Obama’s Car Invention Myth
I’ve been glad to see Obama getting dinged around a little for the line in his speech about how the United States invented the automobile. What I wish more people appreciated was that he’s been using this line on and off for a while now. Way back during ThinkProgress’ October 15 debate live-blog I noted:
Obama said America invented the automobile industry. In fact, the first market-viable car was developed by Germany’s Karl Benz. The first automobile was invented in 18th century France and the first internal combustion engine was invented in 1806 by a French-speaking Swiss man (this is why we use the French word “automobile”).
Obviously, this isn’t a really big deal in the scheme of things. But I do think that one thing this country needs is to become a little bit more mature about our place in the world. We’re the richest, mightiest nation on earth and we’re close to the top in land area and population size. A ton of stuff was invented here, a ton of first breakthroughs were made here, Henry Ford is a very important figure in the history of the car industry. But this can be taken too far. I recall that back during his 2000 convention speech, Joe Lieberman suggested that “only in America” could a Jewish person get nominated for Vice President even though France had a Jewish Prime Minister back in the 1930s. The kind of solipsism and hubris of that statement, or of made-up tales of automobile invention, ill-befits a country that wants and needs to play a role of genuine leadership on the world stage.
83 Responses to “Obama’s Car Invention Myth”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 25th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Bulgarian car inventors are the best friends of Soviet car makers!
February 25th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Fair ’nuff.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:29 am
But that kind of childish solipsism is part of what makes America so gosh-darn unique! Only in America!
February 25th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Well, as it is, Switzerland contributed not only the term “automobile” to world culture, but the first Jewish woman to be elected president of contry other than Israel: Ruth Dreifuss, who was “Bundespräsident”, i.e. head of the Swiss federal government, in 1999, one year before Lieberman’s speech.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Inventing the automobile and inventing the automobile industry are two different things. The latter term could, I think, be stretched to refer to Henry Ford and the assembly line – Ford did invent the modern way of manufacturing automobiles.
And, of course, Lieberman couldn’t have been nominated for vice president in France because France doesn’t have a vice president.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:32 am
As for the automobile, you’d think a fact checker would have caught this. Maybe we were the first to do mass production under Ford?
That would be a reasonable interpretation. The automobile may have been invented elsewhere, but beyond question it first became a significant part of everyday life in America.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:33 am
What Obama meant was the US invented cheap mass produced cars. Which is also a claim to fame. Should he have put in the ‘mass produced’ qualifier? Probably. Can I see how that didn’t make it into the speech? Yes.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Eh, I thnk this is nit picking a bit — He should have phrased “created the automobile industry” rather than the automobile.
From a research scientist — it is not who invents the technology, but who masters the manufacturing of the technology
(with respect to intellectual property etc… control over manufacturing process etc.)
February 25th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Just for the edification of Mr. Yglesias, France had two Jewish Prime Ministers in the 1950s, Pierre Mendes-France and Edgar Faure.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I hate to push you on this, but this is just a waste of a post. Rather than doing an in depth analysis of the invention of the automobile, please spend a bit more time examining the real choices we have to solving the financial crisis rather than half-assed post that you did last night.
“I must be cruel only to be kind.” You’re much better than these types of posts.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Laurent Fabius PM of France 1984-86. And Sarko has significant Jewish roots.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:49 am
How about the “Japan of the 1990s Myth?” Take aim at the COMMON consensus.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Bill Maher said the other night that we in danger of being a not serious nation. I think it might be too late, I’m with IOZ, never has there been a nation this hilarious.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Heck, Benjamin Disraeli was PM of Great Britain (twice!) back when Victoria was Queen. (Disraeli was an Anglican, but was of Jewish descent.)
