Very interesting article

Nov 4, 1999
15,996
312
126
#4
Ah, the OP boldly continues his quest in being the most dishonest poster in P&N.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
#5
Meh. Williamson seems to have two primary critiques:

1) that the ‘green new deal’ is unrealistic, will never happen, and anyway China and India. I have no doubt that some parts of it are unrealistic but considering it’s a broad statement of principles I have a hard time caring too much.

2) the purpose for this movement is Ocasio-Cortez’s self aggrandizement and is not based in any real policy desires. This is slanderous nonsense based on nothing.

I guess you could chalk it up to Williamson complaining about the extreme rhetoric of comparing the effort required for this green new deal to a war. The only problem with that is Williamson himself responded to the idea of a wealth tax with an article titled ‘The Kulaks Must Be Liquidated As A Class’, equating a wealth tax with Soviet era mass murder.
 

PJFrylar

Senior member
Apr 17, 2016
675
245
106
#6
Meh. Williamson seems to have two primary critiques:

1) that the ‘green new deal’ is unrealistic, will never happen, and anyway China and India. I have no doubt that some parts of it are unrealistic but considering it’s a broad statement of principles I have a hard time caring too much.

2) the purpose for this movement is Ocasio-Cortez’s self aggrandizement and is not based in any real policy desires. This is slanderous nonsense based on nothing.

I guess you could chalk it up to Williamson complaining about the extreme rhetoric of comparing the effort required for this green new deal to a war. The only problem with that is Williamson himself responded to the idea of a wealth tax with an article titled ‘The Kulaks Must Be Liquidated As A Class’, equating a wealth tax with Soviet era mass murder.
I also think I detect that the author might subscribe to the Venezuela straw man - that people like Sanders and AOC want to turn the US into a socialist state. This of course is untrue. I know the OP subscribes to this straw man. Disagree with their ideas all you want, but you could at least represent their positions without being disingenuous about it.
 
Jun 30, 2004
13,503
102
126
#9
Ocasio-Cortez is a symptom of our times, but not a particularly toxic symptom.

She's young, but she has a lot of talent, or she would less likely have been elected.

I have been making the same point of argument since around the year 2001, when I happened to read a two-page op-ed in the LA Times about the possibility of ships navigating through a northwest passage between the Atlantic and China. I was also aware of melting glaciers in North America, particularly in the national park where I'd been seasonal ranger during 1972, and then after seeing Mt. Baker in the North Cascades during early September, 2001. [Another story there, about three people trying to predict the future as they sat around a campfire on the night of September 10.]

And I had said many times soon thereafter, that time would be running out. There might have been a chance to encourage conversion of automobiles to propane or natural gas fuels. There might have been a more aggressive effort to encourage and promote roof-top solar and other power-generating options.

I was also a child during the 1950s. Life was simpler, people had less "stuff", but a lot of veterans returning home after WWII could afford a modest tract home in a pleasant neighborhood. The economic statistics of the time showed America with greater wealth and income equality than we've had since. My father earned enough to put T-bones on every plate at the table and at least once a week. He could buy a new car every two or three years -- trading in the old one. In California, I was able to get through college and obtain a masters degree for what was essentially free or perfunctory tuition -- my only expenses and needs besides textbooks and thrift-store clothing were rent and fun money.

So failure to address current problems to which the Right has been in steadfast denial has consequences. In order to solve these problems now, government initiatives must be bigger and more profound. The private sector will not solve those problems, and the thought that it can is just sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. It never will, unless the price of solving problems is so much pain and trouble for enough people that they actually become casualties of those problems. And we see now that there are casualties. Just one single anecdotal example would be the Camp Fire in northern California this year.

The buildup of atmospheric carbon has continued unabated all this time, and so doing what we can to salvage our earthbound environment will take commensurately greater effort, at more cost and sacrifice, than what might have been necessary with an early start. And that will mean a sharp Left turn in political direction, because any mere attempt to meet the problem head-on will mean collective -- not individual and discretionary effort. It is an anticipation of this that the Right has maintained its denial for so long, burying its head in the sand and spinning the same old tale of an Invisible Hand that will miraculously save us from consequences of human activity over more than 200 years, burning off substances that had been in the ground for millions of years.

So don't talk to me, the 71-year-old, about this young woman with ideas that are too big. While I agree that social media has its deleterious down-side, amplifying certain defects of the collective human character, she has a lot more on the ball than the GOP chuckleheads who squandered time and money going after a mythical Benghazi scandal, or digging for e-mail evidence to skewer Hillary Clinton.

