FORA.tv

Fuel the Enlightenment

Uncommon Knowledge: Vaclav Klaus

The Hoover Institution
Rate It
16,127 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Full Program
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More

activehosting Avatar
activehosting
Posts: 3
Posted: 11.17.09, 09:34 AM
This guy is a professional ***hole. It's interesting that he seems to take some kind of credit for the Velvet Revolution of 1989 when he had no part of it. Viewers need to know that this is not Vaclav Havel.

Havel brought peace and an end to communism for the Czech people through a non-violent populist "intellectual" means in the midst of the fall of communism in 1989/90. He was an inspiration to Czechs for promoting human rights and and an end to communist era style government corruption.

Klaus is reactionary. He was a fan of the Reagan / Thatcher era. Reagan did not defeat communism. Communism died because the Soviet Union became economically unviable and lost the will to continue against mounting pressure from the rest of the world and from within. No champion of human rights would ever be a fan of the Reagan administration. People forget that when Reagan was the governor of California in the 1960's that he called the National Guard against anti-war demonstrators at Berkeley.

Klaus is more interested in retaining power for his government and croanies than he is in doing what is best for his people and his country - ie - be an active participant in the UE, not just a thorn in its side. Bring something positive to the table, Klaus! He reeks of contempt for the US and the EU but he offers nothing! Czech citizens need to support opposition candidates and challenge the government! Peace!
Mr.Walsh Avatar
Mr.Walsh
Posts: 1
Posted: 11.17.09, 09:47 AM
Are you kidding?
Is this a joke? If so, it's not very funny or interesting.
PrincessFaissl Avatar
PrincessFaissl
Posts: 1
Posted: 11.17.09, 10:03 AM
What!?!?! Are you kidding? I think debate about the issue is necessary and good. But to label it is misdirection and avoids meaningful discussion.

The global warming scientific movement seeks to educate, not dictate. And even if you don't believe in it, setting carbon cap and trade will promote national security by enabling countries to be less reliant on unstable governments. Additionally, it provides economic benefits by providing more stable energy costs, thus reducing extreme variability of energy commodity fluctuations.
ethorson Avatar
ethorson
Posts: 15
Posted: 11.17.09, 11:46 AM
What a surprise (NOT)...
An old man, with nothing to lose, complaining about cleaning up the mess that his generation created.
Funtomas Avatar
Funtomas
Posts: 1
Posted: 11.17.09, 02:14 PM
I bet most of the Czech ppl are ashamed of him as he's so last century
Huca Avatar
Huca
Posts: 1
Posted: 11.17.09, 03:37 PM
I am from the Czech Republic and I am embarrassed for him and ashamed of him like many people from my country. He is just the old man, who needs to be something interesting.

Thanks for understanding.
heygbradio Avatar
heygbradio
Posts: 5
Posted: 11.17.09, 11:29 PM
The Lisbon Treaty...is the worst thing that has ever happened in European politics. Goodbye sovereignty...goodbye democracy...It's time to wake up to the true nature of this treaty... Repeal now before it's too late.
Ryan Todd Avatar
Ryan Todd
Posts: 3
Posted: 11.18.09, 01:30 AM
Setting a carbon cap, right now, would be devestating to the American economy. Right now we do not have the alternative forms of energy in place to compleatly move away from fossil fuels succesfully.

The United States produces steel. Companies in other countries do not buy American Steel because of the cheep labor that produces it or because the quality of the steel is that much better from America. Our companies are very competative in the world market, because the Iron Ore and the Coal that is needed to fuel the fires, to produce the heat neccisary to refine the iron, are found close enough together that the Material cost is low enough to pay the American Workers wages and still keep the prices low. If there was a limit of Carbon use allowed by a steel mill, where they would be forced to buy carbon credits to run their plant, the Cost of manufacuring would sky rocket. Which would raise the price of the steel, forcing themselves out of the market, which would force the plant to close -or- they would be forced to cut the jobs of "non-essential" member of the work force. Either way a substantail blow to our allready weak economy.

This will surley be the way for most other manufacturing industries STILL located inside of the United States...

We do not have the Nuclear Power plants ready to make a smooth transistion, and as of right now it takes 11 years of Red Tape before a new plant will be APPROVED for construction. We dont have the wind or solar farms in place yet either, and there has been debate whether or not the wind turbines would produce enough energy in 10 years to pay for their production and maitenence.


Why shouldn't the United States wait untill we have the Alternative Energies in place before we swear off of Carbon fuels. Imagine if we capped the carbon output in 1900.. we never would have been able to make the machines and plants that would allow for the new forms of energy we are creating, and the Nuclear power technology would never had been developed here.
jeff1967 Avatar
jeff1967
Posts: 3
Posted: 11.18.09, 04:31 AM
I was born in Poland.
There is a saying about people, who were on the top of big changes of eighties:
"From zero to hero ... and back."
I do not mean to offend Czech people, but this gentleman is fits it quite well.
It is not limited to Eastern Europe, thou.

Can someone tell me, why politics resembles so much a stirred night pot?
Why our "leaders" remind so much of that "floating thing" in that long forgotten bedroom necessity?
Soylent Avatar
Soylent
Posts: 3
Posted: 11.18.09, 09:29 AM
If you want to do something about carbon, just set a price on carbon and get the fuck out of the way.

As I see it mainstream environmentalism is the last vestige of socialism. Socialism can't produce more goods, it can't produce better quality goods; whenever it's actually tried it ends in a massive statist meat grinder whose only reedeming feature is that it's so inefficient that the harm it is able to inflict is reduced. The same cretins who were telling me the Soviet Union is such a wonderful workers paradise and will rapidly overtake the west, and they were telling me this right up until the glorious year it imploded, are now telling me well at least socialism is necessary to save the environment. These are the same people who in the 80's wanted to phase out our nuclear plants(~50% of our grid) and import natural gas from the Soviet union to replace them; a ruionous policy both for the economy, for the environment and for energy security.

Economic calculation is impossible under socialism, even weak socialism where you "play market" to try and emulate its function. Just look at Germany to see the effect of the government's micromanagement of the economy. Why are they building all these idiotic wind turbines that barely do anything to reduce CO2 emissions(spinning reserve + higher percentage single cycle turbines negate most of the benefit) and require all this gas from Russia? Why are they still thinking about trying to phase out their nuclear plants and build 26 new filthy, lignite coal plants? The only material reduction in CO2-emissions happened when the Berlin wall fell and the crummy Soviet coal plants were replaced with more efficient ones in the early 90's.
Please log in or register to post a comment.