February 25th, 2009 at 9:52 am
. . . And for the edification of everyone, Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister in the 19th Century, albeit one whose father had him convert to Christianity in a fit of pique when he was 13.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:53 am
What’s with the anglophobia? Disaerli was quite clearly the most important Jewish head of state outside of Isreal.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:56 am
And Italy had consecutive Jewish prime ministers before the first world war (and not a more than nominal Catholic in the position until 1946). On the other hand, maybe that didn’t work out so well?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am
If we really want to go back, wasn’t Benjamin Disraeli of Jewish ethnicity? The last name is a dead give away. Of course depends on how one defines being a Jew. Religion or ethnicity.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:58 am
What about Disraeli, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the reign of Victoria and quite possibly the most powerful Jew in history, 1/5 of the worlds surface his domain. One should not forget the Rothchilds during the same period in Britain, they bankrolled the government and for one brief moment ‘owned’ the Empire.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I think that his point was that America played a key role in developing these technologies, not that the USA has the sole patent. And it was Henry Ford who created the affordable automobile & the culture of cars we see today.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:02 am
And isn’t his larger point regarding maintaining an auto manufacturing sector better made by telling the truth–that Ford’s automation scheme first made it possible for regular folks to have cars? I don’t think its unfair to say we invented the modern auto industry–hell, the modern manufacturing industry PERIOD. There’s a reason “post-Fordist” denotes a sea-change in the global economic system.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Look, we invented the Gran Torino. Who cares about the rest?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Mr.Basketball Matt could have turned this into a post about the decline of the Detroit Pistons.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I got my ass chewed out by a colleague for saying that I thought American Exceptualism was a bullshit notion that should be debunked at every opportunity. I didn’t realize how fragile the collective ego of America is in today’s world.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Yeah, somebody mentioned President Sarkozy upthread – forget about the “Jewish roots” on his mother’s side; Sarkozy’s father was a Hungarian refugee who didn’t live in France until he was 20. Admittedly, he was a Hungarian aristocrat, a refugee fleeing the Red Army, so it’s not as much of a rags-to-riches tale as it could be. But Obama can trace one side of his family back to solidly Middle-American stock; Sarkozy doesn’t even have that much. (I guess that might be offensive to say that Sarkozy’s mother isn’t from “solid” French stock. I know France has a Jewish minority, but I have the impression that weren’t really accepted anywhere in Europe until recently.)
February 25th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Not just today’s. The American electorate has always demanded this kind of flattery from its rulers. I guess that kind of childishness is just another aspect of our extra-specialness!
February 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am
This reminds me of a joke I heard in my childhood but went back further to a point when Dublin had a jewish mayor. (I know of this only from the joke). The mayor was given a parade during a visit to New York City. Two jewish women watched the parade. One said to the other “A jewish mayor of Dublin, imagine that.” And the other replied “Only in America.”
February 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am
gordon gekko said:
Disaerli(sic) was quite clearly the most important Jewish head of state outside of Isreal.
The British Prime Minister is NOT the head of state, that position is reserved to the monarch!
February 25th, 2009 at 10:35 am
George B. Selden of Rochester, NY first filed for a patent on his internal-combustion automobile design in 1879. Prior to Selden and Benz, internal combustion engines were considered too bulky to be practical for motorcars. Which is why the 1806 engine is actually irrelevant when discussing cars.
But yes, Obama was almost certainly referring to the rise of the inexpensive mass-produced automobile, rather than the dubious Selden design that was floating around before Karl Benz got his patent. Hey, wasn’t there an Agatha Christie quote about how affordable cars became during her lifetime?
And Israel had a Jewish ruler thousands of years before Joe Lieberman was a vice-presidential candidate. And in the interim, how about the Khazars of the 9th and 10th Centuries?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:35 am
And, of course, Lieberman couldn’t have been nominated for vice president in France because France doesn’t have a vice president.
Okay. But “only in America could a Jewish person be nominated for a post that only exists in America” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I recall that back during his 2000 convention speech, Joe Lieberman suggested that “only in America” could a Jewish person get nominated for Vice President even though France had a Jewish Prime Minister back in the 1930s.
It’s not just France. Heck, Israel routinely elects Jews to high office…..
February 25th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Only in America could we possibly have this healthy debate about American solipsism! Thank you, Matt!
February 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Lieberman meant that only in America could a Jewish fellow be nominated for VP of the United States. A parallel example is that because Bobby Jindal is a pre-existing condition for the United States, only in America could he be considered a serious candidate for the presidency.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Edgar Faure, from what I can gather on French Wikipedia, was not a Jew. His wife, née Lucie Meyer, was.
I’m assuming Matt didn’t count Disraeli because he was a practicing Anglican.
The Jewish Italian PM, btw, was Luigi Luzzatti, who served from 1910 to 1911 (his predecessor, Sidney Sonnino, had Jewish ancestry, but apparently wasn’t practicing). I’d imagine Luzzatti must have been the first practicing Jewish head of government of a European state?
February 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am
The modern auto industry dates back to the assembly line, invented by Henry Ford.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Out of all Obama’s prevarications and diversions his little gaffe about the history of cars (and no Matt, we don’t say automobile, we say car and wheels etc.; only pretentious pointy heads go down to the corner to buy an “automobile” at the “automobile” lot) is the only thing you can find to criticize?
I especially liked the way that our ObaBitch, after his unctuous pontificating over the budgetary sleights of hand of previous administrations, uses their favorite evasion of citing ten year projections. Forget that they are in and of themselves meaningless, they elide the point that Barry will have neither power nor responsibility nor accountability then.
Great Job Obey!
February 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am
My impression is that the Karl Benz cars were rather widespread; of course, not terribly affordable or cheap, but by no means were people unacquainted with the nice invention that was the automobile until Henry Ford came along.
You only have to read a couple of Edwardian novels to realise this. The Wind In The Willows, a particularly popular children’s novel up to the present day, was published in 1908 (right before the Model T) and featured as a central theme a anthropomorphic Frog who was spending all his money buying, driving, and crashing motor cars. Hardly a marginal product.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Actually Dublin has had two Jewish Lord Mayors, Robert Briscoe and his son, Ben.
Cork also had a Jewish Lord Mayor, and there is currently one Jewish member of the Dail, the lower house of the Irish parliament.
Also, the Austrian chancellor that essentially dominated post-war Austrian politics, Bruno Kreisky, was Jewish.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Obama includes one demonstrable falsehood in every speech so that people used to listening to W. will not be completely disoriented. You can’t expect people to go cold turkey on that kind of thing.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Why yes, the 1900 Benz was available for about what a lawyer (or ten highly skilled workers) would make in a year- maybe $200,000 in today’s money. But they were nothing like widespread. The major political forces for improving the roads in 1900 were bicycling clubs.
(Typically Mylesian- regarding the Wind in the Willows as a valuable historical document. Good one, Myles.)
Well, we’ll get this straightened out now that Obama is President and every statement must be scrutinized for the smallest mistake. It’s a lucky thing for him that he has so much practice in being held to much higher standards than white guys.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Can someone please track down a script, or, better yet, a video, of the SNL gameshow parody Jew, Not a Jew? Tom Hanks was the host of the show, in which pairs of contestants had to guess whether a particular celeb was, in fact, a Jew. I remember Michael Landon being one of the celebs in question (”We’re gonna go with ‘Jew’, Bob!”). The game ended with Phil Hartman buzzing in during the lighting round on a picture of Ed Koch (”He’s a Jew, Bob!”).
Only in America!
February 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am
But by previous M Yglesias standards this gaffe means Obama is a LIAR
February 25th, 2009 at 11:47 am
(and no Matt, we don’t say automobile, we say car and wheels etc.; only pretentious pointy heads go down to the corner to buy an “automobile” at the “automobile” lot)
That’s right, goddamn it! And we park ‘em in car holes!
February 25th, 2009 at 11:51 am
If George Will had said this instead of Obama, Matt would be calling him a liar and demanding that he be fired.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
about blum: I believe Matt chose the right one: under the fourth republic, the “president du conseil” was sole head of government, elected by universal suffrage (ok, minus the women), which is more impressive for a minority and in light of the not insignificant antisemitism of the time.
The here above mentioned Italian and Disraeli were in another dynamic, less relevant to Lieberman`s remark.
About exceptionalism and cars: I would protest Obama too, if as a French boy I was not have been taught that the first “avion” flied was from the French Clement Ader…
So, Barack, please take note for when you will have to subsidy Boeing .
February 25th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
jt–you honestly don’t see a difference between George Will lying in a paper of record about a defining issue of our time–and not making a gaffe, lying about the state of research and existence of a previous consensus–and Obama getting the spirit of what he was trying to convey right but the letter wrong on a minor matter of detail?
February 25th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“jt–you honestly don’t see a difference between George Will lying in a paper of record”
You just revealed your blind spot right there.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
jt—how so? A simple search of lexis shows that no such consensus on global cooling existed, as Will claimed. Since columns written in influential newspapers aren’t supposed to be made up, and George Will is used to doing research before reporting statements on facts on pressing issues, how is it misleading to say that he lied? Do you really think Obama lied as well? The difference is that the substance of what Obama was saying was right, and he got a detail wrong, whereas I think it is clear that Will was willfully using his perch in the Post to mislead.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
…statements *as* facts…
February 25th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
One could also add that Austria had a (albeit non-religious) Jewish chancellor (Bruno Kreisky) from 1970 to 1983
February 25th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Why yes, the 1900 Benz was available for about what a lawyer (or ten highly skilled workers) would make in a year- maybe $200,000 in today’s money. But they were nothing like widespread. The major political forces for improving the roads in 1900 were bicycling clubs.
(Typically Mylesian- regarding the Wind in the Willows as a valuable historical document. Good one, Myles.)
The modern-day V-12 Mercedes-Benz S-Class also, incidentally, costs around $200,000. It is a luxury car, but not a rare one (like, for example, the Rolls-Royce), that you can observe with great regularity around in wealthier neighborhoods.
And The Wind in the Willows was a rather significant novel, one of the best children’s novels to have come out in the last century. Of course, children’s literature went downhill after the First World War, so that’s hardly saying much.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
In Kreisky’s memoirs he talks a fair bit about the political implications of his Jewish identity, his strident differences with Golda Meir over middle-east politics and over what the political identity of a Jew should be. I believe he also attempted to use his position as a Jewish head of a European government to broker some mideast negotiations, but I’m not sure.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Okay Matt, why not try finding out why they opted to say it the way they did? I find it hard to believe that someone in the chain wasn’t aware of the automobile’s more nuanced origins.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Inventing the automobile is often confused with mass producing the automobile. Henry Ford’s innovations in mass production are probably the main reason the automobile culture is so pervasive today. And America can claim credit for it.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Well I think Obama had the best intentions at heart and we should all accept it as an unfortunate error. What he should have said was that America was the home of the motor car. Who could deny this when one considers the rapid growth, not just of car ownership thanks to Henry Ford, but the roads and support industry that followed. Also the contribution made by America in technical developments of the car has to be greatly appreciated.
Les, Watford, England
February 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
jt—how so? A simple search of lexis shows that no such consensus on global cooling existed, as Will claimed.
Will did not claim there was any such consensus. Now you’re lying about what Will claimed.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Another example of weird and insulting American exceptionalism took place during the inauguration (why do we call them inaugurations, anyway?). During the coverage on all the networks, the point was repeatedly driven home that “only in America” was this peaceful transfer of power possible.
Right. Because in a place like Canada, the incoming Prime Minister has to devour the heart of his predecessor.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
The modern-day V-12 Mercedes-Benz S-Class also, incidentally, costs around $200,000.
The S600 carries a $147,000 MSRP. Sorry, Miley.
I wouldn’t be so harsh on treating The Wind In The Willows as a source text: while the Model T wasn’t made in Britain until 1911, the middle of the 1900s marks the beginning of the shift away from pure hobbyism, through the gradual standardisation of controls.
They certainly weren’t widespread, though, and remained the playthings of rich idle fops… which means I can now imagine Miley dressed up as Mr Toad: toot-toot!
February 25th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Do you really think Obama lied as well? The difference is that the substance of what Obama was saying was right, and he got a detail wrong, whereas I think it is clear that Will was willfully using his perch in the Post to mislead.
============================================================
John McCain and other Republicans have said the stimulus bill is filled with “hidden” earmarks for Democrats’ pet projects. A HSR system between LA and Las Vegas has been cited as an example of this that Harry Reid has worked for. The WaPO, the LV Sun and even Harry Reid’s spokesman have all been saying that this project will get money from the stimulus bill.
When McCain (and some other Republicans) got a detail wrong – they’ve said ALL of the HSR money in the bill is going to the project – Yglesias has brayed in multiple posts that they are all liars. This when it is very clear that the substance of what McCain was saying is right.
Just like Obama and his car gaffe. I don’t think Obama is a liar or that this is anything to get worked up about.
This is just another instance of Matt’s increasing hypocrisy and political hacktitude. Up there with DC statehood
February 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Oh well, you still have the Grand Canyon (except for half a dozen larger, deeper canyons around the world), the Wright Brothers (although, outside of North America, Alberto Santos-Dumont is considered the father of aviation), football (the Canadian Football League and its funky rules are older than the NFL) and the light bulb (Edison bought the patent off a couple of guys from Toronto). So it’s all good.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The moment I heard that line about the automobile being invented in the US, I knew someone screwed up..but is it possible that Obama, or his writer, meant to say that *mass production* of the automobile was invented here?
Because, best as I can determine, that’s accurate.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
jt–here’s Will:
“In the 1970s, “a major cooling of the planet” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950″ (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the “cooling trend” could result in “a return to another ice age” (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” involving “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The “continued rapid cooling of the Earth” (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975). “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).”
**”The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975).**
He is saying that there was a consensus on global cooling. This was a lie. I await your apology for calling me a liar.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
And as for their having been no such consensus:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
February 25th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Anthony,
He is saying that there was a consensus on global cooling.
No, he isn’t. Nowhere in the text you quote, or anywhere else in the column, does Will claim there was any such consensus. You’re lying about what Will claimed. Stop lying.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
jt–when “the world’s climatologists are agreed” about something, that means there is a consensus. That is what consensus is. When meteorologists are “almost unanimous”, that means there is consensus.
For example, if I say that “scientists are agreed on the threat of global warming,” then I’m saying there is consensus on global warming. The same is true if I talk about the near unanimity on global warming; since the only outliers are cranks with dubious affiliations, near unanimity=consensus.
Will was claiming there was consensus.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
And again, comparing Obama’s claim about the invention of the car, an errant detail in the context of reminding the American people of their potential, to Will deliberately presenting, in teh pages of a major newspaper, blatant lies as facts to serve a political end, is really dishonest and in bad faith.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
The S600 carries a $147,000 MSRP. Sorry, Miley.
The S65 AMG, the performance version of the S-Class sedan, is $198,950. It is still less expensive than the CL grand tourer, of course, which tops out at an impressive $204,575.
And anyone with the slightest familiarity with the buyers of those cars know that they almost always buy the most upmarket performance versions, i.e., the $200,000 ones. I would know from the countless soccer moms I dealt with as a senior-year liaison for student events.
In any case, it is rather sad that you ridicule Mr. Toad. He was rather charming, much like most of the idiosyncratic English gentry in literature. Of course, post-war Labour-style supertax (at a nice 80% or more) on inheritance pretty much destroyed such a fine material for English literature. As I say, it all went downhill from the Edwardians.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
jt–when “the world’s climatologists are agreed” about something, that means there is a consensus.
True. But Will didn’t claim the world’s climatologists were agreed. He quoted Science Digest making that claim.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
jt–please. He started that passage by saying that global warming would go down as a prediction that failed to happen, just like global cooling. To make that point, he quoted magazines that said that there was a consensus on global cooling. The point of doing this was to make his point that there *was* consensus, but it was wrong, just as he thinks the consensus about global warming is wrong. He didn’t quote the magazines to say that they erroneously reported a consensus, that woudl defeat his whole point, which rests on the (false) idea that there was a consensus. Unless he’s quoting those sources to assert that there was a consensus that turned out to be false, his column doesn’t have much of a point. His whole point is that there was a consensus but it was false, and global warming will also go down in history as a prediction that failed to come true. And he is lying about that consensus.
I suspect you’re being willfully obtuse here.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
He started that passage by saying that global warming would go down as a prediction that failed to happen, just like global cooling.
No, he didn’t say that either.
You’re obviously just going to keep attributing to Will statements he did not make and then claim he’s lying on the basis of your false attributions. There’s no reasoning with you. If you were to say his column was misleading and manipulative I’d agree with you. But the claim that Will “lied” is just absurd. And he’s certainly no more misleading and manipulative than the global warming chicken littles who constantly and egregiously misrepresent the scientific research for their own ideological purposes.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
jt–I have no idea what you think the point of Will’s column was, why he quoted all that stuff about a non-existent consensus about global cooling (ie lying), etc.
As for your latest claim of what he didn’t say, here’s Will:
“Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California’s snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean “no more agriculture in California,” the nation’s leading food producer. Chu added: “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.”
No more lettuce or Los Angeles? Chu likes predictions, so here is another: Nine decades hence, our great-great-grandchildren will add the disappearance of California artichokes to the list of predicted planetary calamities that did not happen. Global cooling recently joined that lengthening list.”
He’s saying that people think agriculture will die because of global warming. He says that this will be a prediction that won’t come true (which means that he thinks global warming is a false prediction), just like global cooling. See, his invocation of the global cooling quotations only makes sense if *he* is arguing that there was a consensus but it was false, just as global warming and its predicted effects are false.
Honestly, if he’s not saying that, and not saying there was a consensus on global cooling, his column doesn’t make much sense.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
And again, the main point being that to compare this lie, which is certainly an abuse of the Washington Post’s opinion page, to what Obama…
O never mind. You’re right. I lied. Sorry.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Many posters here would deny Karl Benz the credit he deserves for inventing the automobile in 1885 because mass production seems to have only come with Henry Ford in 1908. By that logic, Wilbur and Orville Wright should not be given any credit for inventing the airplane.
Friedrich Paul Berg
February 26th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Please ignore the guy who said this was a waste of a post.
March 1st, 2009 at 3:09 am
Ford didn’t invent the auto assembly line. Olds did. Ford did make it work, so well that ALAM wouldn’t let Ford in, on the basis he was merely an assembler of parts. Ford did fight the Selden patent, and then offered his lawyer to Curtiss, to fight the Wright Brothers. Curtiss indeed tried to show that the Wrights did not invent the airplane.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 am
The original wording was that America created the automobile industry, which is basically fact.
While they didn’t invent the automobile, they took it to the masses. Not sure why the wording got changed to this, but it’s funny that people compare this to speeches from Bush, considering all of the Bushisms weren’t bad speech writers but a “Cowboy” that wanted to change his speech on the fly, and didn’t do it right. (or maybe he did and was pandering to the ignorant crowd, we may never know)
But Obama’s speech writers wrote this, and as most people in America tend to “BELIEVE” we invented the automobile, since the History books in America word it vaguely, I’m not surprised he didn’t catch it in his 10 minute run-through before the speech.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
To start earning money with your blog, initially use Google Adsense but gradually as your traffic increases, keep adding more and more money making programs to your site.
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
awsome blog.
check this [url=http://www.amateur-sex69.net] suesse amateur maedels[/url]
frieden
March 31st, 2009 at 10:54 am
That Obhamma dude will tell people anything if he thinks it will benifiet him, what gets me is how many people there are to belive it.