There may be some truth or useful concept to the article, but at its bottom, the glorification of Self in a culture of individualist narcissism and its encouragement through technology in social media had a lot to do with electing the Toxic Filth infecting the White House at this moment. Ocasio-Cortes is probably more antidote than virus.

When I get some chump-change to donate, I'll send a few ducats to her for her next campaign. Among several others who need campaign resources.
 

PJFrylar

Senior member
Apr 17, 2016
675
245
106
#10
Ocasio-Cortez is a symptom of our times, but not a particularly toxic symptom.

She's young, but she has a lot of talent, or she would less likely have been elected.

I have been making the same point of argument since around the year 2001, when I happened to read a two-page op-ed in the LA Times about the possibility of ships navigating through a northwest passage between the Atlantic and China. I was also aware of melting glaciers in North America, particularly in the national park where I'd been seasonal ranger during 1972, and then after seeing Mt. Baker in the North Cascades during early September, 2001. [Another story there, about three people trying to predict the future as they sat around a campfire on the night of September 10.]

And I had said many times soon thereafter, that time would be running out. There might have been a chance to encourage conversion of automobiles to propane or natural gas fuels. There might have been a more aggressive effort to encourage and promote roof-top solar and other power-generating options.

I was also a child during the 1950s. Life was simpler, people had less "stuff", but a lot of veterans returning home after WWII could afford a modest tract home in a pleasant neighborhood. The economic statistics of the time showed America with greater wealth and income equality than we've had since. My father earned enough to put T-bones on every plate at the table and at least once a week. He could buy a new car every two or three years -- trading in the old one. In California, I was able to get through college and obtain a masters degree for what was essentially free or perfunctory tuition -- my only expenses and needs besides textbooks and thrift-store clothing were rent and fun money.

So failure to address current problems to which the Right has been in steadfast denial has consequences. In order to solve these problems now, government initiatives must be bigger and more profound. The private sector will not solve those problems, and the thought that it can is just sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. It never will, unless the price of solving problems is so much pain and trouble for enough people that they actually become casualties of those problems. And we see now that there are casualties. Just one single anecdotal example would be the Camp Fire in northern California this year.

The buildup of atmospheric carbon has continued unabated all this time, and so doing what we can to salvage our earthbound environment will take commensurately greater effort, at more cost and sacrifice, than what might have been necessary with an early start. And that will mean a sharp Left turn in political direction, because any mere attempt to meet the problem head-on will mean collective -- not individual and discretionary effort. It is an anticipation of this that the Right has maintained its denial for so long, burying its head in the sand and spinning the same old tale of an Invisible Hand that will miraculously save us from consequences of human activity over more than 200 years, burning off substances that had been in the ground for millions of years.

So don't talk to me, the 71-year-old, about this young woman with ideas that are too big. While I agree that social media has its deleterious down-side, amplifying certain defects of the collective human character, she has a lot more on the ball than the GOP chuckleheads who squandered time and money going after a mythical Benghazi scandal, or digging for e-mail evidence to skewer Hillary Clinton.

There may be some truth or useful concept to the article, but at its bottom, the glorification of Self in a culture of individualist narcissism and its encouragement through technology in social media had a lot to do with electing the Toxic Filth infecting the White House at this moment. Ocasio-Cortes is probably more antidote than virus.

When I get some chump-change to donate, I'll send a few ducats to her for her next campaign. Among several others who need campaign resources.
As a 31 year old male, I could not agree more with this post. We seem too willing to kick the can down the road. One of the arguments that pisses me off the most is when people point out jobs, such as heavy duty trucks, cannot currently be done with renewable energy sources. Thanks for making the point for us, that's why we should push renewable energies to prolong the usefulness of non renewable energy sources. God won't magically grant us an instant hundreds of millions of years to make new fossil fuels. I'm not a Christian anymore, but the ease that some abandon the concept that we should be stewards of the Earth ... wow. We need to fix our shit before it is too late. The Earth won't care; it will endure until the sun either swallows it or goes nova. Life as we know it on Earth ... might just care about hospitable conditions.

Also things such as college tuition and real estate prices have increased at a level far beyond the purchasing power of the average American. Fault us all you want for our foolish behavior, I won't argue with you about a lot of that, but it is hardly the main factor behind millennials "killing" things.
 
