal opinions.

  30. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    Ok added you to the dandelions blogroll. Some of the dandelions seem to have fondness for you and wits0. they do not agree with you but the girls especially are hot on your heels because you have been great gentlemen. 😀 I just browse through your recent blog on obama, i think it is way too pedantic over flinging of a rose. 😉 Maybe try to mention what good is McCain then what how bad is Obama? we disagree with you in a lot of things, doesn’t mean we are not fond of you, as annoying as we can be or you can be (except on local affairs) 😀

    it would be good to have a broader range of perspectives rather than my own to test the thoroughness of my knowledge and analysis. if analysis is concrete it should be able to withstand typhoon, if not, that means there is some brushing up to do. 🙂

  31. Jamie Thong Says:

    The pricing bubble was predicted to burst a long time ago, as early as in 2003. It’s just that people believed Alan Greenspan like they would a prophet of God, and it only burst this year instead of 5 years ago.

  32. Scott Thong Says:

    How shall I describe your blog for a blogroll link, jingo?

  33. jingoisticbuthornydesperado Says:

    Whatever you wish Scott.

    Chandra and Harcharan (take my contents in which is most applicable to you),

    I am exasperated. You run away from believing blindly 100% in whatever the MSM mentioned, into the arms of non-peer assessed blogger/s who might have questionable reporting skills whom you seemed to blindly trust 100%. Your opinion is the opinion you have read and copy and pasted EXACTLY as it is for me to read… There are many papers, from left to right to centrist. MSM can’t be left, right and centrist at the same time! The Nation for example is not an American MSM but at least it is peer-assessed and it has to adhere to quality control via strict journalistic standards! Just because people disagree with you, you assume that everyone is far-leftist but the world isn’t just black and white, there are different shades of grey as well! Give yourself some credit, read professional papers MSM or non-MSM, filter-out the propaganda and make your own deduction. Don’t just trust completely whatever things MSM or non-MSM just fling at you especially anonymous, non peer assessed bloggers!

    I know Kyoto Protocol is not perfect. No plan or model on earth is ever perfect even the revered Einstein’s theory of relativity. But its overall intentions are good. Yes, I know some parts of the developing world complain that communism takes a new guise under the identity of climate change or Kyoto Protocol or whatever they want to call it. That is why Kyoto Protocol is going to be amended again some time in the 2012, if I recall correctly. Already there are talks to prepare developing world to accommodate for the gradual transition plan rather than abrupt change so their economy does not suffer a huge shock. Developing nations aside, America is the largest polluter and CO2 emitter since decades ago. She should at least be responsible for ‘cleaning up’ after herself and view that as compensation to developing world for ‘selfishly’ polluting more than its fair share of pollutants! Developing world apart from China contributes only a fraction of carbon emission relative to the US. America should also at least lead by good example!

    Yes, some form of renewables are more expensive and it would be better to just buy carbon credits to pollute more. But carbon credits are not created out of thin air! Someone has to make carbon credits, and these are usually more specific companies who are more well-versed in more economical, technological availabilities for example biomass that DOES NOT compete with FOOD CROPS such as wood bark or waste cooking oil! On a specific industry, yes, Kyoto doesn’t seem to make sense, but when you link all the industries together that plays it own small roles in Kyoto, it does make a difference!

    And just because I oppose to recklessly digging for more oil including venture into Artic life reserve, I am considered a Greenpeace tree hugger. Gosh, another of Bush’s if “you are not with me you are against me” rhetoric. Even if there are large scale wind-farms (example), oil and coal are still important, they need to co-exist beside large scale wind farms, as wind farms are known to have produced electricity when people least require it and not produce electricity or very little in the time of peak demand. I am for developing world using coal and oil until it is wealthy enough to find suitable alternatives to co-exist alongside renewables! I would opine that Nuclear is the relatively least risky form of energy when taking combined energy security, reliability and environmental hazards into play. I personally think Greenpeace is stupid and would never be affiliated to it but I understand its importance in bringing check and balance in the highly competitive and opportunistic business world! Think Malaysian politics and you will understand!

    And I don’t look highly upon excuse such as ‘because in 1997, they didn’t do it, why should I’? It reminds me all to well about Malaysian politics, like ‘oh don’t forget we are better of than Burma, Zimbabwe, blablabla, be glad that you are not THAT DISCRIMINATED!’

    You want to discredit someone, you don’t intimidate or patronise someone into believing your cause. You educate! Mindlessly waffling about your experience or knowledge without any evidence is Neanderthalish at best. Any laymen can do it…… It is absolutely preposterous to ask a young boy like me to tell you what are manners. I seem to be living in different times to which I am taught about. I might have appeared to unintentionally appear too confrontational before, to Scott and Wits0 and to that I have apologised and I wouldn’t hesitate apologising again. Up to you where you want to go from here…I won’t entertain Neanderthals from here on.

  34. Why I Like to Bash Obama « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT Says:

    […] His policies in general. As I have blogged before, there are at least seven ways Obama will be bad for the world. Eight if you include the ways in which he contributed to the financial […]

  35. | MJJ's blog Says:

    […] among people in other countries. Read More|||[…] world may yet survive this American […] Read More|||Hear the sniping of the polls– Rival polls! Trading accusations like, “Your data’s full of […]

  36. President Barack Obama - Four More Years! « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT Says:

    […] Seven Reasons Why An Obama Presidency is Bad For Malaysia and the World – Thanks a lot, America. At least we can buy cheap USD as your economy dives for the next decade. […]

  37. see this Says:

    these are different reasons why the world should not be over-optimistic about Obama:

  38. Mat Misai Says:

    I don’t think its bad for Malaysia.

    But it will be a very bad for America, as its White House is going to known as Black House.

  39. wits0 Says:

    In a Nutshell:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: