Which is better?

• saying you'll do something and then never doing it?
• refuse to commit to something you know you can't achieve?

In the political sphere, a twisted world where words and gestures carry immediate costs / benefits to the speaker, we often find the former to be the case.   So often in fact, that we've got a colorful vocabulary for describing situations where this happens - "empty promise", "double cross", "grin-f*%k".

It gets worse the more insulated the political sphere is from the reality checks of day to day physical life.   City governments tend to be way more reality grounded than states.  The states are way better than nationals.    And when you get transnational, reality gets chucked out the window pretty damn fast.   This is spoiled teenager syndrome on a global scale.

Some of my favorite classical liberal international blog commentators, Innocents Abroad, have this article pointing to the latest EU duplicity around the fabled Kyoto protocol.   If you recall the brouhaha that ensued when Bush publicly stated that we would not follow the protocol, you probably also recall that the EU block pledged -- to much applause -- that they would unilaterally implement the guidelines themselves to make the world a better place.   Put simply not only are they NOT on track to reducing CO2 emissions in line with the protocol, their emissions have actually increased since the protocol was signed.

We knew that there was no way to implement the protocol and we said so.   Clinton knew it and, in his imitable style, pursued a path that ensured the protocol would die on the vine in the US congress.   Bush knew it and actually said so.   And boy did he get flamed over it.