Jun 30, 2004
13,503
102
126
#11
PJFrylar: "Foolish behavior"? Did you become a Facebook junkie?

My senior friends and former schoolmates met for lunch Friday. I suggested our current problem with the Right reminded me of the time when one other at the luncheon had taken LSD-25, became panicky, and insisted that I drop him off at the community hospital. The drug opens up sensory input to a point where it overpowers the brain. So I offered the idea that mobile devices, social media, the ebb in face-to-face community bonding, presented some in our population with . . . too much input. If the Russians took psy-war and propaganda to its next level since CIA ended its own projects, anyone could see that people would be vulnerable, and the vulnerable could never admit their vulnerability. After all -- "I'm an individual and I'm smart!"

So . . . congratulations.

Another useful point you made: "The earth won't care". Which is as much to say "Mother Nature doesn't pay attention to market forces". It was human folly to think that Mother Nature was so vast and big, that market forces wouldn't contribute to her demise.

Perhaps a sort of paradox. I'll have to turn it over some more in my addled brain. . .
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,013
247
126
#12
So so much to be very concerned over.
That particular lame ass replay has been done to death, and doesn't even apply in this case. Lets try to find a new one, and maybe apply just a little logic to it's use.

To the topic at hand, it appears most focused on the aspects that concerned OAC. I was more interested in thoughts on fame and social media aspects, followed by the authors thoughts on family and religion.
On AOC: She may or may not have any lasting impact, at this point she's simply regurgitating a few ideas that have been floating around for several years. There aren't any new or unique ideas in her new deal, and there aren't any budgets that I've seen. It's a sales pitch. I've seen hundreds of them, some were better, some were worse. My answer to every single one of them has always been the same, hows it work? Once I see what the plan actually is, how it's implemented, what the actual costs are, and where the money comes from, I may jump on board. The thing to remember is that the devil is always in the details.
 
Oct 15, 1999
13,013
247
126
#13
Ocasio-Cortez is a symptom of our times, but not a particularly toxic symptom.

She's young, but she has a lot of talent, or she would less likely have been elected.

I have been making the same point of argument since around the year 2001, when I happened to read a two-page op-ed in the LA Times about the possibility of ships navigating through a northwest passage between the Atlantic and China. I was also aware of melting glaciers in North America, particularly in the national park where I'd been seasonal ranger during 1972, and then after seeing Mt. Baker in the North Cascades during early September, 2001. [Another story there, about three people trying to predict the future as they sat around a campfire on the night of September 10.]

And I had said many times soon thereafter, that time would be running out. There might have been a chance to encourage conversion of automobiles to propane or natural gas fuels. There might have been a more aggressive effort to encourage and promote roof-top solar and other power-generating options.

I was also a child during the 1950s. Life was simpler, people had less "stuff", but a lot of veterans returning home after WWII could afford a modest tract home in a pleasant neighborhood. The economic statistics of the time showed America with greater wealth and income equality than we've had since. My father earned enough to put T-bones on every plate at the table and at least once a week. He could buy a new car every two or three years -- trading in the old one. In California, I was able to get through college and obtain a masters degree for what was essentially free or perfunctory tuition -- my only expenses and needs besides textbooks and thrift-store clothing were rent and fun money.

So failure to address current problems to which the Right has been in steadfast denial has consequences. In order to solve these problems now, government initiatives must be bigger and more profound. The private sector will not solve those problems, and the thought that it can is just sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. It never will, unless the price of solving problems is so much pain and trouble for enough people that they actually become casualties of those problems. And we see now that there are casualties. Just one single anecdotal example would be the Camp Fire in northern California this year.

The buildup of atmospheric carbon has continued unabated all this time, and so doing what we can to salvage our earthbound environment will take commensurately greater effort, at more cost and sacrifice, than what might have been necessary with an early start. And that will mean a sharp Left turn in political direction, because any mere attempt to meet the problem head-on will mean collective -- not individual and discretionary effort. It is an anticipation of this that the Right has maintained its denial for so long, burying its head in the sand and spinning the same old tale of an Invisible Hand that will miraculously save us from consequences of human activity over more than 200 years, burning off substances that had been in the ground for millions of years.

So don't talk to me, the 71-year-old, about this young woman with ideas that are too big. While I agree that social media has its deleterious down-side, amplifying certain defects of the collective human character, she has a lot more on the ball than the GOP chuckleheads who squandered time and money going after a mythical Benghazi scandal, or digging for e-mail evidence to skewer Hillary Clinton.

There may be some truth or useful concept to the article, but at its bottom, the glorification of Self in a culture of individualist narcissism and its encouragement through technology in social media had a lot to do with electing the Toxic Filth infecting the White House at this moment. Ocasio-Cortes is probably more antidote than virus.

When I get some chump-change to donate, I'll send a few ducats to her for her next campaign. Among several others who need campaign resources.
Real thoughts. Thank you.
 
Oct 18, 2005
14,156
489
136
#15
That particular lame ass replay has been done to death, and doesn't even apply in this case. Lets try to find a new one, and maybe apply just a little logic to it's use.

To the topic at hand, it appears most focused on the aspects that concerned OAC. I was more interested in thoughts on fame and social media aspects, followed by the authors thoughts on family and religion.
On AOC: She may or may not have any lasting impact, at this point she's simply regurgitating a few ideas that have been floating around for several years. There aren't any new or unique ideas in her new deal, and there aren't any budgets that I've seen. It's a sales pitch. I've seen hundreds of them, some were better, some were worse. My answer to every single one of them has always been the same, hows it work? Once I see what the plan actually is, how it's implemented, what the actual costs are, and where the money comes from, I may jump on board. The thing to remember is that the devil is always in the details.
You posted a link and little else. Gave the op all the time it deserved.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
#16
That particular lame ass replay has been done to death, and doesn't even apply in this case. Lets try to find a new one, and maybe apply just a little logic to it's use.

To the topic at hand, it appears most focused on the aspects that concerned OAC. I was more interested in thoughts on fame and social media aspects, followed by the authors thoughts on family and religion.
On AOC: She may or may not have any lasting impact, at this point she's simply regurgitating a few ideas that have been floating around for several years. There aren't any new or unique ideas in her new deal, and there aren't any budgets that I've seen. It's a sales pitch. I've seen hundreds of them, some were better, some were worse. My answer to every single one of them has always been the same, hows it work? Once I see what the plan actually is, how it's implemented, what the actual costs are, and where the money comes from, I may jump on board. The thing to remember is that the devil is always in the details.
Why do we need new ideas when for the most part we already know what will work?
 
Aug 21, 2003
29,164
521
126
#17
Why do we need new ideas when for the most part we already know what will work?
The pathways to decarbonization aren't at all mysteries. I mean it's already happening to the power grid.
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,226
720
126
#18
I am surprised to find out one of our "independents" thinks the National Review is anything other than a piece of shit rag.
 

PJFrylar

Senior member
Apr 17, 2016
675
245
106
#19
PJFrylar: "Foolish behavior"? Did you become a Facebook junkie?

My senior friends and former schoolmates met for lunch Friday. I suggested our current problem with the Right reminded me of the time when one other at the luncheon had taken LSD-25, became panicky, and insisted that I drop him off at the community hospital. The drug opens up sensory input to a point where it overpowers the brain. So I offered the idea that mobile devices, social media, the ebb in face-to-face community bonding, presented some in our population with . . . too much input. If the Russians took psy-war and propaganda to its next level since CIA ended its own projects, anyone could see that people would be vulnerable, and the vulnerable could never admit their vulnerability. After all -- "I'm an individual and I'm smart!"

So . . . congratulations.

Another useful point you made: "The earth won't care". Which is as much to say "Mother Nature doesn't pay attention to market forces". It was human folly to think that Mother Nature was so vast and big, that market forces wouldn't contribute to her demise.

Perhaps a sort of paradox. I'll have to turn it over some more in my addled brain. . .

I don't use social media myself, but I do get annoyed when I see people whip out their phones to take photos of their food. A lot of people my age do idiotic stuff, but it really is just a new flavor of idiotic stuff. Every generation has their own version of young and foolish behavior.

Edit: The concept of "15 minutes of fame" predates social media. Social media has just made the behavior more accessible to a wider audience. The facts are that we are all one person among billions on a small planet around a not so significant star. There are billions of stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies. We are all very small in the grand scheme. The one notable thing is that our planet is the only one so far that we know currently supports life. However, it seems likely that somewhere out there is another one, even if it is incredibly far away and we never find it. This insignificance makes us want to be remembered, that we mattered, or believe in a higher purpose such as religion. This is nothing new, the only change is technology has made the audience bigger.
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
#20
Why do we need new ideas when for the most part we already know what will work?
Since we "already know what works" then bring up the needed legislation in Congress, vote on it, and see how the voters react. So far "decarbonization" is something voters everywhere say they favor but when asked to pay for doing so in any appreciable amount they react by voting out those who passed it and getting it repealed all the way up to rioting. Voters have repeatedly examined the ideas and decided they're a "nice to have" instead of a "must have" and they've been dispositioned accordingly in the big backlog of items marked "OK if you do this but only if you can get it done for free or at least someone else to pay for it."
 
May 19, 2011
12,093
240
126
#21
OP article said:
“Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez” is, at 16 syllables, a mouthful.
Wow. Truly insightful.

OP article said:
About the details of the Green New Deal, such as they are, there is not really much to say.
About the details of this article, such as they are, there is not really much to say. What a load of rambling, digressive waffle. I strongly suspect that someone could honestly and accurately summarise the article in about five sentences, and none of those would be worth a shit.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
#22
Since we "already know what works" then bring up the needed legislation in Congress, vote on it, and see how the voters react. So far "decarbonization" is something voters everywhere say they favor but when asked to pay for doing so in any appreciable amount they react by voting out those who passed it and getting it repealed all the way up to rioting. Voters have repeatedly examined the ideas and decided they're a "nice to have" instead of a "must have" and they've been dispositioned accordingly in the big backlog of items marked "OK if you do this but only if you can get it done for free or at least someone else to pay for it."
I honestly cannot figure out why you keep making the same pointless argument. Even if you are correct that voters wouldn't approve of it today that just makes it even more important to keep arguing for it. Eventually once things get bad enough conservatives will come around to the liberal position, it's only a matter of time. The point of this advocacy is to try and make that time sooner so there's less damage done.

I'm sure you agree that the goal here is fundamentally to save conservatives from their own irresponsibility because if modern American conservatism is about one thing primarily it's avoiding personal responsibility. Your post is ironic though as the conservative position is they would like climate change to be addressed, but only if someone else pays for it. That 'someone else' just happens to be their own children, haha.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
4,867
38
126
#23
Why do we need new ideas when for the most part we already know what will work?
The reason what will work isn't implemented is because it is not packaged and sold in a manner that people would desire it intrinsically,

Environmentalism has been presented and vilified as a tree hugging, hippie, soy eating, liberal leaning movement that wants to take away Americans freedom and their monster trucks and toys.

This country lacks a national energy policy that includes energy independence while striving to keep a clean environment but it is anathema to the fossil fuel industry because profits, and those associated or dependent on that said industry have used every marketing and psychological trick to sell their products as some sort of right and then claim their products and services like big trucks and SUVs for example are being built because that is what the people want.

That is why someone will spend many thousands of dollars on a boat, class a motor home, expensive cruises (that pollute the oceans), etc. etc. even if they have to refinance their homes for it and justify it to themselves but become miserly accountants that will tell you that putting up solar panels or driving an electric vehicle is not cost effective while they throw thousands of dollars down their money pit toys.
 

PJFrylar

Senior member
Apr 17, 2016
675
245
106
#24
The reason what will work isn't implemented is because it is not packaged and sold in a manner that people would desire it intrinsically,

Environmentalism has been presented and vilified as a tree hugging, hippie, soy eating, liberal leaning movement that wants to take away Americans freedom and their monster trucks and toys.

This country lacks a national energy policy that includes energy independence while striving to keep a clean environment but it is anathema to the fossil fuel industry because profits, and those associated or dependent on that said industry have used every marketing and psychological trick to sell their products as some sort of right and then claim their products and services like big trucks and SUVs for example are being built because that is what the people want.

That is why someone will spend many thousands of dollars on a boat, class a motor home, expensive cruises (that pollute the oceans), etc. etc. even if they have to refinance their homes for it and justify it to themselves but become miserly accountants that will tell you that putting up solar panels or driving an electric vehicle is not cost effective while they throw thousands of dollars down their money pit toys.
This. When someone suggests we that should be more like the Nordic Model countries, which seems to be working for them, it is conflated as wanting to be a socialist state. We can't even honestly discuss these things. The struggle over environmentalism confuses me to no end, maybe just an observation from living in Wisconsin. I'm a liberal city dweller who thinks we should do something about climate change; the rural conservatives that hunt, fish, and camp do not seem at all concerned about it. They poopoo it. It baffles me.

Edit: I'm all for more taxes if they are for the good of all.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS