by JanieM
From an article about the new head of the border patrol in Maine:
New border patrol chief explains why he uses #BuildTheWall and what his plans are for Maine
Jason Owens wants to increase transportation checks and the U.S. Border Patrol’s visibility in Maine and takes over amid a national debate on immigration.
From the body of the article:
In Houlton, it’s not unusual for agents to know the names of the people they pass on their daily patrols or to stop and chat with residents or farmers.
“A good part of the population is law enforcement of the federal variety,” said Emily Harvey, whose husband works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security at the Houlton station. She said she frequently travels across the border to go out to dinner, get a manicure or just go for a drive.
“Your typical everyday citizen, we really don’t see (changes to immigration policy),” Harvey said. “It really doesn’t affect us. As wives of some of these guys, we’re privy to some of the stories. But as everyday people we don’t see it.”
My bold. And her bullshit. The border patrol got on my bus to Boston in May: the first time I’ve had that experience, although it’s been going on for a while. So let me just tell Emily Harvey: ordinary people *do* see it, and some of us don’t like it, and we will do everything we can to scale it back to the invisibility in everyday life that it deserves in a free society.
From another angle, the notion that as long as “everyday people…don’t see it,” then everything is hunky dory, is vicious. As long as the abuse goes on out of sight of “everyday people,” then everything is just dandy?
I didn’t sign up to live in a police state. An increasingly more visible border patrol is not what I want or what I will ever vote for or support. I am reining in a rain of curse words even as I write.
Taking bets: how long before some R politician suggests that citizens should have to carry and show papers on demand? (I wonder how many links will come up in comments letting me know that this has already happened.)
*****
Miscellaneous articles and resources:
Increasing intrusion of the border patrol into ordinary daily travel.
In case it’s not clear: I don’t want “invisibility” for hysteria-driven crackdowns or the lunatic rantings and policies of our racist xenophobe-in-chief and his toadies and enablers. I want our policies to stop being driven by ginned-up hysteria compounded of cruelty, racism, fear, and greed.
In case it’s not clear: I don’t want “invisibility” for hysteria-driven crackdowns or the lunatic rantings and policies of our racist xenophobe-in-chief and his toadies and enablers. I want our policies to stop being driven by ginned-up hysteria compounded of cruelty, racism, fear, and greed.
America wets its pants, part 1,734.
As a minor follow up to the side discussion in the other thread about different American regions, it’s worth noting that nearly the entire northeast, and absolutely the entire northeast corridor, falls in the 100 mile range.
Thanks for the ACLU links, Janie.
America wets its pants, part 1,734.
As a minor follow up to the side discussion in the other thread about different American regions, it’s worth noting that nearly the entire northeast, and absolutely the entire northeast corridor, falls in the 100 mile range.
Thanks for the ACLU links, Janie.
how long before some R politician suggests that citizens should have to carry and show papers on demand?
If you look Hispanic, you are already well advised to do so. Not that having even an official, US government-issued passport will necessarily protect you from being detained for days.
Blacks don’t seem to be safe either. From being held for years.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-citizens-ice-20180427-htmlstory.html
It’s really just us WASPs who aren’t already there. For the rest, “guilty until proven innocent” seems to be the standard. And even proven may not be sufficient.
how long before some R politician suggests that citizens should have to carry and show papers on demand?
If you look Hispanic, you are already well advised to do so. Not that having even an official, US government-issued passport will necessarily protect you from being detained for days.
Blacks don’t seem to be safe either. From being held for years.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-citizens-ice-20180427-htmlstory.html
It’s really just us WASPs who aren’t already there. For the rest, “guilty until proven innocent” seems to be the standard. And even proven may not be sufficient.
I didn’t sign up to live in a police state. An increasingly more visible border patrol is not what I want or what I will ever vote for or support
More power to you, Janie, and to all who think as you do.
I didn’t sign up to live in a police state. An increasingly more visible border patrol is not what I want or what I will ever vote for or support
More power to you, Janie, and to all who think as you do.
“If you’re actually a citizen, why are you carrying those papers with you? That’s highly suspicious. A normal citizen does not carry a birth certificate or a passport (why would you even wish to tavel abroad if you truly love America?) around in daily life.”
“If you’re actually a citizen, why are you carrying those papers with you? That’s highly suspicious. A normal citizen does not carry a birth certificate or a passport (why would you even wish to tavel abroad if you truly love America?) around in daily life.”
Speaking of ACLU and immigration dysfunction:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/louisiana-parish-jailed-us-citizen-being-latinx-were
But Torres wasn’t released. Instead, the Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office placed an “immigration hold” on Torres on the suspicion that he was unlawfully present in the United States.
The basis for this suspicion? He had a Latinx name and brown skin. Staff at the sheriff’s office explained that they had a policy of detaining all Latinx people for immigration review.
This aggression will not stand, man.
Speaking of ACLU and immigration dysfunction:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/louisiana-parish-jailed-us-citizen-being-latinx-were
But Torres wasn’t released. Instead, the Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office placed an “immigration hold” on Torres on the suspicion that he was unlawfully present in the United States.
The basis for this suspicion? He had a Latinx name and brown skin. Staff at the sheriff’s office explained that they had a policy of detaining all Latinx people for immigration review.
This aggression will not stand, man.
So, a long time ago, when i lived in NY, the Long Island railroad decided to respond to a streak of bad service by raising fares.
This was unpopular.
People responded by waiting until they were on the train to buy their ticket, and paying with $50 or $100 bills, as their circumstances allowed.
Which meant that a conductor could sell at most a handful of fares before running out of small bills to make change.
If everyone on a bus or train responds to an ICE interrogation with the “I do not wish to respond” reply, as it appears they are within their rights to do, it may become impractical or pointless to do the bus and train thing.
Some folks will no doubt be hassled to the point of significant inconvenience, so it may not be something everyone will want to do, or be able to do.
But if you can, maybe consider it.
Get in the way.
So, a long time ago, when i lived in NY, the Long Island railroad decided to respond to a streak of bad service by raising fares.
This was unpopular.
People responded by waiting until they were on the train to buy their ticket, and paying with $50 or $100 bills, as their circumstances allowed.
Which meant that a conductor could sell at most a handful of fares before running out of small bills to make change.
If everyone on a bus or train responds to an ICE interrogation with the “I do not wish to respond” reply, as it appears they are within their rights to do, it may become impractical or pointless to do the bus and train thing.
Some folks will no doubt be hassled to the point of significant inconvenience, so it may not be something everyone will want to do, or be able to do.
But if you can, maybe consider it.
Get in the way.
i feel free
i feel free
more free than this guy, anyway.
when the cops show up for our false alarms, they just ask to see my ID and then leave with “have a nice day”.
one might call it a p r i v i l e g e.
more free than this guy, anyway.
when the cops show up for our false alarms, they just ask to see my ID and then leave with “have a nice day”.
one might call it a p r i v i l e g e.
@russell:
This is complicated. Here’s another ACLU link, which includes this section:
As to this: If everyone on a bus or train responds to an ICE interrogation with the “I do not wish to respond” reply, as it appears they are within their rights to do, it may become impractical or pointless to do the bus and train thing.
I would love to see a concerted effort like this, maybe with some training as preparation for things going south. But at least on my bus, this specific tactic would not have worked, because (and I think this is generally true) they don’t actually ask everyone; their attentions are very, shall we say, targeted.
In my bus, one agent stood at the front of the bus talking nice nice about how much they appreciated our cooperation, while the other agent moved quickly down the aisle more or less ignoring almost everyone. I was about halfway down, and I’m not sure he even looked at me, because I didn’t look at him, I just nodded as minimally as I could when I felt his body turn my way and he quickly asked was I a citizen. (I wish I’d had the courage to ignore him. I had a ticket for a trip overseas in my pocket……avoiding the (as russell says) “significant inconvenience” of possibly being detained and missing the bus and sacrificing that trip, and the money I had paid for it, overrode politics that day, to my shame. Although as an old white female, I’d probably have to assault an agent before they’d pay any attention to me in the first place. I am not who they’re after.)
I did take video on my phone, but mostly what I got is just voices; I didn’t stand up and make a show of it. The only people I saw the guy talk to were some European (white, I think German) tourists, who volunteered their papers, as per the above guideline, and a group of young Chinese men, probably students or summer visitors to one of the nearby colleges, who also produced their papers readily.
A couple of years ago there was a stir in Maine because some ignorant asshole of a luggage handler responded to the question, “Do you have to be a citizen to ride the bus” by saying “yes.” Of course, that’s not remotely true. Unfortunately, ignorance of all sorts, including ignorant xenophobia, is contagious, or always latent and ready to froth up at the slightest opportunity.
The racist xenophobe-in-chief, AKA Clickbait, has unleashed this kind of shit all over the country, as Nous’s story also shows.
@russell:
This is complicated. Here’s another ACLU link, which includes this section:
As to this: If everyone on a bus or train responds to an ICE interrogation with the “I do not wish to respond” reply, as it appears they are within their rights to do, it may become impractical or pointless to do the bus and train thing.
I would love to see a concerted effort like this, maybe with some training as preparation for things going south. But at least on my bus, this specific tactic would not have worked, because (and I think this is generally true) they don’t actually ask everyone; their attentions are very, shall we say, targeted.
In my bus, one agent stood at the front of the bus talking nice nice about how much they appreciated our cooperation, while the other agent moved quickly down the aisle more or less ignoring almost everyone. I was about halfway down, and I’m not sure he even looked at me, because I didn’t look at him, I just nodded as minimally as I could when I felt his body turn my way and he quickly asked was I a citizen. (I wish I’d had the courage to ignore him. I had a ticket for a trip overseas in my pocket……avoiding the (as russell says) “significant inconvenience” of possibly being detained and missing the bus and sacrificing that trip, and the money I had paid for it, overrode politics that day, to my shame. Although as an old white female, I’d probably have to assault an agent before they’d pay any attention to me in the first place. I am not who they’re after.)
I did take video on my phone, but mostly what I got is just voices; I didn’t stand up and make a show of it. The only people I saw the guy talk to were some European (white, I think German) tourists, who volunteered their papers, as per the above guideline, and a group of young Chinese men, probably students or summer visitors to one of the nearby colleges, who also produced their papers readily.
A couple of years ago there was a stir in Maine because some ignorant asshole of a luggage handler responded to the question, “Do you have to be a citizen to ride the bus” by saying “yes.” Of course, that’s not remotely true. Unfortunately, ignorance of all sorts, including ignorant xenophobia, is contagious, or always latent and ready to froth up at the slightest opportunity.
The racist xenophobe-in-chief, AKA Clickbait, has unleashed this kind of shit all over the country, as Nous’s story also shows.
cleek’s story @4:22 speaks to how far we’ve come toward normalizing this shit since, okay, Reagan, just to choose a random benchmark. We now have an administration that I suspect would love to tattoo a number on everyone…and not that much less than half the country would be standing in line to get theirs.
Although for that matter, I don’t see why tattoos couldn’t be faked, just like papers. Or those chips Elon Musk wants to put in our bodies.
cleek’s story @4:22 speaks to how far we’ve come toward normalizing this shit since, okay, Reagan, just to choose a random benchmark. We now have an administration that I suspect would love to tattoo a number on everyone…and not that much less than half the country would be standing in line to get theirs.
Although for that matter, I don’t see why tattoos couldn’t be faked, just like papers. Or those chips Elon Musk wants to put in our bodies.
they don’t actually ask everyone; their attentions are very, shall we say, targeted.
A good point. So, maybe not such a useful idea, from me.
I’m not sure what the best things are to do. Some folks from my church participated in a thing last week, where they walked a small coffin from Boston to the ICE center in Dover NH. The coffin was meant to represent the kids who have died in ICE custody.
Some folks have taken to standing outside the center in Dover at night, holding lights, so at least the people inside know that somebody out there knows they are in there and are thinking about them.
There is the “Jews against ICE” group who have staged fairly vocal protests at the ICE centers in South Boston and Rhode Island. Which apparently is getting under some folks’ skin, because in Rhode Island an ICE officer drove his truck into them.
Who knows what all of that amounts to. When are gestures effective? I don’t know.
But IMO we’re at the point where we can’t just sit around doing nothing.
they don’t actually ask everyone; their attentions are very, shall we say, targeted.
A good point. So, maybe not such a useful idea, from me.
I’m not sure what the best things are to do. Some folks from my church participated in a thing last week, where they walked a small coffin from Boston to the ICE center in Dover NH. The coffin was meant to represent the kids who have died in ICE custody.
Some folks have taken to standing outside the center in Dover at night, holding lights, so at least the people inside know that somebody out there knows they are in there and are thinking about them.
There is the “Jews against ICE” group who have staged fairly vocal protests at the ICE centers in South Boston and Rhode Island. Which apparently is getting under some folks’ skin, because in Rhode Island an ICE officer drove his truck into them.
Who knows what all of that amounts to. When are gestures effective? I don’t know.
But IMO we’re at the point where we can’t just sit around doing nothing.
Little things, but two petitions:
Asking hotel chains not to cooperate with ICE by housing people ICE has detained.
I’m not sure what to think about this, actually. If the hope is that by denying ICE access to rooms, we will discourage them from conducting raids, I think that’s pie in the sky. More likely they’ll just house people in makeshift shacks, or cages. On the other hand, if enough people rise up and push back, even via petition, it’s better than nothing, especially in terms of getting big corporations to refuse to cooperate.
ACLU petition to Greyhound to stop letting agents on their buses
Little things, but two petitions:
Asking hotel chains not to cooperate with ICE by housing people ICE has detained.
I’m not sure what to think about this, actually. If the hope is that by denying ICE access to rooms, we will discourage them from conducting raids, I think that’s pie in the sky. More likely they’ll just house people in makeshift shacks, or cages. On the other hand, if enough people rise up and push back, even via petition, it’s better than nothing, especially in terms of getting big corporations to refuse to cooperate.
ACLU petition to Greyhound to stop letting agents on their buses
especially in terms of getting big corporations to refuse to cooperate
I mean in terms of political optics and clout.
especially in terms of getting big corporations to refuse to cooperate
I mean in terms of political optics and clout.
Reagan immediately understood the illusion to Nazi practices and the threat such a “Papers please” dictate would pose to liberty. The proposal died there and then.
Is it not amazing that we have reached the point where Reagan, by comparison, looks like a font of liberalism?
Reagan immediately understood the illusion to Nazi practices and the threat such a “Papers please” dictate would pose to liberty. The proposal died there and then.
Is it not amazing that we have reached the point where Reagan, by comparison, looks like a font of liberalism?
font of liberalism
Apologies for the quibble, but Reagan looks, by comparison, like a font if decency and sanity. Not wanting to be like the Nazis is not “liberalism.”
font of liberalism
Apologies for the quibble, but Reagan looks, by comparison, like a font if decency and sanity. Not wanting to be like the Nazis is not “liberalism.”
With the emphasis on “by comparison.”
With the emphasis on “by comparison.”
My brother-in-law and family live on an island with a relatively large population of illegals who work at various jobs from kitchen help at the resort to landscaping for rich people. (Its an island populated mostly by retired people, rich people with summer homes, or people running businesses to skim money off the summer tourists). The islanders monitor the ferry and have a alert system in place to spread the word should ICE show up by that route. I am proud of them!
(Of course there is an exploitive attitude about this. The illegals are cheap labor.)
My brother-in-law and family live on an island with a relatively large population of illegals who work at various jobs from kitchen help at the resort to landscaping for rich people. (Its an island populated mostly by retired people, rich people with summer homes, or people running businesses to skim money off the summer tourists). The islanders monitor the ferry and have a alert system in place to spread the word should ICE show up by that route. I am proud of them!
(Of course there is an exploitive attitude about this. The illegals are cheap labor.)
Reagan immediately understood the illusion to Nazi practices and the threat such a “Papers please” dictate would pose to liberty. The proposal died there and then.
The Talibangicals have whined about such measures as “national ID card” (let alone tattoos and chipping) as being The Mark Of The Beast.
It would be interesting to see if Trump could make them change.
Reagan immediately understood the illusion to Nazi practices and the threat such a “Papers please” dictate would pose to liberty. The proposal died there and then.
The Talibangicals have whined about such measures as “national ID card” (let alone tattoos and chipping) as being The Mark Of The Beast.
It would be interesting to see if Trump could make them change.
It would be interesting to see if Trump could make them change.
Definitely the way to bet. He’d (somehow) make it a culture wars deal, and they’d be all over it.
But then, I think he could sell them on a chain of government run brothels. To the point of getting them to include them in their daughters’ summer plans.
It would be interesting to see if Trump could make them change.
Definitely the way to bet. He’d (somehow) make it a culture wars deal, and they’d be all over it.
But then, I think he could sell them on a chain of government run brothels. To the point of getting them to include them in their daughters’ summer plans.
He’d do it fast enough if he could tie it to voter suppression.
He’d do it fast enough if he could tie it to voter suppression.
So let me just tell Emily Harvey: ordinary people *do* see it, and some of us don’t like it, and we will do everything we can to scale it back to the invisibility in everyday life that it deserves in a free society.
Thank you.
Everything we can. I have signed on to the twitter feed of the folks that russell mentioned a few weeks back: https://twitter.com/NeverAgainActn Hoping to summon the courage to join one of their events soon.
So let me just tell Emily Harvey: ordinary people *do* see it, and some of us don’t like it, and we will do everything we can to scale it back to the invisibility in everyday life that it deserves in a free society.
Thank you.
Everything we can. I have signed on to the twitter feed of the folks that russell mentioned a few weeks back: https://twitter.com/NeverAgainActn Hoping to summon the courage to join one of their events soon.
Back to the “everyday people don’t see it” myth: I was also stopped by the Border Patrol last fall, driving my car along Rt. 37 in NY state up along the St. Lawrence River. (One of my long slow ways around to get to Ohio. I like scenic routes.)
I filled the air with a lot of flimflam about growing up in a NE Ohio port town and having vivid memories of all the excitement when the St. Lawrence Seaway opened in 1957. I was, in fact, astounded at how small the St. Lawrence is in some places along that route, having only ever seen its more majestic incarnation further east.
The agent allowed as how yes, they run awfully big ships through there, and sometimes the ships even run aground. We didn’t get around to the topic of how badly the Seaway has messed up the ecology of the Great Lakes.
Maybe I wasted a little of his time that might have been spent in more nefarious activities, who knows. But that’s two not-crossing-the-border encounters in about eight months, after a grand total of *ZERO* in my previous 68 years of existence.
Fuck ’em.
Back to the “everyday people don’t see it” myth: I was also stopped by the Border Patrol last fall, driving my car along Rt. 37 in NY state up along the St. Lawrence River. (One of my long slow ways around to get to Ohio. I like scenic routes.)
I filled the air with a lot of flimflam about growing up in a NE Ohio port town and having vivid memories of all the excitement when the St. Lawrence Seaway opened in 1957. I was, in fact, astounded at how small the St. Lawrence is in some places along that route, having only ever seen its more majestic incarnation further east.
The agent allowed as how yes, they run awfully big ships through there, and sometimes the ships even run aground. We didn’t get around to the topic of how badly the Seaway has messed up the ecology of the Great Lakes.
Maybe I wasted a little of his time that might have been spent in more nefarious activities, who knows. But that’s two not-crossing-the-border encounters in about eight months, after a grand total of *ZERO* in my previous 68 years of existence.
Fuck ’em.
in my little town, we had a stars-n-bars protest outside the courthouse yesterday. the town council recently voted to take down the confederate soldier statue that’s been there since 190x, and the local history-class-skippers didn’t like that. so they were out there marching around with their flags and signs. all 10 of them.
why yes, i did give them a big FU as i drove by.
in my little town, we had a stars-n-bars protest outside the courthouse yesterday. the town council recently voted to take down the confederate soldier statue that’s been there since 190x, and the local history-class-skippers didn’t like that. so they were out there marching around with their flags and signs. all 10 of them.
why yes, i did give them a big FU as i drove by.
My wife and I are semi-binging The Handmaid’s Tale. It really gets under your skin. ICE agents = guardians in my mind. It’s disgusting.
My wife and I are semi-binging The Handmaid’s Tale. It really gets under your skin. ICE agents = guardians in my mind. It’s disgusting.
I haven’t been able to bring myself to watch the second series of The Handmaid’s Tale, I don’t feel like I can take the stress…
I haven’t been able to bring myself to watch the second series of The Handmaid’s Tale, I don’t feel like I can take the stress…
I haven’t been able to bring myself to watch the second series of The Handmaid’s Tale, I don’t feel like I can take the stress…
I haven’t been able to bring myself to watch the second series of The Handmaid’s Tale, I don’t feel like I can take the stress…
I have a long-standing bet with a friend about the same age as I am (65, now) that we will live long enough to see mandatory national IDs in the US. The Real ID requirements for states was a big step in that direction, as is the requirement that you have a state Real ID or federal or foreign papers to travel by air starting in October next year.
A couple of days ago there was a story about California DMV employees going to prison for taking bribes to put false information into the state database. In this case, it was false information about passing tests or qualifying for special licenses. At some point, there will be an expensive black market just for basic IDs that have the proper entries in some state’s database so they can be “verified”.
I have a long-standing bet with a friend about the same age as I am (65, now) that we will live long enough to see mandatory national IDs in the US. The Real ID requirements for states was a big step in that direction, as is the requirement that you have a state Real ID or federal or foreign papers to travel by air starting in October next year.
A couple of days ago there was a story about California DMV employees going to prison for taking bribes to put false information into the state database. In this case, it was false information about passing tests or qualifying for special licenses. At some point, there will be an expensive black market just for basic IDs that have the proper entries in some state’s database so they can be “verified”.
Hmm. The comment wasn’t empty, but it posts that way.
Hmm. The comment wasn’t empty, but it posts that way.
I have a long-standing bet with a friend about the same age as I am (65, now) that we will live long enough to see mandatory national IDs in the US. The Real ID requirements for states was a big step in that direction, as is the requirement that you have a state Real ID or federal or foreign papers to travel by air starting in October next year.
A couple of days ago there was a story about California DMV employees going to prison for taking bribes to put false information into the state database. In this case, it was false information about passing tests or qualifying for special licenses. At some point, there will be an expensive black market just for basic IDs that have the proper entries in some state’s database so they can be “verified”.
I have a long-standing bet with a friend about the same age as I am (65, now) that we will live long enough to see mandatory national IDs in the US. The Real ID requirements for states was a big step in that direction, as is the requirement that you have a state Real ID or federal or foreign papers to travel by air starting in October next year.
A couple of days ago there was a story about California DMV employees going to prison for taking bribes to put false information into the state database. In this case, it was false information about passing tests or qualifying for special licenses. At some point, there will be an expensive black market just for basic IDs that have the proper entries in some state’s database so they can be “verified”.
This will all be fine with the blessed patriots who blather about freedom and the constitution to identify themselves as real Americans.
This will all be fine with the blessed patriots who blather about freedom and the constitution to identify themselves as real Americans.
This will all be fine with the blessed patriots who blather about freedom and the constitution to identify themselves as real Americans.
I bet there’s a strong negative correlation between the quantity of blathering and the amount of foreign travel, or even domestic air travel. Except to Disney World, I suppose. Security theater for thee and not for me…….And who needs to go to any of those furrin countries anyhow? Or even furrin states? (I know I’ve told this story, but soon after I moved to Maine I was talking to a guy who said he’d just gotten back from vacation. I said, “Where’d you go?” And he said, “Out of state.” There is no need to define it further. New Hampshire? Tajikistan? It’s all the same to him.)
*****
As to real ID, that takes me in another direction: I *never* *ever* *ever* use a debit card for anything but ATM withdrawals. I use a credit card more often, especially because I donate $ and buy stuff online from time to time. But I still use cash at every possible opportunity, in part as a mostly at this point symbolic gesture of resistance to my every breath being tracked by Big Brother. For the same reason, I don’t have a grocery store discount card. I refuse to give LL Bean or Staples my phone # when I check out with cash. The clerks always look at me like I’m from Betelgeuse. People just blather their phone #’s out loud in checkout lines for the whole world to hear! WTF!!!
So my question is: how long before cash is obsolete? A few years ago there was an article in the Globe about a few eating places in Boston — coffee shops and such — that were refusing to take cash, which was against state law. But I haven’t seen or looked for any follow-up.
This will all be fine with the blessed patriots who blather about freedom and the constitution to identify themselves as real Americans.
I bet there’s a strong negative correlation between the quantity of blathering and the amount of foreign travel, or even domestic air travel. Except to Disney World, I suppose. Security theater for thee and not for me…….And who needs to go to any of those furrin countries anyhow? Or even furrin states? (I know I’ve told this story, but soon after I moved to Maine I was talking to a guy who said he’d just gotten back from vacation. I said, “Where’d you go?” And he said, “Out of state.” There is no need to define it further. New Hampshire? Tajikistan? It’s all the same to him.)
*****
As to real ID, that takes me in another direction: I *never* *ever* *ever* use a debit card for anything but ATM withdrawals. I use a credit card more often, especially because I donate $ and buy stuff online from time to time. But I still use cash at every possible opportunity, in part as a mostly at this point symbolic gesture of resistance to my every breath being tracked by Big Brother. For the same reason, I don’t have a grocery store discount card. I refuse to give LL Bean or Staples my phone # when I check out with cash. The clerks always look at me like I’m from Betelgeuse. People just blather their phone #’s out loud in checkout lines for the whole world to hear! WTF!!!
So my question is: how long before cash is obsolete? A few years ago there was an article in the Globe about a few eating places in Boston — coffee shops and such — that were refusing to take cash, which was against state law. But I haven’t seen or looked for any follow-up.
JanieM, in the OP: From another angle, the notion that as long as “everyday people…don’t see it,” then everything is hunky dory, is vicious.
Very, very true.
But: “notions” live in people’s heads, not in the ether. That includes the heads of “everyday people”, many of who vote.
I have repeatedly taunted Marty with the notion of a National ID Card because that’s something “everyday people” would, in fact, “see” in their everyday lives. Maybe they’d find it “hunky dory” since it would definitively ‘solve the problem’ of ‘illegal immigration’. Or maybe they’d find it constitutionally (or theologically!) unbearable. Who knows? Either way, it would at least reduce by one the number of ways in which “everyday people” are … special.
–TP
JanieM, in the OP: From another angle, the notion that as long as “everyday people…don’t see it,” then everything is hunky dory, is vicious.
Very, very true.
But: “notions” live in people’s heads, not in the ether. That includes the heads of “everyday people”, many of who vote.
I have repeatedly taunted Marty with the notion of a National ID Card because that’s something “everyday people” would, in fact, “see” in their everyday lives. Maybe they’d find it “hunky dory” since it would definitively ‘solve the problem’ of ‘illegal immigration’. Or maybe they’d find it constitutionally (or theologically!) unbearable. Who knows? Either way, it would at least reduce by one the number of ways in which “everyday people” are … special.
–TP
We already have a federal system for identifying who is and is not allowed to work in the US. People who are motivated to work around that – undocumented immigrants trying to make a living, and the people who hire them – find ways to work around that.
I can’t imagine a system that will make what is already in place in that context any more bulletproof without also being very intrusive. Depending on what you do for a living, you may already have to piss in a cup to get hired, citizen or no. Which, in fact, is an impediment to actually getting hired for a non-trivial number of people.
Both my license and my passport expire in the next 12 months, so I will be entering the Real ID universe.
Also FWIW, I have also begun using debit card exclusively for withdrawing cash, and have a dedicated credit card for all online purchases. I’ve been in the habit of using PayPal for everything online, but will probably start dialing that back, just to limit the concentration of ownership of information about what I do with my money.
Convenience is nice, not being treated like a product to be pimped out to every freaking Big Data firehose is nicer.
We already have a federal system for identifying who is and is not allowed to work in the US. People who are motivated to work around that – undocumented immigrants trying to make a living, and the people who hire them – find ways to work around that.
I can’t imagine a system that will make what is already in place in that context any more bulletproof without also being very intrusive. Depending on what you do for a living, you may already have to piss in a cup to get hired, citizen or no. Which, in fact, is an impediment to actually getting hired for a non-trivial number of people.
Both my license and my passport expire in the next 12 months, so I will be entering the Real ID universe.
Also FWIW, I have also begun using debit card exclusively for withdrawing cash, and have a dedicated credit card for all online purchases. I’ve been in the habit of using PayPal for everything online, but will probably start dialing that back, just to limit the concentration of ownership of information about what I do with my money.
Convenience is nice, not being treated like a product to be pimped out to every freaking Big Data firehose is nicer.
Sweden has gone far on the abolition of cash road already. Many locations/shops already don’t accept cash anymore and even beggars collect donations electronically.
Otherwise the main motive is to be able to go negative interest on commoners without an option to simply withdraw everything as cash to avoid that. Officially the motive for that is to promote spending and thus benefitting the economy but the real reason is of course the desire to redistribute the money upwards.
Sweden has gone far on the abolition of cash road already. Many locations/shops already don’t accept cash anymore and even beggars collect donations electronically.
Otherwise the main motive is to be able to go negative interest on commoners without an option to simply withdraw everything as cash to avoid that. Officially the motive for that is to promote spending and thus benefitting the economy but the real reason is of course the desire to redistribute the money upwards.
just as the idea that US illegal labor situation is some kind of crisis is entirely manufactured, the rubes can likely be convinced that it’s been solved – all the GOP needs to do is to declare it so.
but it’s politically useful for them. so they won’t.
just as the idea that US illegal labor situation is some kind of crisis is entirely manufactured, the rubes can likely be convinced that it’s been solved – all the GOP needs to do is to declare it so.
but it’s politically useful for them. so they won’t.
Both my license and my passport expire in the next 12 months, so I will be entering the Real ID universe.
i don’t know what the DMV is like in MA these days, but getting my real ID took 6.5 hours in NC. they take longer to process and the additional time has absoultely crushed the NC DMV.
Both my license and my passport expire in the next 12 months, so I will be entering the Real ID universe.
i don’t know what the DMV is like in MA these days, but getting my real ID took 6.5 hours in NC. they take longer to process and the additional time has absoultely crushed the NC DMV.
a National ID Card because that’s something “everyday people” would, in fact, “see” in their everyday lives.
Except they wouldn’t. As we can see from the Real ID, the national ID will probably piggyback on drivers licenses. And so be essentially invisible. (Well at least until they start being required for kids under 16.) After all, we long since reached the point where drivers licenses are essentially IDs for all of us. All that’s new is making the ID “national.”
a National ID Card because that’s something “everyday people” would, in fact, “see” in their everyday lives.
Except they wouldn’t. As we can see from the Real ID, the national ID will probably piggyback on drivers licenses. And so be essentially invisible. (Well at least until they start being required for kids under 16.) After all, we long since reached the point where drivers licenses are essentially IDs for all of us. All that’s new is making the ID “national.”
I refuse to give LL Bean or Staples my phone # when I check out with cash. The clerks always look at me like I’m from Betelgeuse.
I get a rather similar reaction when people discover that I don’t do Facebook.** I think we, as a culture, are already past the tipping point where (lack of) privacy is concerned.
** Of course, even I am not immune to the social media craze. I do have a LinkedIn listing. Simply because any time I apply for a job, the first thing they do is check LinkedIn. Partly to crosscheck the resume, of course. But mostly to look for common connections — personal testimony still being the best reference.
I confess, I do the same thing. The lack of a LinkedIn entry is a huge red flag. “What’s he hiding?” being the instant response.
I refuse to give LL Bean or Staples my phone # when I check out with cash. The clerks always look at me like I’m from Betelgeuse.
I get a rather similar reaction when people discover that I don’t do Facebook.** I think we, as a culture, are already past the tipping point where (lack of) privacy is concerned.
** Of course, even I am not immune to the social media craze. I do have a LinkedIn listing. Simply because any time I apply for a job, the first thing they do is check LinkedIn. Partly to crosscheck the resume, of course. But mostly to look for common connections — personal testimony still being the best reference.
I confess, I do the same thing. The lack of a LinkedIn entry is a huge red flag. “What’s he hiding?” being the instant response.
The Feds are increasing efforts to analyze Bitcoin blockchain data.
“The U.S. Treasury Department is stepping up its focus on illegal cryptocurrency-related activities. Recently, Treasury announced that its financial intelligence and enforcement agencies are collecting and analyzing Bitcoin addresses. These addresses are associated with several “Chinese kingpins” allegedly involved in “fueling America’s deadly opioid crisis.””
United States Intensifies Bitcoin Address Analysis in Opioid Fight
Some recent cryptocurrencies are using zero-knowledge proof resulting in transactions that can’t be analyzed.
“Zero knowledge proofs, …, are becoming the go-to privacy technology sought in blockchains at present. This is for good reason — they allow for true “zerocoin” transactions, meaning that coins transferred have no transaction history which can be tracked through the blockchain, and even the amounts are obscured from outside parties. Users transacting with these currencies can rest assured that their identity or use of funds will not be ascertained by any third party, regardless of their resources — an extremely powerful idea.”
The future of blockchain privacy: zero-knowledge proofs in decentralised exchanges
It’s a bit ironic that China is turning on its head the circumstances from 160 years ago.
Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency is making some people nervous. All kinds of business around the world use Facebook as a platform. Being able to bypass the fiat currency infrastructure while making transactions across political boundaries would be a boom. And very much unappreciated by countries and their tax collectors.
The Feds are increasing efforts to analyze Bitcoin blockchain data.
“The U.S. Treasury Department is stepping up its focus on illegal cryptocurrency-related activities. Recently, Treasury announced that its financial intelligence and enforcement agencies are collecting and analyzing Bitcoin addresses. These addresses are associated with several “Chinese kingpins” allegedly involved in “fueling America’s deadly opioid crisis.””
United States Intensifies Bitcoin Address Analysis in Opioid Fight
Some recent cryptocurrencies are using zero-knowledge proof resulting in transactions that can’t be analyzed.
“Zero knowledge proofs, …, are becoming the go-to privacy technology sought in blockchains at present. This is for good reason — they allow for true “zerocoin” transactions, meaning that coins transferred have no transaction history which can be tracked through the blockchain, and even the amounts are obscured from outside parties. Users transacting with these currencies can rest assured that their identity or use of funds will not be ascertained by any third party, regardless of their resources — an extremely powerful idea.”
The future of blockchain privacy: zero-knowledge proofs in decentralised exchanges
It’s a bit ironic that China is turning on its head the circumstances from 160 years ago.
Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency is making some people nervous. All kinds of business around the world use Facebook as a platform. Being able to bypass the fiat currency infrastructure while making transactions across political boundaries would be a boom. And very much unappreciated by countries and their tax collectors.
there’s a good and depressing article in WaPo about credit card data mining.
makes me want to … well, do nothing. the world is what it is. gotta get through it.
there’s a good and depressing article in WaPo about credit card data mining.
makes me want to … well, do nothing. the world is what it is. gotta get through it.
Being able to bypass the fiat currency infrastructure while making transactions across political boundaries would be a boom.
i like that ‘fiat’ currency is presumed inferior to a currency based on absolutely nothing but greed.
my fiction is better than your fiction because mine is valuable to people who want to convince others to buy it from them!
oh, it’s a Ponzi scheme?
no, it’s math, see!
fail.
Being able to bypass the fiat currency infrastructure while making transactions across political boundaries would be a boom.
i like that ‘fiat’ currency is presumed inferior to a currency based on absolutely nothing but greed.
my fiction is better than your fiction because mine is valuable to people who want to convince others to buy it from them!
oh, it’s a Ponzi scheme?
no, it’s math, see!
fail.
Fiat by algorithm.
Fiat by algorithm.
CharlesWT,
I understand that being able to avoid the transactional track that normal banking leaves would be a boom for different scams and money-laundering schemes. I have, nonetheless, two issues.
First, you equate the current banking system with fiat currency. Let us assume, arguendo, that dollar still had gold backing. Would the monetary system be any freer? During the time of actual metal-backed money, the ability to use bullion was, in practice, severely restricted by custom and government pressure. First, no one with a major stake in system would try to draw all their holdings from the central bank because it could create a panic. Second, if you tried, you would probably face intense pressure not to do so, and the press would be happy to support the government’s quasi and extralegal means to stop you. All modern metal backed systems were rather fragile and vulnerable to panics, and governments defended them very aggressively.
Second, even if we accept your statement that a complete ability of untrackable transactions would increase business activities, would the externalities of such growth be really covered by the profits? Today, the most important groups of people who strive for untraceability are fraudsters, tax evaders, drug dealers and sanctions evaders.
Of these groups, only tax evaders are engaging in legitimate businesses, so an increased efficiency of tax evasion allows, in theory, an increased volume of transactions, as base cost of taxes is effectively lowered. However, we have already seen that the most recent tax cuts have not really improved the economy markedly, so increased tax evasion is unlikely to allow a boom.
Fraudsters and drug dealers engage in businesses that hurt the economy. Improving their efficiency allows them to cause more massive externalities on the society. Every dollar they earn causes others to lose more than a dollar.
So, only sanctions evaders, who only hurt national security, but do not cause economic harm, might cause an overall addition to the economy, but their volume is so low that it is unlikely to cause any major effect.
CharlesWT,
I understand that being able to avoid the transactional track that normal banking leaves would be a boom for different scams and money-laundering schemes. I have, nonetheless, two issues.
First, you equate the current banking system with fiat currency. Let us assume, arguendo, that dollar still had gold backing. Would the monetary system be any freer? During the time of actual metal-backed money, the ability to use bullion was, in practice, severely restricted by custom and government pressure. First, no one with a major stake in system would try to draw all their holdings from the central bank because it could create a panic. Second, if you tried, you would probably face intense pressure not to do so, and the press would be happy to support the government’s quasi and extralegal means to stop you. All modern metal backed systems were rather fragile and vulnerable to panics, and governments defended them very aggressively.
Second, even if we accept your statement that a complete ability of untrackable transactions would increase business activities, would the externalities of such growth be really covered by the profits? Today, the most important groups of people who strive for untraceability are fraudsters, tax evaders, drug dealers and sanctions evaders.
Of these groups, only tax evaders are engaging in legitimate businesses, so an increased efficiency of tax evasion allows, in theory, an increased volume of transactions, as base cost of taxes is effectively lowered. However, we have already seen that the most recent tax cuts have not really improved the economy markedly, so increased tax evasion is unlikely to allow a boom.
Fraudsters and drug dealers engage in businesses that hurt the economy. Improving their efficiency allows them to cause more massive externalities on the society. Every dollar they earn causes others to lose more than a dollar.
So, only sanctions evaders, who only hurt national security, but do not cause economic harm, might cause an overall addition to the economy, but their volume is so low that it is unlikely to cause any major effect.
Definitely good for a laugh. If only, if only….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/26/trumps-is-spurring-global-economy/
Definitely good for a laugh. If only, if only….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/26/trumps-is-spurring-global-economy/
cleek,
The problem you have is the fact that the American system of vital and other population records is so bad. I got an ID card for my daughter this summer. I checked on the police website using my internet banking, and selected a passport/ID card application. It listed me and my children as the persons whom I can apply a passport for. After I selected my daughter, it printed out a complete application, with all necessary information already filled in, and simply asked me to verify it, and to upload a photo. The system did not ask for any info, because it picked everything from the population database. The government knows its citizens (and non-citizens).
Because she’s a minor, I then needed to send an invitation for my wife to co-sign the application. The system picked her email from the national population database, and suggested it. Finally, I paid the fee, and reserved an appointment at the police station for them to check that the photo matches the applicant. I arrived at the appointed time, waited some five minutes to be invited in, the lady at the counter asked my daughter her name, and the passport arrived in mail a week later.
That is the strength of a well-functioning population database. When the government is allowed to know your personal information, it can serve you so much better.
cleek,
The problem you have is the fact that the American system of vital and other population records is so bad. I got an ID card for my daughter this summer. I checked on the police website using my internet banking, and selected a passport/ID card application. It listed me and my children as the persons whom I can apply a passport for. After I selected my daughter, it printed out a complete application, with all necessary information already filled in, and simply asked me to verify it, and to upload a photo. The system did not ask for any info, because it picked everything from the population database. The government knows its citizens (and non-citizens).
Because she’s a minor, I then needed to send an invitation for my wife to co-sign the application. The system picked her email from the national population database, and suggested it. Finally, I paid the fee, and reserved an appointment at the police station for them to check that the photo matches the applicant. I arrived at the appointed time, waited some five minutes to be invited in, the lady at the counter asked my daughter her name, and the passport arrived in mail a week later.
That is the strength of a well-functioning population database. When the government is allowed to know your personal information, it can serve you so much better.
When the government is allowed to know your personal information, it can serve you so much better.
It can. But letting that happens requires a basic trust in your government. Which Americans increasingly lack — a paranoia enthusiastically pushed by massively self-interested “libertarians” like the Mercers and the Koch brothers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/us/david-koch-dead.html
When the government is allowed to know your personal information, it can serve you so much better.
It can. But letting that happens requires a basic trust in your government. Which Americans increasingly lack — a paranoia enthusiastically pushed by massively self-interested “libertarians” like the Mercers and the Koch brothers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/us/david-koch-dead.html
wj,
The feds will take it over after a few more cases like the one in California I mentioned earlier, where state DMV employees were bribed to insert false information into the database. The false information wasn’t a complete new identity in the California case, but that day will come. The federal employees will go on the already lengthy list of employees whose financial accounts are checked regularly by the computers.
wj,
The feds will take it over after a few more cases like the one in California I mentioned earlier, where state DMV employees were bribed to insert false information into the database. The false information wasn’t a complete new identity in the California case, but that day will come. The federal employees will go on the already lengthy list of employees whose financial accounts are checked regularly by the computers.
“i like that ‘fiat’ currency is presumed inferior to a currency based on absolutely nothing but greed.”
Our Fiat Currency is backed up by valuable goods!
24,000 Fiat Dollars gets you a Fiat! Vroom, vroom!
Make sure to drive with the lights on. Fiat Lux!
“i like that ‘fiat’ currency is presumed inferior to a currency based on absolutely nothing but greed.”
Our Fiat Currency is backed up by valuable goods!
24,000 Fiat Dollars gets you a Fiat! Vroom, vroom!
Make sure to drive with the lights on. Fiat Lux!
The value of Fiat cars is overinflated too.
The value of Fiat cars is overinflated too.
Snarki,
Fiat currencies have an important function: the monetary reserve can increase when the economy grows. Even the historians of the metal reserve age noticed this, and praised the increase in European wealth that the gold and silver imports from America brought along. They mixed the cause and effect: it was not the import of bullion that brought prosperity but the fact that this increased money supply, allowing for more commerce.
The greatest point against fiat currency is the fact that it can easily be inflated by the government, when national policy calls for it. However, no country has undergone a major war without either debasing its currency or simply stopping payments in bullion. So, if the government policy calls for it, the metal-backed currency loses its backing. Nobody really holds bullion to any great extent in a modern monetary system, so this will hurt everyone, and if bullion were widely in circulation, the government would debase the coinage. (In reality, debasement of coinage has not really been that necessary since late 18th century.) Because in a fiat regime, adjusting the value of currency is continuous and much less dramatic, the system is less prone to shocks, as the adjustments don’t need to take place in so great steps.
Third, the fiat currency is backed by one very real good: you can pay your taxes with it. The government is, at all times, funneling money into its coffers. You need dollars to pay your share, and so does everyone else. Even if everyone were using bitcoin, your dollars would have value, because you would need them to pay income, real estate and sales taxes. (It is a bit like today’s situation reversed: you need bitcoin to pay for illegal drugs, so your bitcoin have, in essence, backing in the national illegal drug market.)
Snarki,
Fiat currencies have an important function: the monetary reserve can increase when the economy grows. Even the historians of the metal reserve age noticed this, and praised the increase in European wealth that the gold and silver imports from America brought along. They mixed the cause and effect: it was not the import of bullion that brought prosperity but the fact that this increased money supply, allowing for more commerce.
The greatest point against fiat currency is the fact that it can easily be inflated by the government, when national policy calls for it. However, no country has undergone a major war without either debasing its currency or simply stopping payments in bullion. So, if the government policy calls for it, the metal-backed currency loses its backing. Nobody really holds bullion to any great extent in a modern monetary system, so this will hurt everyone, and if bullion were widely in circulation, the government would debase the coinage. (In reality, debasement of coinage has not really been that necessary since late 18th century.) Because in a fiat regime, adjusting the value of currency is continuous and much less dramatic, the system is less prone to shocks, as the adjustments don’t need to take place in so great steps.
Third, the fiat currency is backed by one very real good: you can pay your taxes with it. The government is, at all times, funneling money into its coffers. You need dollars to pay your share, and so does everyone else. Even if everyone were using bitcoin, your dollars would have value, because you would need them to pay income, real estate and sales taxes. (It is a bit like today’s situation reversed: you need bitcoin to pay for illegal drugs, so your bitcoin have, in essence, backing in the national illegal drug market.)
When the government is allowed to know your personal information, it can serve you so much better.
That by itself defies the political philosophy of the GOP*. A working and functional government is (outside of culture war issues) the one thing it cannot tolerate because it violates fundamental dogma.
*since at least Reagan
When the government is allowed to know your personal information, it can serve you so much better.
That by itself defies the political philosophy of the GOP*. A working and functional government is (outside of culture war issues) the one thing it cannot tolerate because it violates fundamental dogma.
*since at least Reagan
Our Fiat Currency is backed up by valuable goods!
24,000 Fiat Dollars gets you a Fiat! Vroom, vroom!
All currency is, to some extent, fiat currency. Even gold has minimal intrinsic value; it is valuable because we agree that it is valuable, and are willing to exchange other items of value for it. A shared delusion, if you like.
About the only difference between any other basis of a currency and a “fiat currency” is that the government accepts/requires the latter for payment of taxes**. And it is far more convenient if you have a single currency, rather than be constantly converting from one to the other. Just ask the folks in the Euro zone!
** As Lurker noted while I was writing this.
Our Fiat Currency is backed up by valuable goods!
24,000 Fiat Dollars gets you a Fiat! Vroom, vroom!
All currency is, to some extent, fiat currency. Even gold has minimal intrinsic value; it is valuable because we agree that it is valuable, and are willing to exchange other items of value for it. A shared delusion, if you like.
About the only difference between any other basis of a currency and a “fiat currency” is that the government accepts/requires the latter for payment of taxes**. And it is far more convenient if you have a single currency, rather than be constantly converting from one to the other. Just ask the folks in the Euro zone!
** As Lurker noted while I was writing this.
mmmm…the drug standard? Interesting.
Next?
Drugbugs!
Colombian Peso as the international reserve currency?
Many entertaining possibilities. 🙂
I vote to award the thread win to Lurker.
mmmm…the drug standard? Interesting.
Next?
Drugbugs!
Colombian Peso as the international reserve currency?
Many entertaining possibilities. 🙂
I vote to award the thread win to Lurker.
i wanna grow up to be a debaser
i wanna grow up to be a debaser
However, no country has undergone a major war without either debasing its currency or simply stopping payments in bullion.
I seem to recall there was one time in the long history of the wars between England and France when England actually went through a painful stretch of austerity and paid off their war debt. France defaulted. As I recall the lecture, England won the next of the wars fairly easily because the English got much better interest rates than the French could get.
It was a long time ago that I heard it, and I think the lecturer made a point that it only happened once.
I may also be completely wrong.
However, no country has undergone a major war without either debasing its currency or simply stopping payments in bullion.
I seem to recall there was one time in the long history of the wars between England and France when England actually went through a painful stretch of austerity and paid off their war debt. France defaulted. As I recall the lecture, England won the next of the wars fairly easily because the English got much better interest rates than the French could get.
It was a long time ago that I heard it, and I think the lecturer made a point that it only happened once.
I may also be completely wrong.
Sorry. I stand corrected. My history goes only down to Napoleonic wars. Before that, the system was much more dependent on bullion, because bank notes had not been really that big a thing. Anyhow, England dropped out of convertibility during Napoleonic Wars, and in both World Wars. She paid her debts in paper money, with limited government-induced inflation.
A short googling gives this interesting paper, which might be the source of the lecture you describe
https://www.nber.org/papers/w3517
Sorry. I stand corrected. My history goes only down to Napoleonic wars. Before that, the system was much more dependent on bullion, because bank notes had not been really that big a thing. Anyhow, England dropped out of convertibility during Napoleonic Wars, and in both World Wars. She paid her debts in paper money, with limited government-induced inflation.
A short googling gives this interesting paper, which might be the source of the lecture you describe
https://www.nber.org/papers/w3517
Gold has intrinsic value, as an industrial metal and, for now, jewelry. Its price goes up and down as an alternative investment, but there is a floor somewhere down there based on the limited supply and industrial/consumer demand.
Gold has intrinsic value, as an industrial metal and, for now, jewelry. Its price goes up and down as an alternative investment, but there is a floor somewhere down there based on the limited supply and industrial/consumer demand.
Concessions at Mercedes-Benz Stadium here in Atlanta are now cashless, don’t recall seeing if there are other venues around the U.S. that have taken that step..
Concessions at Mercedes-Benz Stadium here in Atlanta are now cashless, don’t recall seeing if there are other venues around the U.S. that have taken that step..
Gold is (to my knowledge) an unessential element, i.e. it could be replaced/substituted completely without major changes to our civilisation*. If copper, iron or even platinum would be removed, the (human) world of today could not exist (ignoring for the moment that our very biology depends on the presence of copper and iron in enzymes and in the oxygen carriers in our blood).
*if it did not exist in our universe, only chemists would have noticed it as a gap in the PSE. And I consider it unlikely that they would even today hace deduced its properties (it’s the only element whose macroscopic/visible properties are strongly influenced by relativistic effects).
Gold is (to my knowledge) an unessential element, i.e. it could be replaced/substituted completely without major changes to our civilisation*. If copper, iron or even platinum would be removed, the (human) world of today could not exist (ignoring for the moment that our very biology depends on the presence of copper and iron in enzymes and in the oxygen carriers in our blood).
*if it did not exist in our universe, only chemists would have noticed it as a gap in the PSE. And I consider it unlikely that they would even today hace deduced its properties (it’s the only element whose macroscopic/visible properties are strongly influenced by relativistic effects).
Gold has intrinsic value, as an industrial metal and, for now, jewelry. Its price goes up and down as an alternative investment, but there is a floor somewhere down there based on the limited supply and industrial/consumer demand.
Quite true. But gold’s intrinsic value for industrial uses is a tiny fraction of its current market value. (Which is based on a shared view of its worth as money.) It’s got some usefulness in electrical components. But it’s too soft for anything structural.
There are alternative electrical metals which, even where not quite as good, are close enough that, absent historical/nostalgia use as money, would give a value of $20/oz (vs about $1,500). (Silver, which is actually a better conductor of electricity, is currently around $18.)
Gold has intrinsic value, as an industrial metal and, for now, jewelry. Its price goes up and down as an alternative investment, but there is a floor somewhere down there based on the limited supply and industrial/consumer demand.
Quite true. But gold’s intrinsic value for industrial uses is a tiny fraction of its current market value. (Which is based on a shared view of its worth as money.) It’s got some usefulness in electrical components. But it’s too soft for anything structural.
There are alternative electrical metals which, even where not quite as good, are close enough that, absent historical/nostalgia use as money, would give a value of $20/oz (vs about $1,500). (Silver, which is actually a better conductor of electricity, is currently around $18.)
I dont know wj, it gets used a lot in electronics even at current prices. Not that it wouldnt be cheaper, but has enough advantage to still get used.
I dont know wj, it gets used a lot in electronics even at current prices. Not that it wouldnt be cheaper, but has enough advantage to still get used.
Gold is used in medical applications that might not be feasible using other materials.
Gold is used in medical applications that might not be feasible using other materials.
One use not mentioned above is to separate many otherwise ordinary citizens from their allegedly “worthless” fiat currency.
Other uses listed here.
One use not mentioned above is to separate many otherwise ordinary citizens from their allegedly “worthless” fiat currency.
Other uses listed here.
I dont know wj, it gets used a lot in electronics even at current prices. Not that it wouldnt be cheaper, but has enough advantage to still get used.
Yes, but.
Absent all those supposed value uses (which are over half of the “uses” listed in bobbyp’s link), the demand would be vastly lower. Leading to a far lower price.
I dont know wj, it gets used a lot in electronics even at current prices. Not that it wouldnt be cheaper, but has enough advantage to still get used.
Yes, but.
Absent all those supposed value uses (which are over half of the “uses” listed in bobbyp’s link), the demand would be vastly lower. Leading to a far lower price.
If gold’s only value was its intrinsic value, a lot less of it would have been mined. In that universe, it might be worth quite a bit more than $20/oz.
If gold’s only value was its intrinsic value, a lot less of it would have been mined. In that universe, it might be worth quite a bit more than $20/oz.
Spain once just about turned gold and silver into fiat currencies. It thought it could become incredibly wealthy by hauling as much gold and silver back from the Americas as it could. Instead, the more it imported, the less it was worth until its economy completely collapsed.
Meanwhile, the northern European countries got wealthy by exchanging goods and services with each other using gold and silver, some of it from the Americas, as medians of exchange.
Spain once just about turned gold and silver into fiat currencies. It thought it could become incredibly wealthy by hauling as much gold and silver back from the Americas as it could. Instead, the more it imported, the less it was worth until its economy completely collapsed.
Meanwhile, the northern European countries got wealthy by exchanging goods and services with each other using gold and silver, some of it from the Americas, as medians of exchange.
wj: As we can see from the Real ID, the national ID will probably piggyback on drivers licenses. And so be essentially invisible.
Harumph. Any National ID Card that would actually be useful in addressing the ‘illegal immigration problem’ would hardly be “invisible” to Real Murkins, whether they drive a car or not. At City Hall, at the bank, at a job interview, at school enrollment, when signing up for internet access or a phone line or electricity, let alone at any interaction with ‘law enforcement’, the demand to “Show me your papers” would confront the fair-skinned and the blue-eyed just like the Hispanic and the Asian. Nicaraguans, Norwegians, and Nebraskans would all be ‘illegals’ unless they could show a valid, current, National ID Card on demand.
Alternatively, of course, the Real Murkins who keep caterwauling about ‘illegal immigration’ but want no part of “National ID” can kiss my ass.
–TP
wj: As we can see from the Real ID, the national ID will probably piggyback on drivers licenses. And so be essentially invisible.
Harumph. Any National ID Card that would actually be useful in addressing the ‘illegal immigration problem’ would hardly be “invisible” to Real Murkins, whether they drive a car or not. At City Hall, at the bank, at a job interview, at school enrollment, when signing up for internet access or a phone line or electricity, let alone at any interaction with ‘law enforcement’, the demand to “Show me your papers” would confront the fair-skinned and the blue-eyed just like the Hispanic and the Asian. Nicaraguans, Norwegians, and Nebraskans would all be ‘illegals’ unless they could show a valid, current, National ID Card on demand.
Alternatively, of course, the Real Murkins who keep caterwauling about ‘illegal immigration’ but want no part of “National ID” can kiss my ass.
–TP
it might be worth quite a bit more than $20/oz.
In which case…. more of it would probably be mined.
it might be worth quite a bit more than $20/oz.
In which case…. more of it would probably be mined.
Real Murkins don’t live in cities. Which means that public transit is slim to nonexistent. So driving is a necessity. Thus all Real Murkins already have drivers licenses — and probably have since the day they turned 16 (or whatever the minimum age is in their state). So there would be no particularly noticable impact in getting their papers. Which was my point. Getting routinely asked for their papers would, as Tony says, be a different story.
An interesting question is, what kind of documentation would be required to get papers in the first place? I mean, my citizenship is based on where I was born. But how do you prove that the birth certificate you are presenting is really yours? Mine, for example, includes neither fingerprints not foot prints (at the time, a common way to track infants in hospital). Certainly nobody took a DNA sample. So what actually proves you are who you say you are?
Real Murkins don’t live in cities. Which means that public transit is slim to nonexistent. So driving is a necessity. Thus all Real Murkins already have drivers licenses — and probably have since the day they turned 16 (or whatever the minimum age is in their state). So there would be no particularly noticable impact in getting their papers. Which was my point. Getting routinely asked for their papers would, as Tony says, be a different story.
An interesting question is, what kind of documentation would be required to get papers in the first place? I mean, my citizenship is based on where I was born. But how do you prove that the birth certificate you are presenting is really yours? Mine, for example, includes neither fingerprints not foot prints (at the time, a common way to track infants in hospital). Certainly nobody took a DNA sample. So what actually proves you are who you say you are?
In which case…. more of it would probably be mined.
But not as much as there has been mined.
In which case…. more of it would probably be mined.
But not as much as there has been mined.
wj,
You question reveals the greatest weakness of the ID system. It works reliably only if you have also a national population database. Such a database allows very nicely also the identification of a person.
First of all, the database includes the personal history of addresses. You can quiz the person a) about those addresses and, if suspicion arises b) about the landmarks in the vicinity of their previous homes. Then you can ask about their relatives, because the system has also names of spouses, parents and children stored. You can ask about their personal histories. To pass such a quiz, you are probably you, and we haven’t yet checked the school yearbooks and taxman’s registers yet. And naturally, you should look like your previous photo on the ID and have an accent and vocabulary matching your personal history. Last, you should know reliably that the person in question will not apply for an ID of their own nor cause otherwise register markings into authority registers. (E.g. an asylum patient might have his address changed to the database by the staff.) For example, tax and social security payments withheld by two employers in different parts of the country should raise a red flag at the enforcement authorities, triggering further investigation; one of those employees is impersonating the other.
In general, you will have a few very specific types of person that are more easy to impersonate than others, and you can easily target those persons for extra scrutiny.
The only persons who could pass easily are children applying for their first ID, but they usually have a parent or guardian vouching for them. And because children are, usually, enrolled in school, they are very difficult to swap. The friends and teachers will notice.
So, for an adult, impersonating another person becomes a very laborious task if there is a national register, and in any case, it requires you to have hidden the body of the person being impersonated well.
Then you could ask what good will such a register bring? One very good thing is that it allows for more efficient credit. When the debtor has identified themselves, the creditor knows that in case of debtor skipping town, the execution authorities can and will easily track him through the country and enforce debts there, the likelihood of non-payment decreases, which increases trust and makes the economy more efficient.
wj,
You question reveals the greatest weakness of the ID system. It works reliably only if you have also a national population database. Such a database allows very nicely also the identification of a person.
First of all, the database includes the personal history of addresses. You can quiz the person a) about those addresses and, if suspicion arises b) about the landmarks in the vicinity of their previous homes. Then you can ask about their relatives, because the system has also names of spouses, parents and children stored. You can ask about their personal histories. To pass such a quiz, you are probably you, and we haven’t yet checked the school yearbooks and taxman’s registers yet. And naturally, you should look like your previous photo on the ID and have an accent and vocabulary matching your personal history. Last, you should know reliably that the person in question will not apply for an ID of their own nor cause otherwise register markings into authority registers. (E.g. an asylum patient might have his address changed to the database by the staff.) For example, tax and social security payments withheld by two employers in different parts of the country should raise a red flag at the enforcement authorities, triggering further investigation; one of those employees is impersonating the other.
In general, you will have a few very specific types of person that are more easy to impersonate than others, and you can easily target those persons for extra scrutiny.
The only persons who could pass easily are children applying for their first ID, but they usually have a parent or guardian vouching for them. And because children are, usually, enrolled in school, they are very difficult to swap. The friends and teachers will notice.
So, for an adult, impersonating another person becomes a very laborious task if there is a national register, and in any case, it requires you to have hidden the body of the person being impersonated well.
Then you could ask what good will such a register bring? One very good thing is that it allows for more efficient credit. When the debtor has identified themselves, the creditor knows that in case of debtor skipping town, the execution authorities can and will easily track him through the country and enforce debts there, the likelihood of non-payment decreases, which increases trust and makes the economy more efficient.
But not as much as there has been mined.
Yes. A huge buy signal.
BUY. BUY. BUY.
But is its price topping out?
SELL. SELL. SELL
Or just watch TV.
But not as much as there has been mined.
Yes. A huge buy signal.
BUY. BUY. BUY.
But is its price topping out?
SELL. SELL. SELL
Or just watch TV.
You question reveals the greatest weakness of the ID system. It works reliably only if you have also a national population database. Such a database allows very nicely also the identification of a person.
I accept your point, once the system is up and running. But I see challenges getting from here to there. In a small country, sure. But in a huge one? Not going to be easy. Or quick. (And Witness Protection Programs ate going to be tough, even granting insider access to fudge to database.)
For example, tax and social security payments withheld by two employers in different parts of the country should raise a red flag at the enforcement authorities, triggering further investigation; one of those employees is impersonating the other.
There, at least, you are wrong. These days, it’s entirely possible to live in one part of the country while getting paid in another. And if you happen to be holding two jobs, you could be paying taxes in even more places. And that’s before you get to S-corps — corporations where the owners pay personal taxes on their share of the profits. In the various states where the corporation does business. (I note that I live in California, but get to pay state income taxes both there and on the far side of the country in New York. I won’t be surprised if I pick up another state or two in the next few years.)
You question reveals the greatest weakness of the ID system. It works reliably only if you have also a national population database. Such a database allows very nicely also the identification of a person.
I accept your point, once the system is up and running. But I see challenges getting from here to there. In a small country, sure. But in a huge one? Not going to be easy. Or quick. (And Witness Protection Programs ate going to be tough, even granting insider access to fudge to database.)
For example, tax and social security payments withheld by two employers in different parts of the country should raise a red flag at the enforcement authorities, triggering further investigation; one of those employees is impersonating the other.
There, at least, you are wrong. These days, it’s entirely possible to live in one part of the country while getting paid in another. And if you happen to be holding two jobs, you could be paying taxes in even more places. And that’s before you get to S-corps — corporations where the owners pay personal taxes on their share of the profits. In the various states where the corporation does business. (I note that I live in California, but get to pay state income taxes both there and on the far side of the country in New York. I won’t be surprised if I pick up another state or two in the next few years.)
In the US such a database would be the DMV writ large. And much more consequential.
In the US such a database would be the DMV writ large. And much more consequential.
How quaint The Prisoner now seems…
” I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own!…”
How quaint The Prisoner now seems…
” I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own!…”
“When people claim to know me, I can no longer act freely.”
Jerzy Kozinski in “The Painted Bird” (IIRC)
OTOH, bah. i’m already quite well-known by banks, stores, doctors, insurers, web sites, gene sequencing companies and the government. i have no doubt that there’s no INNER JOIN out there that hasn’t been done already on my various data sets.
hell, my job is in ‘big data’. i’m part of the problem.
bring on the omniscope, i say. let us reap the benefits of Knowing.
“When people claim to know me, I can no longer act freely.”
Jerzy Kozinski in “The Painted Bird” (IIRC)
OTOH, bah. i’m already quite well-known by banks, stores, doctors, insurers, web sites, gene sequencing companies and the government. i have no doubt that there’s no INNER JOIN out there that hasn’t been done already on my various data sets.
hell, my job is in ‘big data’. i’m part of the problem.
bring on the omniscope, i say. let us reap the benefits of Knowing.
Finishing this up. Big book, really too much to take in, but my takeaway is that American concern and fear over big government (@20% of the economy) data and surveillance is laughable compared to what we signed away contractually (yeah, you did) to the other 80% of the economy …. the private sector … which gives not one shit about the privacy of our individual private sectors.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/02/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism/
We are a laughable people, and I count myself among em.
We’ve no idea. No fucking idea.
Like fracking, regardless of whether we agree with the need, big data took what they wanted and still are before anyone knew we were being drilled from every direction, over, under, and sideways, or could even articulate possible “unforeseen consequences, blah fucking blah”.
Move fast. Disrupt. Ask questions later.
Try getting some answers.
There’s nothing to even shoot at.
Google (I use) and Facebook (not me) alone have multiple drilling rigs up our private data butts and we are now hooked up to data pipelines and our data pumped for the benefit of commerce.
The government should be so lucky.
Americans and American business, as a class of people, are predatory motherfuckers.
Fuck us.
They took the cat out of the bag and drowned it and now each of us are fully bagged as data trophies.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/02/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism/
There are other reviews too, if you don’t trust The Intercept.
Trust? Patooie!
Think of the power of this, designed by Google:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N6JrtfGoBI
What could go wrong?
Finishing this up. Big book, really too much to take in, but my takeaway is that American concern and fear over big government (@20% of the economy) data and surveillance is laughable compared to what we signed away contractually (yeah, you did) to the other 80% of the economy …. the private sector … which gives not one shit about the privacy of our individual private sectors.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/02/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism/
We are a laughable people, and I count myself among em.
We’ve no idea. No fucking idea.
Like fracking, regardless of whether we agree with the need, big data took what they wanted and still are before anyone knew we were being drilled from every direction, over, under, and sideways, or could even articulate possible “unforeseen consequences, blah fucking blah”.
Move fast. Disrupt. Ask questions later.
Try getting some answers.
There’s nothing to even shoot at.
Google (I use) and Facebook (not me) alone have multiple drilling rigs up our private data butts and we are now hooked up to data pipelines and our data pumped for the benefit of commerce.
The government should be so lucky.
Americans and American business, as a class of people, are predatory motherfuckers.
Fuck us.
They took the cat out of the bag and drowned it and now each of us are fully bagged as data trophies.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/02/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism/
There are other reviews too, if you don’t trust The Intercept.
Trust? Patooie!
Think of the power of this, designed by Google:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N6JrtfGoBI
What could go wrong?
what we signed away contractually (yeah, you did)
Does ANYBODY actually read any of those agreements? Especially the on-line ones? I suspect “1 in a million” would be on the high side. Even among lawyers (who might at least have a chance of understanding them) I doubt the numbers are all that high.
what we signed away contractually (yeah, you did)
Does ANYBODY actually read any of those agreements? Especially the on-line ones? I suspect “1 in a million” would be on the high side. Even among lawyers (who might at least have a chance of understanding them) I doubt the numbers are all that high.
For Europeans the salvatory/jurisdictional clause in the typical licencing agreements (=local laws apply outside the US) is the most important one. Otherwise most of those ‘agreements’ would be nil and void for being contrary to public policy (contra bonos mores) in most places.
For Europeans the salvatory/jurisdictional clause in the typical licencing agreements (=local laws apply outside the US) is the most important one. Otherwise most of those ‘agreements’ would be nil and void for being contrary to public policy (contra bonos mores) in most places.
An interview with Surveillance Capitalism author Zuboff:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and-a-the-age-of-surveillance-capital.html
Not only do we not read the contracts, I don’t, but we don’t have time to read them AND the perhaps thousands of other contracts that are extensions of the single contract in front of you that you just clicked “yes” on, which enable infinite users of “users’ of your data (your Roomba maps your bedroom; the map isn’t yours) and enable the modification of your behavior on behalf of whatever conglomeration of technology you’ve unwittingly signed on to.
The human brain can’t wrap itself around the now “inevitable” all-encompassing nature of this beast.
It’s like playing the game “GO” or chess with A. I.
It’s a fait accompli.
To what end?
This:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc
It’s not your Uncle Ira:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3vPlEm1nig
But we’ve signed on, so it kind of has to be your Uncle Ira.
An interview with Surveillance Capitalism author Zuboff:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and-a-the-age-of-surveillance-capital.html
Not only do we not read the contracts, I don’t, but we don’t have time to read them AND the perhaps thousands of other contracts that are extensions of the single contract in front of you that you just clicked “yes” on, which enable infinite users of “users’ of your data (your Roomba maps your bedroom; the map isn’t yours) and enable the modification of your behavior on behalf of whatever conglomeration of technology you’ve unwittingly signed on to.
The human brain can’t wrap itself around the now “inevitable” all-encompassing nature of this beast.
It’s like playing the game “GO” or chess with A. I.
It’s a fait accompli.
To what end?
This:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc
It’s not your Uncle Ira:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3vPlEm1nig
But we’ve signed on, so it kind of has to be your Uncle Ira.
It’s “home-style” “gourmet”, “hearty” shit in a can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c04M7JfuK8
It’s you in a can.
It’s “home-style” “gourmet”, “hearty” shit in a can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c04M7JfuK8
It’s you in a can.
It’s a fait accompli.
Yes, but it is the direct result of consciously adopted public policies.
I’ve heard that can be changed, even by any means necessary (cf Civil War).
It’s a fait accompli.
Yes, but it is the direct result of consciously adopted public policies.
I’ve heard that can be changed, even by any means necessary (cf Civil War).
I’ve heard that can be changed, even by any means necessary (cf Civil War).
Or even just by something as simple as passing GDPR. Admittedly it might be rough getting something like that thru the US Congress. But not impossible.
I’ve heard that can be changed, even by any means necessary (cf Civil War).
Or even just by something as simple as passing GDPR. Admittedly it might be rough getting something like that thru the US Congress. But not impossible.
What goes around:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/russia-deny-visa-johnson-murphy
Why would any country in the world permit members of a dangerous rogue political movement to invade their borders?
What goes around:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/russia-deny-visa-johnson-murphy
Why would any country in the world permit members of a dangerous rogue political movement to invade their borders?
a promise of a pardon for a crime sounds to me like conspiracy to commit a crime. though IANAL.
a promise of a pardon for a crime sounds to me like conspiracy to commit a crime. though IANAL.
Time to see the lout’s papers:
https://juanitajean.com/breaking-news-during-the-ballgame-here-ya-go/
Execute him.
The line the rest of them up.
Time to see the lout’s papers:
https://juanitajean.com/breaking-news-during-the-ballgame-here-ya-go/
Execute him.
The line the rest of them up.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881933/-Boris-Johnson-suspends-parliament-as-U-K-lurches-toward-no-deal-Brexit-with-a-very-British-coup
Execute the entire conservative nationalist movement the world over.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/28/1881933/-Boris-Johnson-suspends-parliament-as-U-K-lurches-toward-no-deal-Brexit-with-a-very-British-coup
Execute the entire conservative nationalist movement the world over.
For any UK citizens etc, there is a petition up on petitiondotparliamentdotuk to stop prorogation (I cannot post actual link).
For any UK citizens etc, there is a petition up on petitiondotparliamentdotuk to stop prorogation (I cannot post actual link).
a promise of a pardon for a crime sounds to me like conspiracy to commit a crime. though IANAL
I confess that I wasn’t surprised by the rumors that Trump might have dangled the promise of a pardon in front of a couple of the witnesses in the Mueller investigation. It seemed entirely in keeping with his mob boss approach to doing business. But those conversations were, naturally, private. And designed to keep people from flipping.
Here we have him promising pardons, in advance, for acts not yet committed. In sufficiently public settings that we get multiple reports out of the White House that he is doing so.
Not just shameless contempt for the law, which no longer surprises. But this shows a feeling of absolute personal immunity on Trump’s part. Which, for me, is even scarier.
a promise of a pardon for a crime sounds to me like conspiracy to commit a crime. though IANAL
I confess that I wasn’t surprised by the rumors that Trump might have dangled the promise of a pardon in front of a couple of the witnesses in the Mueller investigation. It seemed entirely in keeping with his mob boss approach to doing business. But those conversations were, naturally, private. And designed to keep people from flipping.
Here we have him promising pardons, in advance, for acts not yet committed. In sufficiently public settings that we get multiple reports out of the White House that he is doing so.
Not just shameless contempt for the law, which no longer surprises. But this shows a feeling of absolute personal immunity on Trump’s part. Which, for me, is even scarier.
From the link about the UK:
Perhaps it’s time for Her Majesty to reach back to that same time. Give it a week or two, then call Parliament back into session whether the PM wishes or not. God save the Queen!
From the link about the UK:
Perhaps it’s time for Her Majesty to reach back to that same time. Give it a week or two, then call Parliament back into session whether the PM wishes or not. God save the Queen!
But this shows a feeling of absolute personal immunity on Trump’s part.
for which we can entirely thank the Congressional GOP.
But this shows a feeling of absolute personal immunity on Trump’s part.
for which we can entirely thank the Congressional GOP.
GFTNC, I notice that the petition (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157 ) runs until February 2020. Any bets on whether, even though it’s already got 50 times necessary signatures (and rising fast; the last digit or two of the count is a bit of a blur) to mandate a response, Johnson decides to just ignore it for a couple months?
GFTNC, I notice that the petition (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157 ) runs until February 2020. Any bets on whether, even though it’s already got 50 times necessary signatures (and rising fast; the last digit or two of the count is a bit of a blur) to mandate a response, Johnson decides to just ignore it for a couple months?
As Tropical Storm (potentially hurricane) Dorian barrels towards the US, we see this https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-will-divert-disaster-relief-funds-to-us-mexico-border-enforcement-prompting-outcry-from-democrats/2019/08/27/ba20dd30-c903-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html
It occurs to me to wonder,. Suppose Trump actually does divert emergency response funds to build his wall. And then a hurricane does hit Florida, with no funds available., Does that lose him that state next year? Ditto even Alabama or Mississippi. How much personal pain are his fans willing to bear on his behalf?
As Tropical Storm (potentially hurricane) Dorian barrels towards the US, we see this https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-will-divert-disaster-relief-funds-to-us-mexico-border-enforcement-prompting-outcry-from-democrats/2019/08/27/ba20dd30-c903-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html
It occurs to me to wonder,. Suppose Trump actually does divert emergency response funds to build his wall. And then a hurricane does hit Florida, with no funds available., Does that lose him that state next year? Ditto even Alabama or Mississippi. How much personal pain are his fans willing to bear on his behalf?
Of course he’ll ignore it.
The problem is that proroguing Parliament in the middle of what is effectively a constitutional crisis, while outrageous, is legally entirely valid (which is why the Queen assented to it so readily).
The solution lies in Parliament’s hands, if they can get a majority to agree on a single course of action within the next few days. Which is not impossible but not overwhelmingly probable, either,
Of course he’ll ignore it.
The problem is that proroguing Parliament in the middle of what is effectively a constitutional crisis, while outrageous, is legally entirely valid (which is why the Queen assented to it so readily).
The solution lies in Parliament’s hands, if they can get a majority to agree on a single course of action within the next few days. Which is not impossible but not overwhelmingly probable, either,
Nigel: … legally entirely valid (which is why the Queen assented to it so readily).
I guess Her Majesty subscribes to the notion of politics-as-hopscotch — i.e. a ritualistic game in which a slavish adherence to The Rules is the only object. Not surprising, since the Fascists of the world have cowed pundits and the public alike into accepting the farcical premise that Real Life is secondary to The Rules.
If only Queen Elizabeth were the ONLY little old lady with that view. Alas, the world is full of such little old ladies, of both sexes and of all ages, on both sides of the Atlantic.
–TP
Nigel: … legally entirely valid (which is why the Queen assented to it so readily).
I guess Her Majesty subscribes to the notion of politics-as-hopscotch — i.e. a ritualistic game in which a slavish adherence to The Rules is the only object. Not surprising, since the Fascists of the world have cowed pundits and the public alike into accepting the farcical premise that Real Life is secondary to The Rules.
If only Queen Elizabeth were the ONLY little old lady with that view. Alas, the world is full of such little old ladies, of both sexes and of all ages, on both sides of the Atlantic.
–TP
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-administration-end-protection-sick-immigrants-deportation
Corrupt vermin. Vengeance will out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt7hKx99PYk
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-administration-end-protection-sick-immigrants-deportation
Corrupt vermin. Vengeance will out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt7hKx99PYk
As Tropical Storm (potentially hurricane) Dorian barrels towards the US…
The latest forecast has Dorian hitting Florida as a major (category 3 or higher) hurricane sometime Monday morning.
As Tropical Storm (potentially hurricane) Dorian barrels towards the US…
The latest forecast has Dorian hitting Florida as a major (category 3 or higher) hurricane sometime Monday morning.
With luck, Puerto Rico will be spared the worst of it. Since, obviously, emergency assistance for them is totally off the table.
With luck, Puerto Rico will be spared the worst of it. Since, obviously, emergency assistance for them is totally off the table.
I guess Her Majesty subscribes to the notion of politics-as-hopscotch — i.e. a ritualistic game in which a slavish adherence to The Rules is the only object.
Well, slavish adherence to the rules is more or less the duty of a constitutional monarch.
The problem somewhere, of course, when the country encounters a situation the rules don’t even contemplate (and as our constitution wasn’t really designed in the first place, not much contemplating ever went on).
The collision between a referendum (rare anyway in our democracy) and a Parliament so calamitously hung, it could not have been better designed to be incapable of making decisions, might well test our constitution to destruction.
I guess Her Majesty subscribes to the notion of politics-as-hopscotch — i.e. a ritualistic game in which a slavish adherence to The Rules is the only object.
Well, slavish adherence to the rules is more or less the duty of a constitutional monarch.
The problem somewhere, of course, when the country encounters a situation the rules don’t even contemplate (and as our constitution wasn’t really designed in the first place, not much contemplating ever went on).
The collision between a referendum (rare anyway in our democracy) and a Parliament so calamitously hung, it could not have been better designed to be incapable of making decisions, might well test our constitution to destruction.
Now I think on it more, Real Life for a constitutional monarch is indeed best served by subservience to Her Prime Minister, however daft. Real Life for Her Loyal Subjects is a different story, I imagine.
–TP
Now I think on it more, Real Life for a constitutional monarch is indeed best served by subservience to Her Prime Minister, however daft. Real Life for Her Loyal Subjects is a different story, I imagine.
–TP
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/donald-trump-brings-back-manifest-destiny/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU
Kill.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/donald-trump-brings-back-manifest-destiny/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU
Kill.
Real Life for a constitutional monarch is indeed best served by subservience to Her Prime Minister, however daft.
It seems to me that the whole point of a constitutional monarch, especially in a system where there isn’t actually a formal written constitution, is precisely to deal with situations like this. That is, where the government is clearly not able to act to prevent an entirely predictable disaster.
Certainly its not something that one would like to see used often or capriciously. But as a fail-safe it seems like a good idea to use it.
Real Life for a constitutional monarch is indeed best served by subservience to Her Prime Minister, however daft.
It seems to me that the whole point of a constitutional monarch, especially in a system where there isn’t actually a formal written constitution, is precisely to deal with situations like this. That is, where the government is clearly not able to act to prevent an entirely predictable disaster.
Certainly its not something that one would like to see used often or capriciously. But as a fail-safe it seems like a good idea to use it.
Today we turned into a banana republic. I’m sick and tired of this – do they have no decency at all? At least they put Salvini back in his box.
Today we turned into a banana republic. I’m sick and tired of this – do they have no decency at all? At least they put Salvini back in his box.
novakant,
well, what did ‘we’ do?
novakant,
well, what did ‘we’ do?
‘We’, i.e. the unelected, ethically challenged narcissist running our wretched country, prorogued, i.e. suspended parliament to force a no-deal Brexit through without any democratic scrutiny simply by running down the clock.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/mps-call-for-drastic-action-against-prorogation-of-parliament
‘We’, i.e. the unelected, ethically challenged narcissist running our wretched country, prorogued, i.e. suspended parliament to force a no-deal Brexit through without any democratic scrutiny simply by running down the clock.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/mps-call-for-drastic-action-against-prorogation-of-parliament
The UK parliament is in a bit of a pickle. If it prevents Brexit, it’ll be accused of usurping democracy. A majority of voters voted for Brexit. If it follows through with Brexit, it will be blamed for none of the good and all of the bad that follows from it.
The UK parliament is in a bit of a pickle. If it prevents Brexit, it’ll be accused of usurping democracy. A majority of voters voted for Brexit. If it follows through with Brexit, it will be blamed for none of the good and all of the bad that follows from it.
It seems to me that the whole point of a constitutional monarch, especially in a system where there isn’t actually a formal written constitution, is precisely to deal with situations like this.
I don’t remember enough history in detail these days, but do seem to recall that the English Civil Wars established the precedent that the monarchy, and any powers the monarch has to mess in the government, exist at the pleasure of Parliament. At one of the British blogs I read, since Brexit turned into this mess, it is a regular thing for someone to ask, “Couldn’t the Queen do such-and-such?” The answer from people that I know to be British is almost always of the form, “Yes. Once.” The implication being that the first time the monarch actually exercises one of those powers, Parliament will strip them of the ability to do so ever again.
Assuming I’ve got that right, the Queen has to consider whether each point where she could affect Brexit is the existential threat for which she should use that one shot.
Nigel, did I get that approximately right?
It seems to me that the whole point of a constitutional monarch, especially in a system where there isn’t actually a formal written constitution, is precisely to deal with situations like this.
I don’t remember enough history in detail these days, but do seem to recall that the English Civil Wars established the precedent that the monarchy, and any powers the monarch has to mess in the government, exist at the pleasure of Parliament. At one of the British blogs I read, since Brexit turned into this mess, it is a regular thing for someone to ask, “Couldn’t the Queen do such-and-such?” The answer from people that I know to be British is almost always of the form, “Yes. Once.” The implication being that the first time the monarch actually exercises one of those powers, Parliament will strip them of the ability to do so ever again.
Assuming I’ve got that right, the Queen has to consider whether each point where she could affect Brexit is the existential threat for which she should use that one shot.
Nigel, did I get that approximately right?
Not really.
It’s clearly within the power of the PM to request a prorogation, and the queen does not get to second guess that. The only issue in this case is the highly unusual length of prorogation, particularly given the political circumstances.
The outrage here is a political one – while it is undeniably exploiting a constitutional lacuna, and seriously violating longstanding conventions, that has not been something which the monarch can weigh in on for many, many decades.
Not really.
It’s clearly within the power of the PM to request a prorogation, and the queen does not get to second guess that. The only issue in this case is the highly unusual length of prorogation, particularly given the political circumstances.
The outrage here is a political one – while it is undeniably exploiting a constitutional lacuna, and seriously violating longstanding conventions, that has not been something which the monarch can weigh in on for many, many decades.
If the PM can ask for (and be granted) a prorogation of any length he likes, there’s nothing to stop him from asking for one which is several years long. That is, from effectively removing Parliament from having any influence over how the government behaves. There wouldn’t even be the opportunity for a vote of No Confidence — even if the vast majority of the MPs wished to force a new election.
I can see where he should be able to get a prorogation of the usual length. But that’s very different from getting one of vastly greater length.
If the PM can ask for (and be granted) a prorogation of any length he likes, there’s nothing to stop him from asking for one which is several years long. That is, from effectively removing Parliament from having any influence over how the government behaves. There wouldn’t even be the opportunity for a vote of No Confidence — even if the vast majority of the MPs wished to force a new election.
I can see where he should be able to get a prorogation of the usual length. But that’s very different from getting one of vastly greater length.
At which point it becomes a where do you draw the line question, to which there is no clear answer.
We may have one soon(ish), as this will get tested in the courts. Not much help in the meantime, of course.
At which point it becomes a where do you draw the line question, to which there is no clear answer.
We may have one soon(ish), as this will get tested in the courts. Not much help in the meantime, of course.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/08/28/foreigner-policy-open-thread-the-trump-miller-eff-you-john-mccain-order/
The military should violently revolt.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/08/28/foreigner-policy-open-thread-the-trump-miller-eff-you-john-mccain-order/
The military should violently revolt.
Well, in this case he has the fig leaf of “new PM, so new legislative agenda, which needs new Queen’s Speech (i.e new opening of Parliament in which she always lays out the legislative agenda for the coming parliament)”. If he didn’t have that, the precedent would be a lot shakier.
Well, in this case he has the fig leaf of “new PM, so new legislative agenda, which needs new Queen’s Speech (i.e new opening of Parliament in which she always lays out the legislative agenda for the coming parliament)”. If he didn’t have that, the precedent would be a lot shakier.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/greedheads-hire-professional.html
“They’ve got to walk into the room with someone who knows the White House,” said one of the people familiar with the arrangement. “They need someone to explain how the Trump thing operates.”
I’d be happy to give pro bono advice to these corrupt corporate influence peddlers regarding how the “Trump thing” operates:
You suck this lying c*nt’s big Christian dick, and she’ll suck off the vermin who she believes is the Godhead on your behalf.
Someone will let you know what offshore bank accounts to send the payoffs to.
Also, these filth will renege on every quid pro quo they promise you, unless it has to do with killing government or the Other.
The family needs a taste too. Enjoy the room service during your obligated high-rent overnight at Mar-a-Lago
Nuke America.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/greedheads-hire-professional.html
“They’ve got to walk into the room with someone who knows the White House,” said one of the people familiar with the arrangement. “They need someone to explain how the Trump thing operates.”
I’d be happy to give pro bono advice to these corrupt corporate influence peddlers regarding how the “Trump thing” operates:
You suck this lying c*nt’s big Christian dick, and she’ll suck off the vermin who she believes is the Godhead on your behalf.
Someone will let you know what offshore bank accounts to send the payoffs to.
Also, these filth will renege on every quid pro quo they promise you, unless it has to do with killing government or the Other.
The family needs a taste too. Enjoy the room service during your obligated high-rent overnight at Mar-a-Lago
Nuke America.
“you’re”
An apostrophe for a mushroom cloud.
“you’re”
An apostrophe for a mushroom cloud.
Also, re extra long prorogation, the party conference season runs most of September. So they’ve got a few ways to throw dust (or wave smoke and mirrors) in the eyes of objectors.
Also, re extra long prorogation, the party conference season runs most of September. So they’ve got a few ways to throw dust (or wave smoke and mirrors) in the eyes of objectors.
forget “you’re”
forget “you’re”
GFTNC is correct, although such pretexts are utterly disingenuous in the circumstances.
The constitutional position is underscored by the fact that any legal challenge will be to the advice to prorogue given to the queen by the PM – the exercise of the royal prerogative by the monarch cannot be challenged in the courts.
GFTNC is correct, although such pretexts are utterly disingenuous in the circumstances.
The constitutional position is underscored by the fact that any legal challenge will be to the advice to prorogue given to the queen by the PM – the exercise of the royal prerogative by the monarch cannot be challenged in the courts.
I can imagine the queen refusing to oblige in some circumstances, but not these. First, the government has considerable popular support in what it’s doing – it is after all implementing the result of a referendum. Second, parliament will not be prorogued until 9th September, so if MPs are sufficiently determined they can still vote on anything they want. (The Speaker, who is openly hostile to what the government is doing, would be keen to facilitate that.)
Incidentally, should the queen decline to agree to an act of Parliament (not quite the same thing) her refusal is formally communicated in Norman French “La Reyne s’avisera” – the Queen will take advice. Queen Anne was the last monarch to try it, over three hundred years ago.
I can imagine the queen refusing to oblige in some circumstances, but not these. First, the government has considerable popular support in what it’s doing – it is after all implementing the result of a referendum. Second, parliament will not be prorogued until 9th September, so if MPs are sufficiently determined they can still vote on anything they want. (The Speaker, who is openly hostile to what the government is doing, would be keen to facilitate that.)
Incidentally, should the queen decline to agree to an act of Parliament (not quite the same thing) her refusal is formally communicated in Norman French “La Reyne s’avisera” – the Queen will take advice. Queen Anne was the last monarch to try it, over three hundred years ago.
Mattis is full of shit.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mattis-silence-trump-not-forever
NOW he’s reticent about the mortal enemies of America.
Fuck him.
Mattis is full of shit.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mattis-silence-trump-not-forever
NOW he’s reticent about the mortal enemies of America.
Fuck him.
You kill us, we kill you:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/climate-change-trump-administration-set-to-roll-back-rules-on-methane-emissions?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
You kill us, we kill you:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/climate-change-trump-administration-set-to-roll-back-rules-on-methane-emissions?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition
More on Bore:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/08/29/britain-has-a-choice/
More on Bore:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/08/29/britain-has-a-choice/
On the bright side, TPM remembers the trash cans I bought a year ago, judging by the ad on the side of the page.
On the bright side, TPM remembers the trash cans I bought a year ago, judging by the ad on the side of the page.
Mattis thinks he should not call a madman crazy because The Rules require a vow of silence. He imagines he is doing the honorable thing, whereas he is merely demonstrating yet again that politics-as-hopscotch has eaten all the brains in the so-called civilized world.
–TP
Mattis thinks he should not call a madman crazy because The Rules require a vow of silence. He imagines he is doing the honorable thing, whereas he is merely demonstrating yet again that politics-as-hopscotch has eaten all the brains in the so-called civilized world.
–TP
There’s more to BoJo’s tactics than BaJu says. His negotiating position with the EU is much stronger if the EU doesn’t believe parliament is going to block no deal. So if we’re going to leave the EU, which seems likely, and if the current deal is worse than no deal, which is not an irrational view, it’s in the country’s interest for parliament not to be trying to stop it.
It’s as if I’m standing in your living room waving a machete and saying “give me $100 or I’ll cut my foot off and bleed on the carpet”. I’m more likely to get the hundred if my friend isn’t busy trying to grap the machete off me.
There’s more to BoJo’s tactics than BaJu says. His negotiating position with the EU is much stronger if the EU doesn’t believe parliament is going to block no deal. So if we’re going to leave the EU, which seems likely, and if the current deal is worse than no deal, which is not an irrational view, it’s in the country’s interest for parliament not to be trying to stop it.
It’s as if I’m standing in your living room waving a machete and saying “give me $100 or I’ll cut my foot off and bleed on the carpet”. I’m more likely to get the hundred if my friend isn’t busy trying to grap the machete off me.
Pro Bono:
“hang on for a second with the foot-cutting-off; I need to start the video recording.
Got it! Please proceed.”
Pro Bono:
“hang on for a second with the foot-cutting-off; I need to start the video recording.
Got it! Please proceed.”
I’d be fairly relieved if a crazy machete wielder used it on himself rather than me.
Carpets can be cleaned.
I’d be fairly relieved if a crazy machete wielder used it on himself rather than me.
Carpets can be cleaned.
if the current deal is worse than no deal, which is not an irrational view
I’d be interested in hearing a rational argument for how the current deal is worse than no deal. I sure don’t see the economic impact as being worse; quite the contrary, no deal looks like an economic disaster.
if the current deal is worse than no deal, which is not an irrational view
I’d be interested in hearing a rational argument for how the current deal is worse than no deal. I sure don’t see the economic impact as being worse; quite the contrary, no deal looks like an economic disaster.
I’ve been making the same (theoretical) argument to friends that Pro Bono outlines, but with no great degree of enthusiasm or conviction, let alone certainty. But it is true that after the G7 in Biarritz BoJo was apparently talking about a possible backlash from the group of die-hard Brexiteers he apparently calls “the Spartans” in response to some of his provisional concessions from the EU, and it is possible that he has some such end-game in sight to frustrate them, as well as the combined opposition. But looking at the statements from e.g. Jacob Rees-Mogg, who I would have thought would definitely be one of the Spartans, one sees no sign of it.
I’ve been making the same (theoretical) argument to friends that Pro Bono outlines, but with no great degree of enthusiasm or conviction, let alone certainty. But it is true that after the G7 in Biarritz BoJo was apparently talking about a possible backlash from the group of die-hard Brexiteers he apparently calls “the Spartans” in response to some of his provisional concessions from the EU, and it is possible that he has some such end-game in sight to frustrate them, as well as the combined opposition. But looking at the statements from e.g. Jacob Rees-Mogg, who I would have thought would definitely be one of the Spartans, one sees no sign of it.
It’s as if I’m standing in your living room waving a machete and saying “give me $100 or I’ll cut my foot off and bleed on the carpet”. I’m more likely to get the hundred if my friend isn’t busy trying to grap the machete off me.
I’m familiar wit the negotiating theory of the crazy man: That you don’t know what he might do, so you should give him whatever he is asking for. I think it’s fair to say that the Trump experience in international negotiations demonstrates that it doesn’t work. Certainly not with any reliability.
It’s as if I’m standing in your living room waving a machete and saying “give me $100 or I’ll cut my foot off and bleed on the carpet”. I’m more likely to get the hundred if my friend isn’t busy trying to grap the machete off me.
I’m familiar wit the negotiating theory of the crazy man: That you don’t know what he might do, so you should give him whatever he is asking for. I think it’s fair to say that the Trump experience in international negotiations demonstrates that it doesn’t work. Certainly not with any reliability.
Pro Bono,
You forget some things. First of all, the British have hurt our feelings. A lot. Leaving the Umion is, even in the best circumstances, a huge affront to those remaining.
Second, the British government has demonstrated inability to get its negotiation results through the Parliament. There is no majority coalition visible that could get any result accepted.
Third, there is absolutely no way to get a deal without the Irish backstop, or a final solution. Ireland is a member, and we are bound to take their side. And they have a veto in every deal. So, keeping the Irish border open, and free of customs, requires either UK to stay in the customs union, or Northern Ireland staying. There is no third way. If the British are not willing to accept it, we will eventually have a no-deal Brexit anyhow.
So, why should we postpone the no-deal Brexit anymore? It is better for us to have the Englishmen leave the Union, where they have always been unenthusiastic, feet-dragging members. If the British leave now, it will create stability in Europe, and allow orderly development of our economy. Any further extra time for negotiations is only going to prolonge the inevitable, hurting our economy.
Then, we can start supporting the development of democracy and eventual independence and EU membership of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Let the English go to hell.
Pro Bono,
You forget some things. First of all, the British have hurt our feelings. A lot. Leaving the Umion is, even in the best circumstances, a huge affront to those remaining.
Second, the British government has demonstrated inability to get its negotiation results through the Parliament. There is no majority coalition visible that could get any result accepted.
Third, there is absolutely no way to get a deal without the Irish backstop, or a final solution. Ireland is a member, and we are bound to take their side. And they have a veto in every deal. So, keeping the Irish border open, and free of customs, requires either UK to stay in the customs union, or Northern Ireland staying. There is no third way. If the British are not willing to accept it, we will eventually have a no-deal Brexit anyhow.
So, why should we postpone the no-deal Brexit anymore? It is better for us to have the Englishmen leave the Union, where they have always been unenthusiastic, feet-dragging members. If the British leave now, it will create stability in Europe, and allow orderly development of our economy. Any further extra time for negotiations is only going to prolonge the inevitable, hurting our economy.
Then, we can start supporting the development of democracy and eventual independence and EU membership of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Let the English go to hell.
please, not Biden.
please, not Biden.
wj: the argument is that if you’re going to suffer the economic pain of Brexit, you might as well do it properly and get the benefits (in the eyes of some) of being genuinely independent of the EU.
But to be clear, I’m thoroughly opposed to the whole project, all the more so for having seen the mess the politicians have made of trying to implement it.
And I don’t think the EU will be willing to offer very much whatever the threat: certainly it’s not going to betray the thoroughly communautaire Irish government.
wj: the argument is that if you’re going to suffer the economic pain of Brexit, you might as well do it properly and get the benefits (in the eyes of some) of being genuinely independent of the EU.
But to be clear, I’m thoroughly opposed to the whole project, all the more so for having seen the mess the politicians have made of trying to implement it.
And I don’t think the EU will be willing to offer very much whatever the threat: certainly it’s not going to betray the thoroughly communautaire Irish government.
Ham Sandwich.
Any port in a storm.
Ham Sandwich.
Any port in a storm.
please, not Biden.
There goes McKinney’s vote, too.
p wins.
please, not Biden.
There goes McKinney’s vote, too.
p wins.
Ham Sandwich.
So you’re waffling on the waffle-underwear thing now, russell?
Ham Sandwich.
So you’re waffling on the waffle-underwear thing now, russell?
Pro Bono,
I agree. Ireland is more important to the EU at the moment than Great Britain: we can demonstrate actual committment to our members by supporting Ireland, and earn credibility in the eyes of numerous small member states in the process. On the other hand, Britain doesn’t have a lot to offer at the moment.
It has become abundantly clear that there will not be a parliamentary majority for any of the three possible solutions:
a) Brexit with a solution that allows an open Irish border (at least Northern Ireland in the customs union)
b) no-deal Brexit
c) remain
Because Great Britain has already triggered Article 58, its withdrawal is only a question of time. A single EU member can veto any prolongation of negotiations, and that can happen at any time, depending on domestic politics. So, the prolongation only causes lack of clarity, and decreases economic stability of the Union. For us, a no-deal Brexit is survivable, and as it is unavoidable, it is better to have it sooner than later.
After that, we can start supporting Scottish and Northern Irish independence, and allow them into the Union, if their peoples so choose. Let the English continue stewing in their on pot. Perhaps prince Charles will die as a King of Wessex.
Pro Bono,
I agree. Ireland is more important to the EU at the moment than Great Britain: we can demonstrate actual committment to our members by supporting Ireland, and earn credibility in the eyes of numerous small member states in the process. On the other hand, Britain doesn’t have a lot to offer at the moment.
It has become abundantly clear that there will not be a parliamentary majority for any of the three possible solutions:
a) Brexit with a solution that allows an open Irish border (at least Northern Ireland in the customs union)
b) no-deal Brexit
c) remain
Because Great Britain has already triggered Article 58, its withdrawal is only a question of time. A single EU member can veto any prolongation of negotiations, and that can happen at any time, depending on domestic politics. So, the prolongation only causes lack of clarity, and decreases economic stability of the Union. For us, a no-deal Brexit is survivable, and as it is unavoidable, it is better to have it sooner than later.
After that, we can start supporting Scottish and Northern Irish independence, and allow them into the Union, if their peoples so choose. Let the English continue stewing in their on pot. Perhaps prince Charles will die as a King of Wessex.
Any pork in a storm
Any pork in a storm
this is delightful…
https://theweek.com/speedreads/861872/trump-made-highlevel-chinese-tradetalk-calls-boost-markets-aides-admit
this is delightful…
https://theweek.com/speedreads/861872/trump-made-highlevel-chinese-tradetalk-calls-boost-markets-aides-admit
i’ll vote for Biden.
but i really don’t relish the idea of four years of “he may be a bullshitter, but at least he’s my bullshitter”.
the Trump years are soul-crushing enough.
i’ll vote for Biden.
but i really don’t relish the idea of four years of “he may be a bullshitter, but at least he’s my bullshitter”.
the Trump years are soul-crushing enough.
i know… i should take my own advice and not complain about any particular Dem at this point in time.
arrrrrrrgh! i just want good things.
i know… i should take my own advice and not complain about any particular Dem at this point in time.
arrrrrrrgh! i just want good things.
Well Trump appears to have attended a different G-7 meeting that everyone else. One that existed only in his imagination.
Among the other Trump-only bits:
Not to mention him tweeting repeatedly about how everybody was in agreement, and lots was getting accomplished. Well it might be true that everybody but him was in agreement about lots of issues. But that’s about the limit.
Well Trump appears to have attended a different G-7 meeting that everyone else. One that existed only in his imagination.
Among the other Trump-only bits:
Not to mention him tweeting repeatedly about how everybody was in agreement, and lots was getting accomplished. Well it might be true that everybody but him was in agreement about lots of issues. But that’s about the limit.
Biden’s bullshit is standard issue bullshit, albeit with a little too much knee-slapping enthusiasm, of the standard American-become-bullshit artist politician, which all of us have in us, merely by virtue growing up American in a trouble in river city culture which turns bullshit into profit and gold at every turn and is so proud of it that we put it down as cherry tree, all men are created equal myth in our textbooks, by cracky.
It’s the routine kind of bullshit you sit in public meetings or picnics at the fairground with a cookie in your hand and shake your head over, nudging your neighbor and asking “He’s kidding, right?”, but survive to walk home intact with your wits still about you.
p and the conservative movement are radioactive rare earth mushroom cloud bullshit that blot out the sun and contaminate every living thing, including the bottom dwelling creatures in the Marianas Trench.
It has no half-life.
It bears no parsing.
It burns the skin off and goes to live permanently at the cellular level in the American bone structure.
There is no Hazmat suit that will protect us.
Even crocodiles, which go into long-term stasis and survive when asteroids and other calamities hit say “ah, fuck this!” and curl up and die.
Once p’s and the conservative movement’s brand of bullshit is fully released into the cultural/political environment/atmosphere, abandoning its location, America, and nuking from space, are the only alternatives.
It must be killed, eliminated.
By all means necessary.
Biden’s bullshit is standard issue bullshit, albeit with a little too much knee-slapping enthusiasm, of the standard American-become-bullshit artist politician, which all of us have in us, merely by virtue growing up American in a trouble in river city culture which turns bullshit into profit and gold at every turn and is so proud of it that we put it down as cherry tree, all men are created equal myth in our textbooks, by cracky.
It’s the routine kind of bullshit you sit in public meetings or picnics at the fairground with a cookie in your hand and shake your head over, nudging your neighbor and asking “He’s kidding, right?”, but survive to walk home intact with your wits still about you.
p and the conservative movement are radioactive rare earth mushroom cloud bullshit that blot out the sun and contaminate every living thing, including the bottom dwelling creatures in the Marianas Trench.
It has no half-life.
It bears no parsing.
It burns the skin off and goes to live permanently at the cellular level in the American bone structure.
There is no Hazmat suit that will protect us.
Even crocodiles, which go into long-term stasis and survive when asteroids and other calamities hit say “ah, fuck this!” and curl up and die.
Once p’s and the conservative movement’s brand of bullshit is fully released into the cultural/political environment/atmosphere, abandoning its location, America, and nuking from space, are the only alternatives.
It must be killed, eliminated.
By all means necessary.
Question for the UK people — what do you think about Ireland these days? I heard Fintan O’Toole of The Irish Times on the radio several months ago, saying (in memorably Irish fashion) that there’s not a cigarette paper’s width of difference between the positions of the Irish government and the EU about options.
Regardless of that, as time passes it seems ever more unlikely that the border is going to remain as it is, i.e. non-existent, and ever more likely that trouble is going to start up again, one way another.
A typical offering from one of the more vicious (and I would say brainless, except that if I look at our own government I have to face the fact that brainlessness doesn’t matter) commenters at Crooked Timber, with the handle “Dipper”:
Gorilla thumping chest. Unfortunately, a lot of people go for that. Bigger countries have more “rights” — okay…………….
I crossed the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland in the bad old days. What a shame to think of that darkness creeping back in.
Question for the UK people — what do you think about Ireland these days? I heard Fintan O’Toole of The Irish Times on the radio several months ago, saying (in memorably Irish fashion) that there’s not a cigarette paper’s width of difference between the positions of the Irish government and the EU about options.
Regardless of that, as time passes it seems ever more unlikely that the border is going to remain as it is, i.e. non-existent, and ever more likely that trouble is going to start up again, one way another.
A typical offering from one of the more vicious (and I would say brainless, except that if I look at our own government I have to face the fact that brainlessness doesn’t matter) commenters at Crooked Timber, with the handle “Dipper”:
Gorilla thumping chest. Unfortunately, a lot of people go for that. Bigger countries have more “rights” — okay…………….
I crossed the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland in the bad old days. What a shame to think of that darkness creeping back in.
wj at 03.54: Well Trump appears to have attended a different G-7 meeting that everyone else. One that existed only in his imagination.
You omit from your list that in the one in his imagination
1. “Melania knows Kim Jong Un well” (despite never having met him)
and in a tweet on August 25th:
2. The question I was asked most today by fellow World Leaders, who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, happens to be, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?”
wj at 03.54: Well Trump appears to have attended a different G-7 meeting that everyone else. One that existed only in his imagination.
You omit from your list that in the one in his imagination
1. “Melania knows Kim Jong Un well” (despite never having met him)
and in a tweet on August 25th:
2. The question I was asked most today by fellow World Leaders, who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, happens to be, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?”
I’d be interested in hearing a rational argument for how the current deal is worse than no deal …
There really isn’t one.
Unless the welfare of the UK and it’s citizens is extraneous to one’s concerns.
I’d be interested in hearing a rational argument for how the current deal is worse than no deal …
There really isn’t one.
Unless the welfare of the UK and it’s citizens is extraneous to one’s concerns.
Its.
Its.
It depends whether by “the current deal” you mean Theresa May’s deal (still on the table from the EU), or the current deal we have as a member state. Oh no, silly me, I guess it doesn’t: in both cases the deal is better than no deal.
It depends whether by “the current deal” you mean Theresa May’s deal (still on the table from the EU), or the current deal we have as a member state. Oh no, silly me, I guess it doesn’t: in both cases the deal is better than no deal.
GftNC, trying to compile a complete list of Trump’s flights of unreality is a hopeless task. At most, one can manage a selection of the
highlow points.GftNC, trying to compile a complete list of Trump’s flights of unreality is a hopeless task. At most, one can manage a selection of the
highlow points.So you’re waffling on the waffle-underwear thing now, russell?
What Marty said.
Biden is a confabulating geezer. We have a long, long tradition of confabulating geezers in the Oval Office.
What he is not, is malicious.
Not my first choice, but I’ll take the non-malicious confabulating geezer if that’s what is on offer.
So you’re waffling on the waffle-underwear thing now, russell?
What Marty said.
Biden is a confabulating geezer. We have a long, long tradition of confabulating geezers in the Oval Office.
What he is not, is malicious.
Not my first choice, but I’ll take the non-malicious confabulating geezer if that’s what is on offer.
Of course he is:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/which-family-members-did-he-tell-in.html
No doubt Putin got a taste too.
When this lout is gone, his and his entire retinue’s cellphone and all other communication records will be combed over for the buy and sell touts and the perpetrators will be executed.
I’d like to see the tells in Kudlow’s signals to Cramer.
And Mnuchin’s to EVERYONE on Wall Street.
Of course he is:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/which-family-members-did-he-tell-in.html
No doubt Putin got a taste too.
When this lout is gone, his and his entire retinue’s cellphone and all other communication records will be combed over for the buy and sell touts and the perpetrators will be executed.
I’d like to see the tells in Kudlow’s signals to Cramer.
And Mnuchin’s to EVERYONE on Wall Street.
Imagine someone along the lines of Steve Bannon (though a more effective propagandist) as White House Chief of Staff…
That’s pretty well what the Johnson government has:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sajid-javid-media-adviser-dominic-cummings_uk_5d6821e3e4b06beb649b44bd
Chancellor Sajid Javid’s media adviser been escorted out of Downing St after a meeting with the prime minister’s top strategist where she appears to have been fired.
A source said Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s leading aide, had invited her for a meeting in No.10…
Imagine someone along the lines of Steve Bannon (though a more effective propagandist) as White House Chief of Staff…
That’s pretty well what the Johnson government has:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sajid-javid-media-adviser-dominic-cummings_uk_5d6821e3e4b06beb649b44bd
Chancellor Sajid Javid’s media adviser been escorted out of Downing St after a meeting with the prime minister’s top strategist where she appears to have been fired.
A source said Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s leading aide, had invited her for a meeting in No.10…
Question for the UK people — what do you think about Ireland these days?
I think the Good Friday Agreement was a masterpiece of compromise by vagueness, depending on the twin notions of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the UK, and Northern Ireland seamlessly joined to the Irish Republic. Which worked only because both countries were in the EU. It can’t hold with the UK outside the EU (except perhaps with a Customs Union).
The “backstop” agreement, to apply until some unknown replacement agreement is reached, addresses the Nationalist side of the issue. But it’s unacceptable to Unionists because it treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK (it has to stay in regulatory alignment with the EU). And it’s unacceptable to Brexiters because it requires a Customs Union between the UK and the EU.
The problem isn’t that the wonks haven’t tried hard enough to come up with a solution. It’s that there are no unicorns.
The “no deal” approach seems to be that the EU will put it whatever border checks it thinks necessary, and the UK will do its best to blame the EU for doing it. And there will be much discontent, especially among Northern Irish nationalists.
Question for the UK people — what do you think about Ireland these days?
I think the Good Friday Agreement was a masterpiece of compromise by vagueness, depending on the twin notions of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the UK, and Northern Ireland seamlessly joined to the Irish Republic. Which worked only because both countries were in the EU. It can’t hold with the UK outside the EU (except perhaps with a Customs Union).
The “backstop” agreement, to apply until some unknown replacement agreement is reached, addresses the Nationalist side of the issue. But it’s unacceptable to Unionists because it treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK (it has to stay in regulatory alignment with the EU). And it’s unacceptable to Brexiters because it requires a Customs Union between the UK and the EU.
The problem isn’t that the wonks haven’t tried hard enough to come up with a solution. It’s that there are no unicorns.
The “no deal” approach seems to be that the EU will put it whatever border checks it thinks necessary, and the UK will do its best to blame the EU for doing it. And there will be much discontent, especially among Northern Irish nationalists.
The “no deal” approach seems to be that the EU will put it whatever border checks it thinks necessary, and the UK will do its best to blame the EU for doing it. And there will be much discontent, especially among Northern Irish nationalists.
And here I was sure that the “no deal” approach was “we [English Brexiteers] want what we want, and the rest of the country can bugger off.” The problem is that, while the Scots (and, for all I know, the Welsh) can pick up and leave the UK for the EU, the Irish Unionists take that sensible approach off the table for the Irish.
The “no deal” approach seems to be that the EU will put it whatever border checks it thinks necessary, and the UK will do its best to blame the EU for doing it. And there will be much discontent, especially among Northern Irish nationalists.
And here I was sure that the “no deal” approach was “we [English Brexiteers] want what we want, and the rest of the country can bugger off.” The problem is that, while the Scots (and, for all I know, the Welsh) can pick up and leave the UK for the EU, the Irish Unionists take that sensible approach off the table for the Irish.
the Irish Unionists take that sensible approach off the table for the Irish.
I suppose in practice that’s true, but the majority rules idea can be considered fractally, at least for entertainment purposes. If the majority of Brits want to leave the EU, then they can. If the majority of voters in Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, then………..
I believe the North voted to Remain in the EU, it’s only an intransigent minority that in effect wants a return to the bad old days. I don’t know how the North would vote to leave the UK, nor is it clear that the Republic would want the North anyhow. (Apparently it’s a money sink, I don’t know why.)
I’ve probably told this story before, but I have a vivid memory of some guy on the radio going on and on about how if the majority in Kosovo wanted to split off from Serbia, Kosovo should be allowed to become independent. And in the next breath he said that a border city (I can’t remember which one) where the majority wanted to stay with Serbia shouldn’t be allowed to.
Bah.
As Pro Bono says, there are no unicorns. There’s no magic way to thread a path between the devil and the deep blue sea, the rock and the hard place, Scylla and Charybdis.
the Irish Unionists take that sensible approach off the table for the Irish.
I suppose in practice that’s true, but the majority rules idea can be considered fractally, at least for entertainment purposes. If the majority of Brits want to leave the EU, then they can. If the majority of voters in Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, then………..
I believe the North voted to Remain in the EU, it’s only an intransigent minority that in effect wants a return to the bad old days. I don’t know how the North would vote to leave the UK, nor is it clear that the Republic would want the North anyhow. (Apparently it’s a money sink, I don’t know why.)
I’ve probably told this story before, but I have a vivid memory of some guy on the radio going on and on about how if the majority in Kosovo wanted to split off from Serbia, Kosovo should be allowed to become independent. And in the next breath he said that a border city (I can’t remember which one) where the majority wanted to stay with Serbia shouldn’t be allowed to.
Bah.
As Pro Bono says, there are no unicorns. There’s no magic way to thread a path between the devil and the deep blue sea, the rock and the hard place, Scylla and Charybdis.
his and his entire retinue’s cellphone and all other communication records will be combed over
And who is going to do this? Who, in Congress, in the courts, in the DOJ – who, exactly – has demonstrated the will to actually call this dude out and hold him accountable, for any damned thing at all?
The House can’t even get their hands on his tax returns.
My expectation is that he and his corrupt kids and his entourage of grifters will ride off happily into the sunset. If we’re lucky.
his and his entire retinue’s cellphone and all other communication records will be combed over
And who is going to do this? Who, in Congress, in the courts, in the DOJ – who, exactly – has demonstrated the will to actually call this dude out and hold him accountable, for any damned thing at all?
The House can’t even get their hands on his tax returns.
My expectation is that he and his corrupt kids and his entourage of grifters will ride off happily into the sunset. If we’re lucky.
If the majority of Brits want to leave the EU, then they can. If the majority of voters in Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, then………..
Not, unfortunately, true. For absent the Good Friday agreement (or some similar finesse), which Brexit effectively destroys, there are only two choices: unite all of Ireland, or return to the hard border.
Either way there will be a motivated minority of a minority willing to resort to violence. And it will be The Troubles all over again. In spades. No matter what the majority might want.
If the majority of Brits want to leave the EU, then they can. If the majority of voters in Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, then………..
Not, unfortunately, true. For absent the Good Friday agreement (or some similar finesse), which Brexit effectively destroys, there are only two choices: unite all of Ireland, or return to the hard border.
Either way there will be a motivated minority of a minority willing to resort to violence. And it will be The Troubles all over again. In spades. No matter what the majority might want.
his and his entire retinue’s cellphone and all other communication records will be combed over
And who is going to do this?
My money would be on some investigative reporters. Heaven knows there are enough leakers around Trump to give them plenty to work with.
his and his entire retinue’s cellphone and all other communication records will be combed over
And who is going to do this?
My money would be on some investigative reporters. Heaven knows there are enough leakers around Trump to give them plenty to work with.
me: If the majority of voters in Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, then………..
wj: Not, unfortunately, true. For absent the Good Friday agreement (or some similar finesse), which Brexit effectively destroys, there are only two choices: unite all of Ireland, or return to the hard border.
What do you think my ellipsis meant if not “unite all of Ireland”? And in that case, why are you saying “not … true”? You’re agreeing with me.
me: If the majority of voters in Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, then………..
wj: Not, unfortunately, true. For absent the Good Friday agreement (or some similar finesse), which Brexit effectively destroys, there are only two choices: unite all of Ireland, or return to the hard border.
What do you think my ellipsis meant if not “unite all of Ireland”? And in that case, why are you saying “not … true”? You’re agreeing with me.
You’re agreeing with me.
I somehow missed that you were predicting something totally unlike England’s peaceful (albeit economically disastrous) departure.
You’re agreeing with me.
I somehow missed that you were predicting something totally unlike England’s peaceful (albeit economically disastrous) departure.
My money would be on some investigative reporters.
Given the winnowing and consolidation of the industry…a dying breed at best.
Wish the few that remain the best of luck. They will need it.
My money would be on some investigative reporters.
Given the winnowing and consolidation of the industry…a dying breed at best.
Wish the few that remain the best of luck. They will need it.
I wasn’t predicting it. I was postulating it as a theoretical possibility (or as I said, an entertainment).
I left step 2 as tacit, where step 1 is “leave the UK” and step 2 is “join in a united Ireland,” because in my own mind step 2 is so obviously the follow-up to step 1 as not to need mentioning. Nowhere in the realm of either discussion or possibility (IMO) is there a scenario where N.I. leaves the UK but becomes an independent country instead of becoming part of the Republic of Ireland. (Unlike Scotland as an independent country, in terms of both discussion and possibility.)
I wasn’t predicting it. I was postulating it as a theoretical possibility (or as I said, an entertainment).
I left step 2 as tacit, where step 1 is “leave the UK” and step 2 is “join in a united Ireland,” because in my own mind step 2 is so obviously the follow-up to step 1 as not to need mentioning. Nowhere in the realm of either discussion or possibility (IMO) is there a scenario where N.I. leaves the UK but becomes an independent country instead of becoming part of the Republic of Ireland. (Unlike Scotland as an independent country, in terms of both discussion and possibility.)
No doubt about steps 1 and 2. It’s step 3 that’s worrisome.
No doubt about steps 1 and 2. It’s step 3 that’s worrisome.
I would be happy to see Scotland as an independent country, but I have strong doubts about its practicality.
An independent Scotland would either be an EU country or not. If not an EU country, it would gain little from independence, because it would still be beholden to British trade politics and regulation. If an EU member, Scotland would have more independence, but there would be a hard border at Tweed.
Weel, basically the division of the UK can cgo all the way to the point where Prince William will succeed his father as a king of the United Kingdom of Essex and Kent. 🙂
I would be happy to see Scotland as an independent country, but I have strong doubts about its practicality.
An independent Scotland would either be an EU country or not. If not an EU country, it would gain little from independence, because it would still be beholden to British trade politics and regulation. If an EU member, Scotland would have more independence, but there would be a hard border at Tweed.
Weel, basically the division of the UK can cgo all the way to the point where Prince William will succeed his father as a king of the United Kingdom of Essex and Kent. 🙂
I’m guessing any hard border at the Tweed would be temporary. Because, in a decade or so, the damage to England from a hard Brexit will leave the Brexiteers about as popular as communists in eastern Germany.
Richly deserved, of course. But the price paid by those who never wanted it is, as so often with these things, too high.
I’m guessing any hard border at the Tweed would be temporary. Because, in a decade or so, the damage to England from a hard Brexit will leave the Brexiteers about as popular as communists in eastern Germany.
Richly deserved, of course. But the price paid by those who never wanted it is, as so often with these things, too high.
My money would be on some investigative reporters
What are they going to find that will be any worse than what is already in the publuc record?
My money would be on some investigative reporters
What are they going to find that will be any worse than what is already in the publuc record?
I think Pro Bono’s masterly exposition of the Irish question at 08.34 cannot be bettered, but with this additional wrinkle: Nancy Pelosi has said Congress will not OK any US-UK trade deal which endangers the Good Friday Agreement, so the vaunted prospective Trump-Bojo trade deal is already in the deepest of trouble, unless BoJo is secretly working on a deal to keep us in the Customs Union, which would of course completely alienate the “Spartans”.
I think Pro Bono’s masterly exposition of the Irish question at 08.34 cannot be bettered, but with this additional wrinkle: Nancy Pelosi has said Congress will not OK any US-UK trade deal which endangers the Good Friday Agreement, so the vaunted prospective Trump-Bojo trade deal is already in the deepest of trouble, unless BoJo is secretly working on a deal to keep us in the Customs Union, which would of course completely alienate the “Spartans”.
p’s Deep State goes deeper:
https://juanitajean.com/can-you-even-imagine-2/
Can you …… imagine, this call going out in say, 2013 and DARPA deciding … Texas … might be a good site for their dark experiments on behalf of the Kenyan?
Saddle up the right wing militias. Whatever happened to them, anyhoo?
They get gummint jobs with ICE, or what?
What is it this time?
Are they planning on mulching immigrants into soylent green wafers for communion in orthodox right wing churches?
Kill the conservative movement.
p’s Deep State goes deeper:
https://juanitajean.com/can-you-even-imagine-2/
Can you …… imagine, this call going out in say, 2013 and DARPA deciding … Texas … might be a good site for their dark experiments on behalf of the Kenyan?
Saddle up the right wing militias. Whatever happened to them, anyhoo?
They get gummint jobs with ICE, or what?
What is it this time?
Are they planning on mulching immigrants into soylent green wafers for communion in orthodox right wing churches?
Kill the conservative movement.
Remember when vermin victimized conservatives complained about NPR giving both sides of the story:
http://crookedtimber.org/2019/08/30/the-missing-question/
I still listen to the classical music outlets.
They seem to be playing more Wagner these days, however, I would guess at the urging of budget cutter Mick Mulvaney.
Remember when vermin victimized conservatives complained about NPR giving both sides of the story:
http://crookedtimber.org/2019/08/30/the-missing-question/
I still listen to the classical music outlets.
They seem to be playing more Wagner these days, however, I would guess at the urging of budget cutter Mick Mulvaney.
No doubt, republican conservative Pat Robertson agrees. Jerry Fallwell Jr. would agree but now that he and his wife are consorting in high finance with those of questionable sexuality, or any at all, why, he’s hoping they call off weather all together, as he puts on his galoshes:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ex-canadian-leader-says-she-hopes-hurricane-dorian-makes-direct-hit-on-trumps-mar-a-lago-2019-08-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
They aspired to this type of politics and indeed achieved their goals with it over the past 40 years and now the wind blows in t’other direction.
More of this, please.
Sideways hail the size of p’s balls should take the varnish off Mar-a-Lago.
No doubt, republican conservative Pat Robertson agrees. Jerry Fallwell Jr. would agree but now that he and his wife are consorting in high finance with those of questionable sexuality, or any at all, why, he’s hoping they call off weather all together, as he puts on his galoshes:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ex-canadian-leader-says-she-hopes-hurricane-dorian-makes-direct-hit-on-trumps-mar-a-lago-2019-08-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
They aspired to this type of politics and indeed achieved their goals with it over the past 40 years and now the wind blows in t’other direction.
More of this, please.
Sideways hail the size of p’s balls should take the varnish off Mar-a-Lago.
What are they going to find that will be any worse than what is already in the publuc record?
“Worse” in whose eyes? Given what we already know, the target audience would have to be those who aren’t already convinced of the obvious (to us). What it would take, I don’t know. I also don’t know what an investigation would find — either in substance or how smoking a gun. That, after all, is why one does an investigation.
And, at the rate Trump has been trash-talking Fox News, any findings might actually appear in Trump World’s “trusted news sourse.” Certainly I’ve seen some signs of them pushing back on his demands for more total syncophancy.
What are they going to find that will be any worse than what is already in the publuc record?
“Worse” in whose eyes? Given what we already know, the target audience would have to be those who aren’t already convinced of the obvious (to us). What it would take, I don’t know. I also don’t know what an investigation would find — either in substance or how smoking a gun. That, after all, is why one does an investigation.
And, at the rate Trump has been trash-talking Fox News, any findings might actually appear in Trump World’s “trusted news sourse.” Certainly I’ve seen some signs of them pushing back on his demands for more total syncophancy.
NPR
A case study in the perils of bending over backwards to avoid seeming like you’re “taking sides”.
They seem to be playing more Wagner these days
NPR classical in my market is all Haydn and Vivaldi. Enough already with the pompous massed strings. I feel like I should be wearing a powdered wig.
I like these guys for general purpose going-about-your-day classical listening:
https://www.radio.net/s/veniceclassic
Announcements in Italian are a bonus!
And WRTI in Philly has more thoughtful – actually intentional, not just the obvious stuff – classical programming, for whenever you want to really pay attention:
https://www.wrti.org/classical-programs
Interruptions for news, but they’re fairly brief.
NPR
A case study in the perils of bending over backwards to avoid seeming like you’re “taking sides”.
They seem to be playing more Wagner these days
NPR classical in my market is all Haydn and Vivaldi. Enough already with the pompous massed strings. I feel like I should be wearing a powdered wig.
I like these guys for general purpose going-about-your-day classical listening:
https://www.radio.net/s/veniceclassic
Announcements in Italian are a bonus!
And WRTI in Philly has more thoughtful – actually intentional, not just the obvious stuff – classical programming, for whenever you want to really pay attention:
https://www.wrti.org/classical-programs
Interruptions for news, but they’re fairly brief.
p’s Deep State goes deeper
My first thought was: Why don’t they use all those tunnels in southern Nevada which were intended to store nuclear waste? It’s not like they are going to be used for their intended purpose any time soon. And we already own them. (Which, admittedly, may be a negative since it removes an opportunity for corruption. But hey, it might free up money for the wall.)
p’s Deep State goes deeper
My first thought was: Why don’t they use all those tunnels in southern Nevada which were intended to store nuclear waste? It’s not like they are going to be used for their intended purpose any time soon. And we already own them. (Which, admittedly, may be a negative since it removes an opportunity for corruption. But hey, it might free up money for the wall.)
that Trump Fox stuff is really amazing. he actually said “Fox isn’t working for us anymore!”
he straight-up, publicly, acknowledged that he thinks they work for him. not that they’re the only outlet that’s fair to him, but that they work for him. the former falls into the category of delusion; but the latter tells us that he knows it’s all a con.
and, it say a lot about his sense of loyalty – he has none. of all the organizations for him to diss, Fox News should be dead last. he owes them everything. but because he can’t tolerate even the the slightest criticism, they’re on his shit list.
his supporters should put two and two together and realize that this con-man is only on his own side. but they won’t.
that Trump Fox stuff is really amazing. he actually said “Fox isn’t working for us anymore!”
he straight-up, publicly, acknowledged that he thinks they work for him. not that they’re the only outlet that’s fair to him, but that they work for him. the former falls into the category of delusion; but the latter tells us that he knows it’s all a con.
and, it say a lot about his sense of loyalty – he has none. of all the organizations for him to diss, Fox News should be dead last. he owes them everything. but because he can’t tolerate even the the slightest criticism, they’re on his shit list.
his supporters should put two and two together and realize that this con-man is only on his own side. but they won’t.
For Trump, loyalty is a one-way street.
So those deluded Trumpers need to learn: you can’t trust Trump any further than you can throw him.
Me? I’d *like* to trust Trump, and I have a trebuchet right here…
For Trump, loyalty is a one-way street.
So those deluded Trumpers need to learn: you can’t trust Trump any further than you can throw him.
Me? I’d *like* to trust Trump, and I have a trebuchet right here…
he straight-up, publicly, acknowledged that he thinks they work for him.
At no point has it ever been anything other than plainly obvious who and what Trump is.
For some folks that’s what they like about him. Other folks try to pretend it’s not so, regardless of how many ways that requires them to bend reality. And other folks clutch their pearls but can’t seem to find their way to actually doing anything about it.
Trump is a crook. He is a bully and a bullshit artist and a grifter. That is who he is, and who he has always been. That’s what his old man was, it’s what his kids are, and what he is.
The fact that Trump plainly states that he thinks Fox works for him is unremarkable. I’m not making a critical comment about your post, because it *should* be remarkable, and *should* inspire outrage.
But it’s just not remarkable enough for anyone in a position to do anything about it, to do anything about it.
We’re stuck with this guy until January 2021, and maybe beyond. Whatever institutions or norms or practices are supposed to prevent a character like Trump from holding a position of public responsibility have failed to do so.
It’s disturbing, but it’s the reality. The thing the founders were so concerned about – a partisan huckster who would exploit democratic process to undermine republican governance – has come to pass.
We need to vote the mf’er out and then look at patching up the holes that let him get in, and fixing the stuff he’s breaking.
I’m not sure the damage from another 4 years of the guy will be reversible. I’m quite serious about that.
The folks who make me shake my head more than anyone are the (D)’s in the House. ITMFA. Short of that, start dropping some serious legal whoop-ass on all of the punks who are impeding the various ongoing investigations.
Impeach Barr. Tell McGahn he’s gonna be arrested if he continues to refuse to testify. And then *by god arrest him and put his ass in jail*.
Freeze the assets of Deutsche Bank if they won’t cough up Trump’s financials. Or, you know, fine them a billion dollars a day.
If none of those things pass legal muster, come up with others. Options are out there. The House (D)’s have power they are not exercising.
Get creative. Knock heads. Be hard-asses. Quit taking shit off of Trump and his pals. They’re bullies, they’ll keep dishing it out as long as everybody else takes it.
I’m tired of seeing this country pissed on by greedy grifting punks. Take it to the freaking mat.
Fucking Nazis are no longer afraid to show their pasty white faces in public. While Trump tries to book the next G7 at his golf club.
We’re being trolled by our own government. Enough of this bullshit. Time to kick ass and take names.
he straight-up, publicly, acknowledged that he thinks they work for him.
At no point has it ever been anything other than plainly obvious who and what Trump is.
For some folks that’s what they like about him. Other folks try to pretend it’s not so, regardless of how many ways that requires them to bend reality. And other folks clutch their pearls but can’t seem to find their way to actually doing anything about it.
Trump is a crook. He is a bully and a bullshit artist and a grifter. That is who he is, and who he has always been. That’s what his old man was, it’s what his kids are, and what he is.
The fact that Trump plainly states that he thinks Fox works for him is unremarkable. I’m not making a critical comment about your post, because it *should* be remarkable, and *should* inspire outrage.
But it’s just not remarkable enough for anyone in a position to do anything about it, to do anything about it.
We’re stuck with this guy until January 2021, and maybe beyond. Whatever institutions or norms or practices are supposed to prevent a character like Trump from holding a position of public responsibility have failed to do so.
It’s disturbing, but it’s the reality. The thing the founders were so concerned about – a partisan huckster who would exploit democratic process to undermine republican governance – has come to pass.
We need to vote the mf’er out and then look at patching up the holes that let him get in, and fixing the stuff he’s breaking.
I’m not sure the damage from another 4 years of the guy will be reversible. I’m quite serious about that.
The folks who make me shake my head more than anyone are the (D)’s in the House. ITMFA. Short of that, start dropping some serious legal whoop-ass on all of the punks who are impeding the various ongoing investigations.
Impeach Barr. Tell McGahn he’s gonna be arrested if he continues to refuse to testify. And then *by god arrest him and put his ass in jail*.
Freeze the assets of Deutsche Bank if they won’t cough up Trump’s financials. Or, you know, fine them a billion dollars a day.
If none of those things pass legal muster, come up with others. Options are out there. The House (D)’s have power they are not exercising.
Get creative. Knock heads. Be hard-asses. Quit taking shit off of Trump and his pals. They’re bullies, they’ll keep dishing it out as long as everybody else takes it.
I’m tired of seeing this country pissed on by greedy grifting punks. Take it to the freaking mat.
Fucking Nazis are no longer afraid to show their pasty white faces in public. While Trump tries to book the next G7 at his golf club.
We’re being trolled by our own government. Enough of this bullshit. Time to kick ass and take names.
Tell McGahn he’s gonna be arrested if he continues to refuse to testify. And then *by god arrest him and put his ass in jail*.
In the normal course of events, it would be the Department of Justice (in the person of the FBI) which would do the arresting. But in the current extremity, the Sergeant at Arms of the House may need to step up. Given that we’re not actually talking about an armed suspect here, that should be doable.
Which then raises the question, without the cooperation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (not likely), where do you put him in jail? My understanding is that Congress no longer has an actual jail. But surely a supply closet or something can be found.
Tell McGahn he’s gonna be arrested if he continues to refuse to testify. And then *by god arrest him and put his ass in jail*.
In the normal course of events, it would be the Department of Justice (in the person of the FBI) which would do the arresting. But in the current extremity, the Sergeant at Arms of the House may need to step up. Given that we’re not actually talking about an armed suspect here, that should be doable.
Which then raises the question, without the cooperation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (not likely), where do you put him in jail? My understanding is that Congress no longer has an actual jail. But surely a supply closet or something can be found.
Lock him the coat room.
Lock him the coat room.
The coat room seems excessively plush. This isn’t supposed to be that; it’s supposed to be a motivator. Stick to a supply closet.
The coat room seems excessively plush. This isn’t supposed to be that; it’s supposed to be a motivator. Stick to a supply closet.
😉
😉
obviously i’m all for voting him out. but i fear just voting him out isn’t going to cure us of the disease he’s been cultivating.
unless something convinces his supporters to truly reject him, they’ll just fall into comfortable conspiracies about fake news and liberal deep state scheming; the disease will linger.
the House leadership has been a huge disappointment on this. such cowardice.
obviously i’m all for voting him out. but i fear just voting him out isn’t going to cure us of the disease he’s been cultivating.
unless something convinces his supporters to truly reject him, they’ll just fall into comfortable conspiracies about fake news and liberal deep state scheming; the disease will linger.
the House leadership has been a huge disappointment on this. such cowardice.
bah
bah
Even if his supporters completely reject him, those other things(fake news, liberal “deep” state crimes, pointed media bias at all levels against conservatives, liberal desire to rewrite the constitution, focus on socialist agendas, desire for open borders) all will still be true. Trump is mostly the symptom, exacerbating the problem at every turn, but only a very limited part of the problem.
Even if his supporters completely reject him, those other things(fake news, liberal “deep” state crimes, pointed media bias at all levels against conservatives, liberal desire to rewrite the constitution, focus on socialist agendas, desire for open borders) all will still be true. Trump is mostly the symptom, exacerbating the problem at every turn, but only a very limited part of the problem.
out here in the real world, not so much.
out here in the real world, not so much.
Journalists are supposed to be biased against lies.
Journalists are supposed to be biased against lies.
….those other things(fake news, liberal “deep” state crimes, pointed media bias at all levels against conservatives, liberal desire to rewrite the constitution, focus on socialist agendas, desire for open borders) all will still be true.
In point of fact, none of this is “true” in any meaningful sense of the word, and is simply projection on your part. Let’s go down the list:
Liberal ‘deep state’ crimes. Ah. At last the right is buying into the concept of the ‘deep state’ so fondly put out there by the Left. Thus we get Glenn Greenwald appearing often on Tucker Carlson’s white nationalist TV show. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
Pointed Media Bias: FOX News. “Liberal” NYT goes all in for Bush war in Iraq. Washington Post pet peeve decrying cost of Medicare and Social Security. What the fuck are you talking about? MSNBC with its couple hundred thousand viewers? Are you daft?
Rewriting the Constitution: Shelby County v. Holder was a totally lawless decision. More here.
Socialist Agendas. Gene Debs was a socialist. Bernie Sanders is not. No Democrat of any note has called for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Open borders? Sez you. This is a canard. It is a lie. Personally, I see no problem considering open borders, but then I am not a typical member of the Democratic Party.
….those other things(fake news, liberal “deep” state crimes, pointed media bias at all levels against conservatives, liberal desire to rewrite the constitution, focus on socialist agendas, desire for open borders) all will still be true.
In point of fact, none of this is “true” in any meaningful sense of the word, and is simply projection on your part. Let’s go down the list:
Liberal ‘deep state’ crimes. Ah. At last the right is buying into the concept of the ‘deep state’ so fondly put out there by the Left. Thus we get Glenn Greenwald appearing often on Tucker Carlson’s white nationalist TV show. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
Pointed Media Bias: FOX News. “Liberal” NYT goes all in for Bush war in Iraq. Washington Post pet peeve decrying cost of Medicare and Social Security. What the fuck are you talking about? MSNBC with its couple hundred thousand viewers? Are you daft?
Rewriting the Constitution: Shelby County v. Holder was a totally lawless decision. More here.
Socialist Agendas. Gene Debs was a socialist. Bernie Sanders is not. No Democrat of any note has called for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Open borders? Sez you. This is a canard. It is a lie. Personally, I see no problem considering open borders, but then I am not a typical member of the Democratic Party.
Time to kick ass and take names.
Indeed. Anybody have any ideas?
The White House should be surrounded by 500,000 people 24/7 shouting “fuck you. fuck you.”
The House? How about using its fiscal authority as aggressively as the administration pushes its executive authority? Appoint a fascist federal judge? Defund and/or abolish that position. Defund ICE.
Time to kick ass and take names.
Indeed. Anybody have any ideas?
The White House should be surrounded by 500,000 people 24/7 shouting “fuck you. fuck you.”
The House? How about using its fiscal authority as aggressively as the administration pushes its executive authority? Appoint a fascist federal judge? Defund and/or abolish that position. Defund ICE.
Trump is mostly the symptom, exacerbating the problem at every turn, but only a very limited part of the problem.
i stand corrected!
the disease is, apparently, Republicanism.
Trumpism is just an opportunistic infection, enjoying the body politic’s weakened immune system.
Trump is mostly the symptom, exacerbating the problem at every turn, but only a very limited part of the problem.
i stand corrected!
the disease is, apparently, Republicanism.
Trumpism is just an opportunistic infection, enjoying the body politic’s weakened immune system.
Of course the disease is conservatism, perhaps a Republican version. Trump just let’s you hate people who disagree with your policies because Trumpism let’s you equate those things with evil motives.
Of course the disease is conservatism, perhaps a Republican version. Trump just let’s you hate people who disagree with your policies because Trumpism let’s you equate those things with evil motives.
Trump is mostly the symptom, exacerbating the problem at every turn, but only a very limited part of the problem.
Sometimes, when you have a serious problem, the only thing you can do initially is stop making the problem worse. (See the old line about “when you are in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.”) So dealing with Trump is something which can realistically be done, and relatively soon.
Dealing with all the other stuff that is wrong does need to be done. But it’s something that is going to take decades, not a couple of years. And we don’t want to make the mistake of letting the perfect solution be the enemy of doing something good.
Trump is mostly the symptom, exacerbating the problem at every turn, but only a very limited part of the problem.
Sometimes, when you have a serious problem, the only thing you can do initially is stop making the problem worse. (See the old line about “when you are in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.”) So dealing with Trump is something which can realistically be done, and relatively soon.
Dealing with all the other stuff that is wrong does need to be done. But it’s something that is going to take decades, not a couple of years. And we don’t want to make the mistake of letting the perfect solution be the enemy of doing something good.
Or it can never be dealt with because there will always be people with legitimate differing opinions.
Or it can never be dealt with because there will always be people with legitimate differing opinions.
I’m willing to believe that there’s a true conservative somewhere, perhaps living on a remote island with a true socialist, a true Catholic, and a true Scotsman, earnestly debating how best to arrange their affairs.
And then there’s the Republican Party. Which would happily change anything, including the climate, to make the rich richer, and to hold on to power which its popular support does not in a democracy warrant. If that’s what conservatism means, then it is indeed an evil thing.
I’m willing to believe that there’s a true conservative somewhere, perhaps living on a remote island with a true socialist, a true Catholic, and a true Scotsman, earnestly debating how best to arrange their affairs.
And then there’s the Republican Party. Which would happily change anything, including the climate, to make the rich richer, and to hold on to power which its popular support does not in a democracy warrant. If that’s what conservatism means, then it is indeed an evil thing.
legitimate differing opinions.
your poisonous fantasies about what liberals are, do and want aren’t legitimate differing opinions. they’re delusions.
seek help
legitimate differing opinions.
your poisonous fantasies about what liberals are, do and want aren’t legitimate differing opinions. they’re delusions.
seek help
How about using its fiscal authority as aggressively as the administration pushes its executive authority
Now, that’s what I’m talking about!!
Trump just let’s you hate people who disagree with your policies because Trumpism let’s you equate those things with evil motives.
I guess you could look at it that way.
Another way to look at it is that there are tons of people who are more than happy to support Trump if it means their favorite policies prevail.
I.e., Trump just lets you get your way, even if it means handing the keys of governance over to people with transparently bad motives. Including some honest-to-god fascists and Nazis. Imagine that.
And I’m not interested in lectures about hate at a time when Nazis run around in broad daylight and people get shot for shopping while brown.
I disagree with pretty much every modern American conservative position, but I have no problem talking with people about it all, and to date I have managed to not hate anybody over stuff like that. Or over much of anything.
What’s going on now – what has “people like me” up in arms – is not a conversation about differing points of view. It’s about a corrupt executive being protected by the actors who are supposed to be holding him to account. And it’s about yet another fucking resurgence of the bloody murderous fantasy of white supremacy raising it’s damned head, with one of the two national parties happy to look the other way if not openly embrace it if that makes their “base” happy.
Want to talk about “differences of opinion”, dump Trump and don’t bring the Nazis and the guns. Keep Trump and/or bring the Nazis and the guns, and there will be no conversation.
Trump’s a bridge too far, dude. Conservatives should be hiding their heads in shame.
How about using its fiscal authority as aggressively as the administration pushes its executive authority
Now, that’s what I’m talking about!!
Trump just let’s you hate people who disagree with your policies because Trumpism let’s you equate those things with evil motives.
I guess you could look at it that way.
Another way to look at it is that there are tons of people who are more than happy to support Trump if it means their favorite policies prevail.
I.e., Trump just lets you get your way, even if it means handing the keys of governance over to people with transparently bad motives. Including some honest-to-god fascists and Nazis. Imagine that.
And I’m not interested in lectures about hate at a time when Nazis run around in broad daylight and people get shot for shopping while brown.
I disagree with pretty much every modern American conservative position, but I have no problem talking with people about it all, and to date I have managed to not hate anybody over stuff like that. Or over much of anything.
What’s going on now – what has “people like me” up in arms – is not a conversation about differing points of view. It’s about a corrupt executive being protected by the actors who are supposed to be holding him to account. And it’s about yet another fucking resurgence of the bloody murderous fantasy of white supremacy raising it’s damned head, with one of the two national parties happy to look the other way if not openly embrace it if that makes their “base” happy.
Want to talk about “differences of opinion”, dump Trump and don’t bring the Nazis and the guns. Keep Trump and/or bring the Nazis and the guns, and there will be no conversation.
Trump’s a bridge too far, dude. Conservatives should be hiding their heads in shame.
I am not a US liberal but putting myself into the position of one I’d freely admit that I indeed would like to revise the Constitution (preferably by the path devised in it but, if given the powers, even over objections).
For starters I’d put a lot of stuff that until now only rests on vague wording, shaky tradition and precedent in clear and unambiguous words.
I would add several amendments including one putting severe restrictions on presidential pardon powers aimed at self-dealing. No blank pardons, no pardons in advance of trial, no pardons for crimes committed by or on behalf of the administration etc. And abuse or even attempted abuse of pardon powers would become an unpardonable crime.
Federal elections would get federalized and any attempt to interfere with the right of citizens to vote in federal elections would become another unpardonable crime and cost the perpetrator the right to hold any office of public trust for life.
I have quite some more ideas but will not stretch your patience with more of them at the moment.
I am not a US liberal but putting myself into the position of one I’d freely admit that I indeed would like to revise the Constitution (preferably by the path devised in it but, if given the powers, even over objections).
For starters I’d put a lot of stuff that until now only rests on vague wording, shaky tradition and precedent in clear and unambiguous words.
I would add several amendments including one putting severe restrictions on presidential pardon powers aimed at self-dealing. No blank pardons, no pardons in advance of trial, no pardons for crimes committed by or on behalf of the administration etc. And abuse or even attempted abuse of pardon powers would become an unpardonable crime.
Federal elections would get federalized and any attempt to interfere with the right of citizens to vote in federal elections would become another unpardonable crime and cost the perpetrator the right to hold any office of public trust for life.
I have quite some more ideas but will not stretch your patience with more of them at the moment.
As a moderate I will reluctantly abstain from any amendements or bills of attainder concerning boiling oil applications to the corrupt and despicable of the McConnell and Gingrich variety or mandatory testing of non-fatal methods to break all 210 bones in the average human body on the same group.
As a moderate I will reluctantly abstain from any amendements or bills of attainder concerning boiling oil applications to the corrupt and despicable of the McConnell and Gingrich variety or mandatory testing of non-fatal methods to break all 210 bones in the average human body on the same group.
What conservative principle requires caging children and denying them basic hygene?
What conservative principle requires caging children and denying them basic hygene?
Can I buy an i?
Can I buy an i?
Hartmut for President.
Hartmut for President.
Trumpism is just an opportunistic infection, enjoying the body politic’s weakened immune system.
Whether the disease is Republicanism, or what passes for it these days, or a combination of things, I think this definition of cleek’s is a pretty perfect diagnosis.
Trumpism is just an opportunistic infection, enjoying the body politic’s weakened immune system.
Whether the disease is Republicanism, or what passes for it these days, or a combination of things, I think this definition of cleek’s is a pretty perfect diagnosis.
Hartmut for President.
You could do, in fact you have done, a great deal worse.
Hartmut for President.
You could do, in fact you have done, a great deal worse.
What conservative principle requires caging children and denying them basic hygene?
it’s right there in the post-modern choose-your-own-adventure Bible, next to that part about worshipping liars and adulterers so long as they insult and demean enough of your neighbors.
What conservative principle requires caging children and denying them basic hygene?
it’s right there in the post-modern choose-your-own-adventure Bible, next to that part about worshipping liars and adulterers so long as they insult and demean enough of your neighbors.
Doesn’t my wife, Kellyanne have enough on her well-used paper plate without showing up in this small corner of the blogging universe and nattering on about her lover’s butt hurt:
Deep State crimes. OK, Joe.
You needn’t go deep at all to see them, let alone find them.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/30/1882438/-Former-Justice-Department-official-We-have-a-Russian-asset-sitting-in-the-Oval-Office
Doesn’t my wife, Kellyanne have enough on her well-used paper plate without showing up in this small corner of the blogging universe and nattering on about her lover’s butt hurt:
Deep State crimes. OK, Joe.
You needn’t go deep at all to see them, let alone find them.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/30/1882438/-Former-Justice-Department-official-We-have-a-Russian-asset-sitting-in-the-Oval-Office
Sorry, that comment was from I, George Conway.
Sorry, that comment was from I, George Conway.
What conservative principle requires caging children and denying them basic hygiene?
It is the same principle that requires conservatives to excoriate libruls, accusing them of believing that the ends justify the means.
What conservative principle requires caging children and denying them basic hygiene?
It is the same principle that requires conservatives to excoriate libruls, accusing them of believing that the ends justify the means.
Kellyanne: Could we have a moment, honey, to discuss this before you begin the hand-waving:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/trump-and-lion-logo.html
Optics, dear. Optics
Kellyanne: Could we have a moment, honey, to discuss this before you begin the hand-waving:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/trump-and-lion-logo.html
Optics, dear. Optics
Optics, dear. Optics
Izz’at you, Thullen?
Optics, dear. Optics
Izz’at you, Thullen?
russell: Want to talk about “differences of opinion”, dump Trump and don’t bring the Nazis and the guns. Keep Trump and/or bring the Nazis and the guns, and there will be no conversation.
wrs
cleek: your poisonous fantasies about what liberals are, do and want aren’t legitimate differing opinions. they’re delusions.
wcs
A similar formulation from a commenter with the handle Alex SL at Crooked Timber, in a thread called “Johnson’s Putsch”:
(Earlier there was a comment that I marked as spam. It seems we have come up in the world since then…. May I welcome George and Genghis to the blog? 😉
russell: Want to talk about “differences of opinion”, dump Trump and don’t bring the Nazis and the guns. Keep Trump and/or bring the Nazis and the guns, and there will be no conversation.
wrs
cleek: your poisonous fantasies about what liberals are, do and want aren’t legitimate differing opinions. they’re delusions.
wcs
A similar formulation from a commenter with the handle Alex SL at Crooked Timber, in a thread called “Johnson’s Putsch”:
(Earlier there was a comment that I marked as spam. It seems we have come up in the world since then…. May I welcome George and Genghis to the blog? 😉
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/08/30/the-presidents-operational-security-failure/
Genghis Khan would be comic relief at this point.
The deep state is the only thing standing between us and the savage end.
Kellyanne, where did you hide my Clinton dic pics, you little minx?
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/08/30/the-presidents-operational-security-failure/
Genghis Khan would be comic relief at this point.
The deep state is the only thing standing between us and the savage end.
Kellyanne, where did you hide my Clinton dic pics, you little minx?
I really wonder how much intelligence information, the stuff the normally would be routinely included in the President’s daily information briefing, is getting held back in order to prevent disasterous damage to the nation’s intelligence apparatus. The deep state preserving the nation.
Which, if true, suggests that, even if this was nominally Top Secret Compartmented Information, it was perhaps not actually cutting edge.
Even so, if I was in US intelligence, there might be something to be said with only providing Trump with unclassified info. Plaster it with Top Secret labels, of course, to stoke his ego. But don’t let him near anything that’s actually sensitive.
I really wonder how much intelligence information, the stuff the normally would be routinely included in the President’s daily information briefing, is getting held back in order to prevent disasterous damage to the nation’s intelligence apparatus. The deep state preserving the nation.
Which, if true, suggests that, even if this was nominally Top Secret Compartmented Information, it was perhaps not actually cutting edge.
Even so, if I was in US intelligence, there might be something to be said with only providing Trump with unclassified info. Plaster it with Top Secret labels, of course, to stoke his ego. But don’t let him near anything that’s actually sensitive.
There would even be precedent for that. Iirc the WH was temporarily struck from the list of recipients of broken Japanese code messages before Pearl Harbour after intelligence learned of sloppy security there.
The Great Khan was a childhood hero of mine due to some novelizations of his youth (aimed at kids). I still hold to the belief that Mongol rule (as opposed to the conquest) was something not to be scorned at the time. Religiously and culturally tolerant and comparatively meritocratic. Imo a clear improvement over the standards at the time.
There would even be precedent for that. Iirc the WH was temporarily struck from the list of recipients of broken Japanese code messages before Pearl Harbour after intelligence learned of sloppy security there.
The Great Khan was a childhood hero of mine due to some novelizations of his youth (aimed at kids). I still hold to the belief that Mongol rule (as opposed to the conquest) was something not to be scorned at the time. Religiously and culturally tolerant and comparatively meritocratic. Imo a clear improvement over the standards at the time.
Khan!!.
Apologies, I guess. But someone had to do it.
🙂
Khan!!.
Apologies, I guess. But someone had to do it.
🙂
I heard rather similar accounts of the Mongol Empire. Not only a better than average place to live (once the conquest was past), but unusually well run.
I heard rather similar accounts of the Mongol Empire. Not only a better than average place to live (once the conquest was past), but unusually well run.
You freedom-hating pinko bastards! A perfect example of how you hate and demonise the Christian West, and praise the yellow peril!
You freedom-hating pinko bastards! A perfect example of how you hate and demonise the Christian West, and praise the yellow peril!
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bolton-sidelined-from-afghanistan-policy-as-his-standing-with-trump-falters/2019/08/30/79651256-8888-483b-9fd1-c47a2cfadab7_story.html
Now if we can just get him sidelined from Iran policy….
I’d say booted out altogether. Except for Trump’s record of finding ever worse appointees, even when I would have thought that impossible — but I’ve learned better. Heaven know what he would come up with next.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bolton-sidelined-from-afghanistan-policy-as-his-standing-with-trump-falters/2019/08/30/79651256-8888-483b-9fd1-c47a2cfadab7_story.html
Now if we can just get him sidelined from Iran policy….
I’d say booted out altogether. Except for Trump’s record of finding ever worse appointees, even when I would have thought that impossible — but I’ve learned better. Heaven know what he would come up with next.
The neocons seem to think the US isn’t properly engaging with the rest of the world if it isn’t bombing brown people somewhere.
The neocons seem to think the US isn’t properly engaging with the rest of the world if it isn’t bombing brown people somewhere.
All those who say “if we just hadn’t got Hillary Clinton/Corbyn/Shorten/etc we could have won” will just find the next candidate to be in the exact same situation,..
I think Corbyn is perhaps the exception that proves the rule. Under one of the worst Prime Ministers ever, his leadership rating stayed in third place behind Theresa May and Don’t Know (with Don’t Know regularly in the lead).
Now that the Lib Dem’s have started to be included in such polling, he is behind the barely known Swinson.
He remains popular with somewhere around a quarter of the electorate and electoral poison to the rest.
All those who say “if we just hadn’t got Hillary Clinton/Corbyn/Shorten/etc we could have won” will just find the next candidate to be in the exact same situation,..
I think Corbyn is perhaps the exception that proves the rule. Under one of the worst Prime Ministers ever, his leadership rating stayed in third place behind Theresa May and Don’t Know (with Don’t Know regularly in the lead).
Now that the Lib Dem’s have started to be included in such polling, he is behind the barely known Swinson.
He remains popular with somewhere around a quarter of the electorate and electoral poison to the rest.
The UK does seem to be ahead of us in that respect. We only have Trump. They have two Trump-level politicians heading major parties. (And that doesn’t include whichever piece of work is heading the Brexit party.)
The UK does seem to be ahead of us in that respect. We only have Trump. They have two Trump-level politicians heading major parties. (And that doesn’t include whichever piece of work is heading the Brexit party.)
Kellyanne’s great uncle in-law, Genghis Conway, was hanged for leaking classified intel about his wife’s employer.
Kellyanne’s great uncle in-law, Genghis Conway, was hanged for leaking classified intel about his wife’s employer.
Heaven know what he would come up with next.
Gorka, obvs.
Heaven know what he would come up with next.
Gorka, obvs.
Kellyanne’s many great aunts-in-law were relieved to finally be free to consort among themselves.
Kellyanne’s many great aunts-in-law were relieved to finally be free to consort among themselves.
Calling all pro-lifers:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/08/29/deportation-from-united-states-with-this-type-medical-condition-death-sentence-representative-ayanna-pressley-said/I2Fm6F5b85EKKdLMaLMi3M/story.html?p1=Article_Recirc_InThisSection
I know you’d rather have your tax cuts, but if you can’t renounce your allegiance to the Republicon party over this, you can kiss my ass.
–TP
Calling all pro-lifers:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/08/29/deportation-from-united-states-with-this-type-medical-condition-death-sentence-representative-ayanna-pressley-said/I2Fm6F5b85EKKdLMaLMi3M/story.html?p1=Article_Recirc_InThisSection
I know you’d rather have your tax cuts, but if you can’t renounce your allegiance to the Republicon party over this, you can kiss my ass.
–TP
Gorka, obvs.
Definitely a possibility. But would you put money on him failing to find someone even worse? (Who was that Russian woman who was working with the NRA…?)
Gorka, obvs.
Definitely a possibility. But would you put money on him failing to find someone even worse? (Who was that Russian woman who was working with the NRA…?)
We only have Trump. They have two Trump-level politicians heading major parties.
I bow to no-one in my contempt for Boris, and, assuming wj is referring to Corbyn as the second, I despair that he is leading the Labour party, particularly at a time like this, but neither of these is Trump-level. They are not crooks, grifters and ignoramuses. Boris is a habitual liar with an unprincipled lust for power, but a clever man, and Corbyn is an anachronistic, dogged, not very bright relic of a failed ideology with (at the very least) a tolerance for anti-semites and other appalling types who he perceives to be otherwise sympathetic to his base ideology. Farage is the most Trump-like, but not quite as bad and not (yet) the leader of a major party. However, having said all this, none of them are anything to boast about, and if Trump were not POTUS any of them would certainly be in with a fighting chance for the title of “worst leader”.
We only have Trump. They have two Trump-level politicians heading major parties.
I bow to no-one in my contempt for Boris, and, assuming wj is referring to Corbyn as the second, I despair that he is leading the Labour party, particularly at a time like this, but neither of these is Trump-level. They are not crooks, grifters and ignoramuses. Boris is a habitual liar with an unprincipled lust for power, but a clever man, and Corbyn is an anachronistic, dogged, not very bright relic of a failed ideology with (at the very least) a tolerance for anti-semites and other appalling types who he perceives to be otherwise sympathetic to his base ideology. Farage is the most Trump-like, but not quite as bad and not (yet) the leader of a major party. However, having said all this, none of them are anything to boast about, and if Trump were not POTUS any of them would certainly be in with a fighting chance for the title of “worst leader”.
Calling all pro-lifers:
First, most “pro-lifers” seem not to care much about life after birth. Certainly not enough to spend a nickle of their own precious funds on supporting it.
Second, if these people were from a northern European country, they could get treated at home. And if they aren’t, why would this administration give their deaths a second thought? Nothing else in their behavior suggests they would care.
Calling all pro-lifers:
First, most “pro-lifers” seem not to care much about life after birth. Certainly not enough to spend a nickle of their own precious funds on supporting it.
Second, if these people were from a northern European country, they could get treated at home. And if they aren’t, why would this administration give their deaths a second thought? Nothing else in their behavior suggests they would care.
but neither of these is Trump-level. They are not crooks, grifters and ignoramuses.
Fair enough. But that mostly means, I think, that they will be more effective in the damage they will (or would) do. The biggest constrain on Trump is his, and his circle’s, utter incompetence at their misdeeds. Neither of them would be so limited.
but neither of these is Trump-level. They are not crooks, grifters and ignoramuses.
Fair enough. But that mostly means, I think, that they will be more effective in the damage they will (or would) do. The biggest constrain on Trump is his, and his circle’s, utter incompetence at their misdeeds. Neither of them would be so limited.
But would you put money on him failing to find someone even worse?
hell no. the world is full of cretins, and Trump attracts them.
but he likes a TV celebrity, too. so that narrows things a bit.
But would you put money on him failing to find someone even worse?
hell no. the world is full of cretins, and Trump attracts them.
but he likes a TV celebrity, too. so that narrows things a bit.
When it comes to the worst of the worst of the GOP, it’s not only worse than you think, it’s worse than you can think.
When it comes to the worst of the worst of the GOP, it’s not only worse than you think, it’s worse than you can think.
Donald Trump, friend of the working man.
Because if you let the wealthiest among us get even wealthier, the benefits will surely trickle down to you, the average American.
I’m not sure how this even ever happens, because I’m not sure the executive gets to make tax law. Maybe tweets have pride of place nowadays.
Very wealthy people are not satisfied with their extraordinary wealth. They want more. They want every dime they can possibly get their hands on.
They will exploit the institutions of government to make that happen, to the degree that they are able to do so. The degree to which they are able to do so is very large.
This is not about hating on the rich. I don’t give a crap if people are rich. This is about preserving the institution of a self-governing polity of free people in the republican form. Note the small ‘r’.
If you’ve got a billion, or even a mere hundred million, dollars, go enjoy your life. Buy a couple of houses, fly first class or even better buy or lease a private jet, eat wonderful food prepared by your personal chef. Wear bespoke suits and have your shoes made by Florentine artisanal cobblers. Hang out in the Hamptons with your peers and compare art collections.
Go have fun. Leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Donald Trump, friend of the working man.
Because if you let the wealthiest among us get even wealthier, the benefits will surely trickle down to you, the average American.
I’m not sure how this even ever happens, because I’m not sure the executive gets to make tax law. Maybe tweets have pride of place nowadays.
Very wealthy people are not satisfied with their extraordinary wealth. They want more. They want every dime they can possibly get their hands on.
They will exploit the institutions of government to make that happen, to the degree that they are able to do so. The degree to which they are able to do so is very large.
This is not about hating on the rich. I don’t give a crap if people are rich. This is about preserving the institution of a self-governing polity of free people in the republican form. Note the small ‘r’.
If you’ve got a billion, or even a mere hundred million, dollars, go enjoy your life. Buy a couple of houses, fly first class or even better buy or lease a private jet, eat wonderful food prepared by your personal chef. Wear bespoke suits and have your shoes made by Florentine artisanal cobblers. Hang out in the Hamptons with your peers and compare art collections.
Go have fun. Leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
When it comes to the worst of the worst of the GOP, it’s not only worse than you think, it’s worse than you can think.
No question that we all suffer from failure of imagination. Which, in this case, is probably a good thing. After all, how many horror movies can the market absorb?
When it comes to the worst of the worst of the GOP, it’s not only worse than you think, it’s worse than you can think.
No question that we all suffer from failure of imagination. Which, in this case, is probably a good thing. After all, how many horror movies can the market absorb?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/31/odessa-midland-texas-shooting-home-depot-cinergy/2183128001/
Skip the victims’ names this time, OK.
No one gives a fuck.
Instead, name your chosen prominent republican conservative subhuman vermin who should have been murdered/wounded in place of each of the innocent victims.
Grover Norquist is mine.
He’s on record numerous instances over the past 30 years urging gun violence against humans who work for the government.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/31/odessa-midland-texas-shooting-home-depot-cinergy/2183128001/
Skip the victims’ names this time, OK.
No one gives a fuck.
Instead, name your chosen prominent republican conservative subhuman vermin who should have been murdered/wounded in place of each of the innocent victims.
Grover Norquist is mine.
He’s on record numerous instances over the past 30 years urging gun violence against humans who work for the government.
To lighten the mood a bit, here’s a paper* on pooing penguins:
http://www.meyer-rochow.com%2Fpenguin.pdf
Remember: it hasn’t to be bullsh|t all the time
*wasn’t this post about asking for papers?
To lighten the mood a bit, here’s a paper* on pooing penguins:
http://www.meyer-rochow.com%2Fpenguin.pdf
Remember: it hasn’t to be bullsh|t all the time
*wasn’t this post about asking for papers?
What do our resident lawyers make of the claim that the Federalist Society is an apolitical, non partisan organisation ?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/31/federalist-society-advocacy-group-227991
What do our resident lawyers make of the claim that the Federalist Society is an apolitical, non partisan organisation ?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/31/federalist-society-advocacy-group-227991
IANAL, but on balance I think the penguin shit article wins over that claim (although you can draw parallels with the pressure needed to expel the shit from the generating orifice).
IANAL, but on balance I think the penguin shit article wins over that claim (although you can draw parallels with the pressure needed to expel the shit from the generating orifice).
but he likes a TV celebrity, too. so that narrows things a bit.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jeanine Pirro, Associate Justice of the SCOTUS.
but he likes a TV celebrity, too. so that narrows things a bit.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jeanine Pirro, Associate Justice of the SCOTUS.
The penguin paper informed me that penguins squirt radially outward from their nests, using fairly significant intestinal pressure to do so.
The Politico article informed me that the Federalist Society is a political advocacy organization, aligned with the GOP.
Only one of these was “news” to me.
–TP
The penguin paper informed me that penguins squirt radially outward from their nests, using fairly significant intestinal pressure to do so.
The Politico article informed me that the Federalist Society is a political advocacy organization, aligned with the GOP.
Only one of these was “news” to me.
–TP
He’s on record numerous instances over the past 30 years urging gun violence against humans who work for the government.
Who remembers G Gordon Liddy, recommending head shots against federal officers, because they wear body armor?
Good times.
He’s on record numerous instances over the past 30 years urging gun violence against humans who work for the government.
Who remembers G Gordon Liddy, recommending head shots against federal officers, because they wear body armor?
Good times.
The Politico article informed me that the Federalist Society is a political advocacy organization, aligned with the GOP, and uses fairly significant intestinal pressure to do so.
The Politico article informed me that the Federalist Society is a political advocacy organization, aligned with the GOP, and uses fairly significant intestinal pressure to do so.
And in addition to Odessa, Mobile AL.
We have a very strange understanding of what it means to be free.
And in addition to Odessa, Mobile AL.
We have a very strange understanding of what it means to be free.
we are free from worrying that we won’t get shot.
and that’s the greatest freedom of all.
we are free from worrying that we won’t get shot.
and that’s the greatest freedom of all.
A well worried Militia, being worrisome to the worrywarts of a worried State, the right of the people to keep worrying and bear Arms, shall not be assuaged.
The only way to stop a good guy from worrying, is for a bad guy to shoot him with a gun, but for maximum freedom to worry, an unworried good guy could accidentally shoot a worried good child, which will further maximize the profits and assuage the worry of the shareholders of the bullet-proof child backpack industry.
Worriers target worry-free zones.
Guns don’t kill people, but at least the people they kill can relax and stop worrying.
Guns are tools that can kill, just like hypertension and anxiety among the worried, and we’re not banning hypertension and anxiety, are we?
And why not, because CHRONIC hypertension and anxiety keep the pharmaceutical profits rolling in perpetuity.
Guns won’t solve the issue of mentally ill people going on rampages. However guns will stop people who worry about gun rampages from taking our guns.
A well worried Militia, being worrisome to the worrywarts of a worried State, the right of the people to keep worrying and bear Arms, shall not be assuaged.
The only way to stop a good guy from worrying, is for a bad guy to shoot him with a gun, but for maximum freedom to worry, an unworried good guy could accidentally shoot a worried good child, which will further maximize the profits and assuage the worry of the shareholders of the bullet-proof child backpack industry.
Worriers target worry-free zones.
Guns don’t kill people, but at least the people they kill can relax and stop worrying.
Guns are tools that can kill, just like hypertension and anxiety among the worried, and we’re not banning hypertension and anxiety, are we?
And why not, because CHRONIC hypertension and anxiety keep the pharmaceutical profits rolling in perpetuity.
Guns won’t solve the issue of mentally ill people going on rampages. However guns will stop people who worry about gun rampages from taking our guns.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/us/texas-new-gun-laws-trnd/index.html
When we shoot all right-wingers with guns who loosen gun-control regulations, we will be free to worry about other things.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/us/texas-new-gun-laws-trnd/index.html
When we shoot all right-wingers with guns who loosen gun-control regulations, we will be free to worry about other things.
it takes a worried man, to shoot a worried child.
it takes a worried man, to shoot a worried child.
it takes a worried man, to shoot a worried child.
It takes a man we should be worried about.
In addition to being worried about him having the means to shoot anyone. Because I notice a distinct lack — in places where attacks take place with, for example, knives — of children being attacked. Even by nut cases who attack strangers.
it takes a worried man, to shoot a worried child.
It takes a man we should be worried about.
In addition to being worried about him having the means to shoot anyone. Because I notice a distinct lack — in places where attacks take place with, for example, knives — of children being attacked. Even by nut cases who attack strangers.
Depends on the country. There’s been a number of knife attacks against children in China.
Depends on the country. There’s been a number of knife attacks against children in China.
The way for China to stop, or curtail knife attacks on children is to legalize gun ownership across the board and thus provide everyone with free choice among weaponry.
A guy in Shanghai stabbed another guy in the eye with a chopstick a couple of years back and then forcibly washed the latter’s hair in a wok full of sizzling sesame oil.
He wasn’t free to shoot him, so can you blame him?
The way for China to stop, or curtail knife attacks on children is to legalize gun ownership across the board and thus provide everyone with free choice among weaponry.
A guy in Shanghai stabbed another guy in the eye with a chopstick a couple of years back and then forcibly washed the latter’s hair in a wok full of sizzling sesame oil.
He wasn’t free to shoot him, so can you blame him?
China:
China:
Beyond Meat, which unveiled pea protein and other vegetable matter prepared to look and taste like a bucket of KFC, (they are working on forming beef, pork, and chicken flesh into faux broccoli and cauliflower florets to satisfy vegetarians at vegetarian restaurants who would like to have something that looks like vegetables to those they have bragged to about their strict vege habits, but would really like the choice to cheat a bit with the real thing without their friends knowing) is starting up a division that will manufacture guns out of vegetable matter and other comestibles to fool the mentally ill and possible suicides into enhancing their diet while retaining the pleasurable aspects of gun ownership and concealed carry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjuvr5uGA4s
Whole Foods meat counter is now given over completely to organic beyond-meat vegetable protein in the form of whole chickens, steaks and chops, while the fresh produce section is now wholly stocked with animal protein made to look and taste like radishes, blackberries, and parsley.
Everything tastes like chicken.
You’ve heard of killing two birds with one stone, right? Well, now we say killing two beyond meat birds with one vegetarian stone.
Beyond Meat, which unveiled pea protein and other vegetable matter prepared to look and taste like a bucket of KFC, (they are working on forming beef, pork, and chicken flesh into faux broccoli and cauliflower florets to satisfy vegetarians at vegetarian restaurants who would like to have something that looks like vegetables to those they have bragged to about their strict vege habits, but would really like the choice to cheat a bit with the real thing without their friends knowing) is starting up a division that will manufacture guns out of vegetable matter and other comestibles to fool the mentally ill and possible suicides into enhancing their diet while retaining the pleasurable aspects of gun ownership and concealed carry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjuvr5uGA4s
Whole Foods meat counter is now given over completely to organic beyond-meat vegetable protein in the form of whole chickens, steaks and chops, while the fresh produce section is now wholly stocked with animal protein made to look and taste like radishes, blackberries, and parsley.
Everything tastes like chicken.
You’ve heard of killing two birds with one stone, right? Well, now we say killing two beyond meat birds with one vegetarian stone.
Republicans finally looking askance at President p are telling Democrats to nominate someone …. anyone in the Democratic primary that looks and tastes like tax cuts and shutting down immigration, otherwise they’ll stick with the USDA Grade A offal they voted for last time.
Republicans finally looking askance at President p are telling Democrats to nominate someone …. anyone in the Democratic primary that looks and tastes like tax cuts and shutting down immigration, otherwise they’ll stick with the USDA Grade A offal they voted for last time.
Tax cuts and shutting down immigration will never be enough for this guy. He’s too obsessed with guns and god.
God-bothering gun fetishists are not like you and me. They read the 1st and 2nd Amendments in their own way. They’re — how to say it politely? — special.
–TP
Tax cuts and shutting down immigration will never be enough for this guy. He’s too obsessed with guns and god.
God-bothering gun fetishists are not like you and me. They read the 1st and 2nd Amendments in their own way. They’re — how to say it politely? — special.
–TP
Experts have said the spate of school attacks can be attributed in part to a lack of high-quality mental health care in China and growing frustrations about social inequality and injustice.
Definitely sounds familiar. I can remember (about the time the tax cut fanatics were getting started; coincidence, no doubt) when folks on the left pushed thru shutting down our (California’s) mental hospitals, in favor of “community-based treatment”. The hospitals got closed, and their residents turned out. But nothing resembling community treatments got created. However we did generate a big jump in the homless population.
Experts have said the spate of school attacks can be attributed in part to a lack of high-quality mental health care in China and growing frustrations about social inequality and injustice.
Definitely sounds familiar. I can remember (about the time the tax cut fanatics were getting started; coincidence, no doubt) when folks on the left pushed thru shutting down our (California’s) mental hospitals, in favor of “community-based treatment”. The hospitals got closed, and their residents turned out. But nothing resembling community treatments got created. However we did generate a big jump in the homless population.
I don’t spend a lot of time at The Intercept, but my own time monitoring a lot of sketchy Threeper-ajacent forums confirms this, and I found it via a friend (and grad school compadre) who was a Bosnian refugee.:
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/01/bosnian-genocide-mass-shootings/
I’ve been seeing signs of this fo a while and really began to worry about such things after spending some time teaching Chris Hedges’ War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning back in 2007. Hedges, like Greenwald, seems to have gone a bit around the bend in the intervening decade, but I have am still chilled every time I read his chapter “The Plague of Nationalism” and see the same exact death spiral being pushed by the RW punditry and major Evangelical figures in the US since at least the Iraq War, with no signs of turning back.
It could happen here.
Since all this was on my mind, I decided to rent Scream for Me Sarajevo, the documentary about how Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden traveled to Sarajevo in the middle of the siege to play a gig there. Outstanding, moving, heartbreaking, uplifting documentary. I plan on buying a copy on DVD and teaching it for one of my courses.
I don’t spend a lot of time at The Intercept, but my own time monitoring a lot of sketchy Threeper-ajacent forums confirms this, and I found it via a friend (and grad school compadre) who was a Bosnian refugee.:
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/01/bosnian-genocide-mass-shootings/
I’ve been seeing signs of this fo a while and really began to worry about such things after spending some time teaching Chris Hedges’ War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning back in 2007. Hedges, like Greenwald, seems to have gone a bit around the bend in the intervening decade, but I have am still chilled every time I read his chapter “The Plague of Nationalism” and see the same exact death spiral being pushed by the RW punditry and major Evangelical figures in the US since at least the Iraq War, with no signs of turning back.
It could happen here.
Since all this was on my mind, I decided to rent Scream for Me Sarajevo, the documentary about how Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden traveled to Sarajevo in the middle of the siege to play a gig there. Outstanding, moving, heartbreaking, uplifting documentary. I plan on buying a copy on DVD and teaching it for one of my courses.
The hospitals got closed, and their residents turned out. But nothing resembling community treatments got created. However we did generate a big jump in the homless population.
I recall the same phenomenon when I moved back to Philly around ’81. Except it was a Reagan administration initiative.
The hospitals got closed, and their residents turned out. But nothing resembling community treatments got created. However we did generate a big jump in the homless population.
I recall the same phenomenon when I moved back to Philly around ’81. Except it was a Reagan administration initiative.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/09/your-fellow-americans-are-cray-cray.html
“A little taste of Genghis Khan butchering and slaughtering the lot of these millions of filth would be therapeutic to the upholding of common decency.”
John Adams, 1796.
It was a gaffe.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/09/your-fellow-americans-are-cray-cray.html
“A little taste of Genghis Khan butchering and slaughtering the lot of these millions of filth would be therapeutic to the upholding of common decency.”
John Adams, 1796.
It was a gaffe.
Same with free trade. Outsource, kill the unions, send jobs abroad, cut overhead, cut benefits, slash wages, all measures touted by the very Kudlow slime now become p whisperers … and then slash funding at the federal and state levels across the board for jobs programs and retooling.
The savage killing of the subhuman conservative movement will be as salutary and patriotic as throwing tea into Boston Harbor.
Same with free trade. Outsource, kill the unions, send jobs abroad, cut overhead, cut benefits, slash wages, all measures touted by the very Kudlow slime now become p whisperers … and then slash funding at the federal and state levels across the board for jobs programs and retooling.
The savage killing of the subhuman conservative movement will be as salutary and patriotic as throwing tea into Boston Harbor.
Every time a Category 5 Hurricane hits the homeland, it’s groundhog day to me unless the know-it-alls in the deep state bother me with their expertise:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/09/and-the-hurricane-came-up-to-me-and-started-crying-and-said-sir-please-dont-nuke-me
Eat me, conservatives.
Every time a Category 5 Hurricane hits the homeland, it’s groundhog day to me unless the know-it-alls in the deep state bother me with their expertise:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/09/and-the-hurricane-came-up-to-me-and-started-crying-and-said-sir-please-dont-nuke-me
Eat me, conservatives.
A great slogan:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/01/mikie-sherrill-new-jersey-pressure-227995
“I would go for her rather than any Republican I can conceive of,” he said. “Abraham Lincoln is dead.”
A great slogan:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/01/mikie-sherrill-new-jersey-pressure-227995
“I would go for her rather than any Republican I can conceive of,” he said. “Abraham Lincoln is dead.”
i really believe Q must be a running gag, at the top. it just feels like someone is trying to be ridiculous.
that people believe it is tragic.
i really believe Q must be a running gag, at the top. it just feels like someone is trying to be ridiculous.
that people believe it is tragic.
nobody could have predicted that legalizing discrimination so long as you say “it’s my religion!” would lead to people discriminating for things that have nothing to do with religion!
so unpredictable.
nobody could have predicted that legalizing discrimination so long as you say “it’s my religion!” would lead to people discriminating for things that have nothing to do with religion!
so unpredictable.
For some people, their religion leads to their beliefs on a variety of topics. But for others, their beliefs come first, and their religion is twisted to justify them.
For some people, their religion leads to their beliefs on a variety of topics. But for others, their beliefs come first, and their religion is twisted to justify them.
The notion that “religion is twisted to justify” various vicious propositions is questionable. Who gets to decide what an UNtwisted Christianity prescribes? Certainly not an atheist like me. So, who? Episcopalians, maybe?
–TP
The notion that “religion is twisted to justify” various vicious propositions is questionable. Who gets to decide what an UNtwisted Christianity prescribes? Certainly not an atheist like me. So, who? Episcopalians, maybe?
–TP
Who gets to decide what an UNtwisted Christianity prescribes?
A better question might be, who can say what untwisted Christianity doesn’t prescribe? The answer being: Anybody who troubles to read the New Testament.
All you have to do is look thru the Bible and notice that it says nothing about interracial marriage. That’s enough to say that someone claiming the Christianity forbids it is twisting his proclaimed religion. Even an atheist can make that valid point.
Similarly, anyone can read Jesus’s statements on worldly things and note that they are directly contrary to the “prosperity gospel”. (Numerous Christian theologians have made the same point.) So that’s twisted, too.
Just by the way, the same exercise can be done with various non-Christian religions. If your holy book says one thing, or is totally silent about it, claiming a religious basis for something else is a twist to justify a belief which isn’t actually religious. For example, good luck finding any words from Mohammad mandating the Saudi cultural insistance that women be totally covered in public. For all that the Wahabists claim a religious basis for it.
Who gets to decide what an UNtwisted Christianity prescribes?
A better question might be, who can say what untwisted Christianity doesn’t prescribe? The answer being: Anybody who troubles to read the New Testament.
All you have to do is look thru the Bible and notice that it says nothing about interracial marriage. That’s enough to say that someone claiming the Christianity forbids it is twisting his proclaimed religion. Even an atheist can make that valid point.
Similarly, anyone can read Jesus’s statements on worldly things and note that they are directly contrary to the “prosperity gospel”. (Numerous Christian theologians have made the same point.) So that’s twisted, too.
Just by the way, the same exercise can be done with various non-Christian religions. If your holy book says one thing, or is totally silent about it, claiming a religious basis for something else is a twist to justify a belief which isn’t actually religious. For example, good luck finding any words from Mohammad mandating the Saudi cultural insistance that women be totally covered in public. For all that the Wahabists claim a religious basis for it.
i’m willing to make a deal: i won’t tell you what your religion is and isn’t, and you won’t pass laws that effectively coerce me into following whatever you claim your religion is.
i’m willing to make a deal: i won’t tell you what your religion is and isn’t, and you won’t pass laws that effectively coerce me into following whatever you claim your religion is.
…and you won’t pass laws that effectively coerce me into following whatever you claim your religion is.
Does this qualify as a “stretch goal”? 😉
…and you won’t pass laws that effectively coerce me into following whatever you claim your religion is.
Does this qualify as a “stretch goal”? 😉
a guy can dream…
a guy can dream…
“If you don’t have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXgmQDFhPjo
“If you don’t have a dream,
How you gonna have a dream come true?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXgmQDFhPjo
Somewhat opposed to having clicked on nous’s link to the Intercept, and I won’t be reading the Intercept without a mediator, but since the mediator was nous, I did it.
It was a very good, but depressing, read. I have some friends who are now US citizens, who were refugees from Bosnia. This article was incredibly important to me, as I have ancestors from the area that was the former Yugoslavia.
We need to pay attention to the fascism (and, yes, Nazis) in our own countries. This is an international movement, but every place has its own history of racism, and ethnic hatreds. I grew up knowing something about what happened in my own country, but have learned so much more.
My father fought the Nazis. He was a yellow dog democrat, and I’m sure he would be with me. He had a lot to overcome, though, as a white boy growing up in the midwest, born in 1921. WWII opened his eyes to some degree of diversity. He took it seriously and tried to move forward.
I always took it for granted that we were evolutionarily going forward to eradicate hate and racism. I was wrong. We’re here, and I am trying to figure out a way to forestall our own version of the Yugoslav wars.
Somewhat opposed to having clicked on nous’s link to the Intercept, and I won’t be reading the Intercept without a mediator, but since the mediator was nous, I did it.
It was a very good, but depressing, read. I have some friends who are now US citizens, who were refugees from Bosnia. This article was incredibly important to me, as I have ancestors from the area that was the former Yugoslavia.
We need to pay attention to the fascism (and, yes, Nazis) in our own countries. This is an international movement, but every place has its own history of racism, and ethnic hatreds. I grew up knowing something about what happened in my own country, but have learned so much more.
My father fought the Nazis. He was a yellow dog democrat, and I’m sure he would be with me. He had a lot to overcome, though, as a white boy growing up in the midwest, born in 1921. WWII opened his eyes to some degree of diversity. He took it seriously and tried to move forward.
I always took it for granted that we were evolutionarily going forward to eradicate hate and racism. I was wrong. We’re here, and I am trying to figure out a way to forestall our own version of the Yugoslav wars.
We’re here, and I am trying to figure out a way to forestall our own version of the Yugoslav wars.
Just to follow up on this, I’ve had some bitter exchanges with some very good people on this site (GftNC particularly). I have felt that their insistence on avoiding the word “Nazi” or “fascist” has gotten in the way of making clear what is happening: an international effort to bring us into this era of hateful, sadistic policies against people who are vulnerable in various ways.
If we can’t agree on Nazi or fascist (which I think are accurate terms – the people who describe themselves as that support the people we’re all talking about), then we need to come up with a term that we can gather round and fight.
There are people in Hong Kong, and people in Russia, and people now in the UK (maybe you are one of them, GftNC) – these folks are standing up. There’s a demonstration in DC on September 21. I plan to go. I would prefer that everyone showing up here go to a detention center, and demand that the people there be liberated, and when they are, take a body home.
But I’ll start with this. We need to act. Make it a schedule. Make it a commitment. Somehow, we need not to be Nazis.
We’re here, and I am trying to figure out a way to forestall our own version of the Yugoslav wars.
Just to follow up on this, I’ve had some bitter exchanges with some very good people on this site (GftNC particularly). I have felt that their insistence on avoiding the word “Nazi” or “fascist” has gotten in the way of making clear what is happening: an international effort to bring us into this era of hateful, sadistic policies against people who are vulnerable in various ways.
If we can’t agree on Nazi or fascist (which I think are accurate terms – the people who describe themselves as that support the people we’re all talking about), then we need to come up with a term that we can gather round and fight.
There are people in Hong Kong, and people in Russia, and people now in the UK (maybe you are one of them, GftNC) – these folks are standing up. There’s a demonstration in DC on September 21. I plan to go. I would prefer that everyone showing up here go to a detention center, and demand that the people there be liberated, and when they are, take a body home.
But I’ll start with this. We need to act. Make it a schedule. Make it a commitment. Somehow, we need not to be Nazis.
One more thing, because, why not – the blog is quiet.
This Naziesque movement is international. We know that Putin is a stronghold. We have to recognize its operatives infiltrating our ranks. My guess is that nombrilisme vide was one of them. We need to ask questions, and reject them.
One more thing, because, why not – the blog is quiet.
This Naziesque movement is international. We know that Putin is a stronghold. We have to recognize its operatives infiltrating our ranks. My guess is that nombrilisme vide was one of them. We need to ask questions, and reject them.
Here’s yer shallow state. You’ll wanna click on that first video, featuring the scientist:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/09/02/monday-evening-open-thread-floriduh-man-dorian-edition/
Sure, get c’her navy out there, and sail them fleets in the opposite direction of the way the storm is spinning and reverse its motion and whut you got is the defunding of FEMA and what you might wanna do is drop a thermonuclear device right in its eye and, just saying, we’ll see what happens.
Stupid catches up with malignity and is just as efficient as the great Khan.
“This is an international movement …
And it will be a savage international civil war, waged on five continents.
Here’s yer shallow state. You’ll wanna click on that first video, featuring the scientist:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/09/02/monday-evening-open-thread-floriduh-man-dorian-edition/
Sure, get c’her navy out there, and sail them fleets in the opposite direction of the way the storm is spinning and reverse its motion and whut you got is the defunding of FEMA and what you might wanna do is drop a thermonuclear device right in its eye and, just saying, we’ll see what happens.
Stupid catches up with malignity and is just as efficient as the great Khan.
“This is an international movement …
And it will be a savage international civil war, waged on five continents.
I always took it for granted that we were evolutionarily going forward to eradicate hate and racism. I was wrong. We’re here
I don’t really disagree, with any of this. Slavery is no longer legal, we’re no long under de jure Jim Crow, many forms of discrimination are no longer sanctioned by law, but that is many miles from eradicating hate and racism.
What I will say is that at least some of the groups that have born the brunt of the fncking insane human tendency to think your own tribe is better than every other tribe are unlikely to put up with it again. Not as long as the stories are this close to living memory.
So, there is that.
I’m a Unitarian jihadi, our chief tactic is boring you into submission via well-meaning committee meeting. Not everyone has made the same self-obligation to be nice.
Also: can we please just lock these mf’ers up?
I always took it for granted that we were evolutionarily going forward to eradicate hate and racism. I was wrong. We’re here
I don’t really disagree, with any of this. Slavery is no longer legal, we’re no long under de jure Jim Crow, many forms of discrimination are no longer sanctioned by law, but that is many miles from eradicating hate and racism.
What I will say is that at least some of the groups that have born the brunt of the fncking insane human tendency to think your own tribe is better than every other tribe are unlikely to put up with it again. Not as long as the stories are this close to living memory.
So, there is that.
I’m a Unitarian jihadi, our chief tactic is boring you into submission via well-meaning committee meeting. Not everyone has made the same self-obligation to be nice.
Also: can we please just lock these mf’ers up?
So, this is somewhat unfair, but I’m just putting it out there anyway.
I go to the grocery store to get a sweet potato and some black bean soup. At the end of the parking lot is a Jeep Commanche, parked directly over the line between two spots. That is, it’s straddling two spots. And I mean, it is centered over the line with almost surgical precision, so this was not an error in judgement, i was some dude deliberately taking two spots.
There are lots of spots, so no real harm done. But, why be a dick?
I walk over to the Jeep, and there it is: Trump campaign bullshit on the dashboard.
Everyone is entitled to their point of view, but it strikes me over and over and over again that support for Trump is just another form of people flipping the damned bird to everybody else in the world.
It’s a freaking disease.
And no, I don’t hate Trump supporters, I just wish they would grow the fuck up.
So, this is somewhat unfair, but I’m just putting it out there anyway.
I go to the grocery store to get a sweet potato and some black bean soup. At the end of the parking lot is a Jeep Commanche, parked directly over the line between two spots. That is, it’s straddling two spots. And I mean, it is centered over the line with almost surgical precision, so this was not an error in judgement, i was some dude deliberately taking two spots.
There are lots of spots, so no real harm done. But, why be a dick?
I walk over to the Jeep, and there it is: Trump campaign bullshit on the dashboard.
Everyone is entitled to their point of view, but it strikes me over and over and over again that support for Trump is just another form of people flipping the damned bird to everybody else in the world.
It’s a freaking disease.
And no, I don’t hate Trump supporters, I just wish they would grow the fuck up.
Dust to dust, but they quibble over primordial slime, while treating human beings like dirt:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/fox-news-guest-evolution-mass-shooting
Slime = Water added to dust.
It made the world, including shitheads.
Dust to dust, but they quibble over primordial slime, while treating human beings like dirt:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/fox-news-guest-evolution-mass-shooting
Slime = Water added to dust.
It made the world, including shitheads.
I go to the grocery store to get a sweet potato and some black bean soup.
Excellent choice!
And no, I don’t hate Trump supporters, I just wish they would grow the fuck up.
I actually do hate them, except the ones I have been assigned to love.
Love is sometimes about actual delight! Most of my family, and some other people, delight me, and it’s not just about me – it’s about what we mean to each other, and watching them interact with the world! But there are pauses, when it’s not just about me and my deep appreciation for my loved ones, but for realizing that I need to cut them some slack. I cut slack for only one relative who is a Trump person, and that is hard for me to do. But the relative is worth it, and I am family.
So, yeah. What to do about people who, for whatever reason, are on the wrong side.
I go to the grocery store to get a sweet potato and some black bean soup.
Excellent choice!
And no, I don’t hate Trump supporters, I just wish they would grow the fuck up.
I actually do hate them, except the ones I have been assigned to love.
Love is sometimes about actual delight! Most of my family, and some other people, delight me, and it’s not just about me – it’s about what we mean to each other, and watching them interact with the world! But there are pauses, when it’s not just about me and my deep appreciation for my loved ones, but for realizing that I need to cut them some slack. I cut slack for only one relative who is a Trump person, and that is hard for me to do. But the relative is worth it, and I am family.
So, yeah. What to do about people who, for whatever reason, are on the wrong side.
Do people read the comments? I hope not.
“This Naziesque movement is international. We know that Putin is a stronghold. We have to recognize its operatives infiltrating our ranks. My guess is that nombrilisme vide was one of them. We need to ask questions, and reject them”
NV was a lawyer in the military iirc and a left winger and sapient had clashes with NV. From this it clearly follows that NV was a Hitler lover and an agent of the international Nazi movement.
Do people read the comments? I hope not.
“This Naziesque movement is international. We know that Putin is a stronghold. We have to recognize its operatives infiltrating our ranks. My guess is that nombrilisme vide was one of them. We need to ask questions, and reject them”
NV was a lawyer in the military iirc and a left winger and sapient had clashes with NV. From this it clearly follows that NV was a Hitler lover and an agent of the international Nazi movement.
For decades the dominant Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa supported apartheid, and held that opposition to it was a heresy. “It is quite clear that no one can ever be a proponent of integration on the basis of the scriptures. It would be in a direct contradiction of the revealed will of God to plead for a commonality between whites, coloured, and Blacks.”
The Southern Baptist Convention in the USA was formed explicitly in support of slavery, which it held to be endorsed by scripture.
I’m not interested in arguing hermeneutics with these people. They can worship their god as they please, up to the point where it interferes with anyone else’s freedoms. And no further.
For decades the dominant Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa supported apartheid, and held that opposition to it was a heresy. “It is quite clear that no one can ever be a proponent of integration on the basis of the scriptures. It would be in a direct contradiction of the revealed will of God to plead for a commonality between whites, coloured, and Blacks.”
The Southern Baptist Convention in the USA was formed explicitly in support of slavery, which it held to be endorsed by scripture.
I’m not interested in arguing hermeneutics with these people. They can worship their god as they please, up to the point where it interferes with anyone else’s freedoms. And no further.
NV was a lawyer in the military iirc
You don’t recall correctly. You’re misguided on many things. And it’s weird that you popped up for this.
NV was a lawyer in the military iirc
You don’t recall correctly. You’re misguided on many things. And it’s weird that you popped up for this.
The Southern Baptist Convention in the USA was formed explicitly in support of slavery, which it held to be endorsed by scripture.
Reverend Barber is so good on this. I have read a lot about this, and slavery religion is so much with us. Thank you, Pro Bono.
The Southern Baptist Convention in the USA was formed explicitly in support of slavery, which it held to be endorsed by scripture.
Reverend Barber is so good on this. I have read a lot about this, and slavery religion is so much with us. Thank you, Pro Bono.
As religious convictions go, not hating Trump supporters may be as Christian as it gets. Turn the other cheek, and all that. It’s a noble sentiment which I cannot claim to live up to, myself. But then, I am not a Christian.
Meanwhile, wj: Anybody who troubles to read the New Testament.
Betcha a (very small?) minority of self-styled Christians have ever read even a translation of “The New Testament”. But that’s beside the point.
My main point is that Reverend Pat Robertson and Reverend William Barber both revere the same “holy” texts. They have to decide between themselves what their Savior meant to say about this, that, or the other thing. Neither of them, I suspect, cares to hear an atheist explain it to them.
And of course an atheist has this additional problem: how does he exhort the faithful to hew to ancient texts that the atheist considers in no way “holy”?
–TP
As religious convictions go, not hating Trump supporters may be as Christian as it gets. Turn the other cheek, and all that. It’s a noble sentiment which I cannot claim to live up to, myself. But then, I am not a Christian.
Meanwhile, wj: Anybody who troubles to read the New Testament.
Betcha a (very small?) minority of self-styled Christians have ever read even a translation of “The New Testament”. But that’s beside the point.
My main point is that Reverend Pat Robertson and Reverend William Barber both revere the same “holy” texts. They have to decide between themselves what their Savior meant to say about this, that, or the other thing. Neither of them, I suspect, cares to hear an atheist explain it to them.
And of course an atheist has this additional problem: how does he exhort the faithful to hew to ancient texts that the atheist considers in no way “holy”?
–TP
I lurk here sapient. Putin’s orders. And what is your recollection of NV’s past?
But anyway, your paranoid McCarthyite speculations ( in the name of anti fascism) about a former poster are gross. If that sort of thing is acceptable around here now I will stop lurking. Probably should anyway, simply to save time, but that kind of comment provides an extra incentive.
It is possible to oppose fascist and murderous and sometimes even genocidal American policies without indulging in fantasies about the connections of people you don’t like. It’s a big complicated political world out there and people have all sorts of views without being agents of a foreign power.
I lurk here sapient. Putin’s orders. And what is your recollection of NV’s past?
But anyway, your paranoid McCarthyite speculations ( in the name of anti fascism) about a former poster are gross. If that sort of thing is acceptable around here now I will stop lurking. Probably should anyway, simply to save time, but that kind of comment provides an extra incentive.
It is possible to oppose fascist and murderous and sometimes even genocidal American policies without indulging in fantasies about the connections of people you don’t like. It’s a big complicated political world out there and people have all sorts of views without being agents of a foreign power.
Donald, you asshole, I actually had a conversation with nv (when I was open-minded about the bot) where s/he was planning to go to law school. S/he didn’t, so that would mean s/he’s not a lawyer. So, yes, go away.
Or, instead, a lot of people here think you’re a saint, so don’t leave them – just block me, and leave me alone.
Donald, you asshole, I actually had a conversation with nv (when I was open-minded about the bot) where s/he was planning to go to law school. S/he didn’t, so that would mean s/he’s not a lawyer. So, yes, go away.
Or, instead, a lot of people here think you’re a saint, so don’t leave them – just block me, and leave me alone.
So maybe I’ve chased Donald off.
If so, sorry, bobbyp! I was lurking when you pledged your allegiance to Donald for pissing me off. (That was a few days ago, and maybe not on this thread.)
Just want y’all to remember that nombrilisme vide hated cleek.
Okay, so, I agree with cleek on most things, but cleek would probably not want me as his family member.
But really, picking a fight with cleek? Gotta wonder. I’m thinking that nombrilisme vide vs. cleek? I’m picking cleek.
So maybe I’ve chased Donald off.
If so, sorry, bobbyp! I was lurking when you pledged your allegiance to Donald for pissing me off. (That was a few days ago, and maybe not on this thread.)
Just want y’all to remember that nombrilisme vide hated cleek.
Okay, so, I agree with cleek on most things, but cleek would probably not want me as his family member.
But really, picking a fight with cleek? Gotta wonder. I’m thinking that nombrilisme vide vs. cleek? I’m picking cleek.
What’s funny is that Donald is going to go sulk somewhere, and certain of our regular commenters (won’t name names, but I’ll laugh out loud) will show up for “OMG, Donald, your voice is appreciated and loved”.
Jesus, y’all, I know we are small in number here anymore, but …
Yeah. Donald is not our friend.
What’s funny is that Donald is going to go sulk somewhere, and certain of our regular commenters (won’t name names, but I’ll laugh out loud) will show up for “OMG, Donald, your voice is appreciated and loved”.
Jesus, y’all, I know we are small in number here anymore, but …
Yeah. Donald is not our friend.
Yeah. Donald is not our friend
Who is this “our” of whom you write?
Get a grip.
If that sort of thing is acceptable around here now I will stop lurking.
Do I have to repeat myself?
Yeah. Donald is not our friend
Who is this “our” of whom you write?
Get a grip.
If that sort of thing is acceptable around here now I will stop lurking.
Do I have to repeat myself?
What Janie said. I’ve not been writing, Korean is taking up all of my time, but I do read, and I’m more than willing to put folks on cooling off, so I have more time to think about Korean verb tenses. Don’t need any apologies, just knock it off. Last warning.
What Janie said. I’ve not been writing, Korean is taking up all of my time, but I do read, and I’m more than willing to put folks on cooling off, so I have more time to think about Korean verb tenses. Don’t need any apologies, just knock it off. Last warning.
Yes, it’s true that NV wasn’t a lawyer yet. I remembered that afterwards— I think he or she was talking about law school. NV was in the military and seemed to be associated with military law in some fashion, but I wasn’t clear on the details.
On me being a saint— um, no. In fact that’s why I “sulk”. It’s better just shutting up than losing it. I’ve made a fool of myself on occasion when I didn’t shut up. Some people are pretty good at arguing even when angry, but I am not one of them.
“If that sort of thing is acceptable around here now I will stop lurking.
Do I have to repeat myself?”
Sorry. That was an example of me making a fool of myself.
Yes, it’s true that NV wasn’t a lawyer yet. I remembered that afterwards— I think he or she was talking about law school. NV was in the military and seemed to be associated with military law in some fashion, but I wasn’t clear on the details.
On me being a saint— um, no. In fact that’s why I “sulk”. It’s better just shutting up than losing it. I’ve made a fool of myself on occasion when I didn’t shut up. Some people are pretty good at arguing even when angry, but I am not one of them.
“If that sort of thing is acceptable around here now I will stop lurking.
Do I have to repeat myself?”
Sorry. That was an example of me making a fool of myself.
What Janie said. Plus, NV was a brilliant presence, with whom I often disagreed, but whose contributions I still miss, despite her fights with cleek. Nazis are Nazis, fascists are fascists, unprincipled right-wing grifters are unprincipled right-wing grifters, fools are fools.
What Janie said. Plus, NV was a brilliant presence, with whom I often disagreed, but whose contributions I still miss, despite her fights with cleek. Nazis are Nazis, fascists are fascists, unprincipled right-wing grifters are unprincipled right-wing grifters, fools are fools.
In all fairness, NV was a pretty spiky character, who could turn nasty (which she was aware of, and took the trouble to explain) but her cleverness and clearly highly principled stands compensated, at least for me.
In all fairness, NV was a pretty spiky character, who could turn nasty (which she was aware of, and took the trouble to explain) but her cleverness and clearly highly principled stands compensated, at least for me.
And of course an atheist has this additional problem: how does he exhort the faithful to hew to ancient texts that the atheist considers in no way “holy”?
if they’re good enough for you to force me to obey, they’re good enough for you to obey, all of them, first.
And of course an atheist has this additional problem: how does he exhort the faithful to hew to ancient texts that the atheist considers in no way “holy”?
if they’re good enough for you to force me to obey, they’re good enough for you to obey, all of them, first.
i don’t think nv was a nazi. i’m not sure i knew nv was even a she.
i know nv was smart.
i just always thought beating Trump was more important than whatever “the left” had been assigned for it daily freakout. i still think that. nv disagreed.
i don’t think nv was a nazi. i’m not sure i knew nv was even a she.
i know nv was smart.
i just always thought beating Trump was more important than whatever “the left” had been assigned for it daily freakout. i still think that. nv disagreed.
I can’t remember why I thought NV was a she, but I think she was, and if not I am prepared to assume it in order to redress generations of patriarchal assumptions! (not entirely a joke)
i just always thought beating Trump was more important than whatever “the left” had been assigned for it daily freakout. i still think that.
As a matter of fact, I agree. But in my opinion hearing a very clever person dispute one’s opinion is valuable, assuming it is a person of principle and integrity, and so she seemed to me.
I can’t remember why I thought NV was a she, but I think she was, and if not I am prepared to assume it in order to redress generations of patriarchal assumptions! (not entirely a joke)
i just always thought beating Trump was more important than whatever “the left” had been assigned for it daily freakout. i still think that.
As a matter of fact, I agree. But in my opinion hearing a very clever person dispute one’s opinion is valuable, assuming it is a person of principle and integrity, and so she seemed to me.
What Janie and LJ said. There are real Nazis running around, no need to invent imaginary ones.
Pretty much everyone here gets on somebody else’s last nerve at some point. I get on my own pretty often. It’s not an indication of bad faith or fascism, some folks just don’t get along.
If poking at the sore spot just makes it hurt more, quit poking at it.
What Janie and LJ said. There are real Nazis running around, no need to invent imaginary ones.
Pretty much everyone here gets on somebody else’s last nerve at some point. I get on my own pretty often. It’s not an indication of bad faith or fascism, some folks just don’t get along.
If poking at the sore spot just makes it hurt more, quit poking at it.
If so, sorry, bobbyp!
The Society for the Advancement of Pure Unadulterated Communism has taken your request under advisement.
Thank you.
PS: As I recall NV was on the suicide 3rd party train…other than that, a wordy, but worthy, contributor. He/she is missed.
If so, sorry, bobbyp!
The Society for the Advancement of Pure Unadulterated Communism has taken your request under advisement.
Thank you.
PS: As I recall NV was on the suicide 3rd party train…other than that, a wordy, but worthy, contributor. He/she is missed.
I was curious to see what new line of discussion was happening, given the number of new comments since I last checked in.
Napoleon Dynamite: “What the heck are you even talking about?”
I was curious to see what new line of discussion was happening, given the number of new comments since I last checked in.
Napoleon Dynamite: “What the heck are you even talking about?”
Talons
Talons
As I recall NV was on the suicide 3rd party train…other than that, a wordy … contributor.
I’ll agree with that much, and also that NV was smart. NV comments often read like a badly translated Russian novel. Obviously, I can’t prove that s/he was inauthentic.
I’ll take a break so that people can recover. Sorry for my slip into incivility.
As I recall NV was on the suicide 3rd party train…other than that, a wordy … contributor.
I’ll agree with that much, and also that NV was smart. NV comments often read like a badly translated Russian novel. Obviously, I can’t prove that s/he was inauthentic.
I’ll take a break so that people can recover. Sorry for my slip into incivility.
The science of it:
https://juanitajean.com/heres-a-handy-guide-for-determining-hurricane-categories/
The science of it:
https://juanitajean.com/heres-a-handy-guide-for-determining-hurricane-categories/
NV was a useful contributor. I had him down as male, but wouldn’t bet the ranch on it. I’m pretty sure he was a paralegal within the Judge Advocate General Corp (Army). Not sure why he didn’t go to law school. IIRC, he had concerns about matching his intensity level (very high) with the the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (McKinney is not happy with the Texas Supreme Court at the moment) and having a burn out issue.
I’m not down with doing anything radical with Sapient. I’ve said before, she’s an apparatchik. That won’t change. She’s highly intelligent and insightful when not obsessing over things no one can prove–which makes her different from the rest of us in what way? I concur that she is more confrontational, at times, than circumstances merit. In some respects, she’s jumped the shark and she can over-personalize things (probably her greatest failing). I’m in the confrontation business, so it doesn’t get to me much. Name calling is pretty ineffective in the long run and almost never persuasive to those who aren’t already in cocoon.
No one–Donald in particular–should let her get under their skin. And, she should be allowed to hurl her darts. No one has to respond, or if they do, just address the merits.
NV was a useful contributor. I had him down as male, but wouldn’t bet the ranch on it. I’m pretty sure he was a paralegal within the Judge Advocate General Corp (Army). Not sure why he didn’t go to law school. IIRC, he had concerns about matching his intensity level (very high) with the the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (McKinney is not happy with the Texas Supreme Court at the moment) and having a burn out issue.
I’m not down with doing anything radical with Sapient. I’ve said before, she’s an apparatchik. That won’t change. She’s highly intelligent and insightful when not obsessing over things no one can prove–which makes her different from the rest of us in what way? I concur that she is more confrontational, at times, than circumstances merit. In some respects, she’s jumped the shark and she can over-personalize things (probably her greatest failing). I’m in the confrontation business, so it doesn’t get to me much. Name calling is pretty ineffective in the long run and almost never persuasive to those who aren’t already in cocoon.
No one–Donald in particular–should let her get under their skin. And, she should be allowed to hurl her darts. No one has to respond, or if they do, just address the merits.
or if they do, just address the merits.
Hey, now. Just a danged minute. This is the internet you know.
or if they do, just address the merits.
Hey, now. Just a danged minute. This is the internet you know.
if they’re good enough for you to force me to obey, they’re good enough for you to obey, all of them, first.
Amen.
You don’t have to share someone’s (proclaimed) beliefs to observe that they aren’t conforming to them. IMHO, of course.
if they’re good enough for you to force me to obey, they’re good enough for you to obey, all of them, first.
Amen.
You don’t have to share someone’s (proclaimed) beliefs to observe that they aren’t conforming to them. IMHO, of course.
My impression, FWIW, was that NV was very happy to let gender confusion reign, to the extent that it did, and that s/he might have preferred gender-neutral pronouns. But when discussing with McKinney going to law school, she did refer to depression or other mental health struggles, and that may have been a factor in her eventual decision.
Re personalisation and abuse, not everyone is as blase (don’t know how to insert accents) as you, McKinney, and your prescription for how to respond may not suit other contributors who are not as laissez faire as yourself. I hate the idea of banning people (even said so in the case of bob mcmanus!), but we do, after all, have posting rules for a reason. (Mind you, having now checked them, I see that I regularly violate them by not censoring words like “fuck” and “shit”, on the basis that we are all adults and there is no need to be mealy-mouthed, but this may be one of those pesky European attitudes, so I guess I shouldn’t impose it on the rest of you).
My impression, FWIW, was that NV was very happy to let gender confusion reign, to the extent that it did, and that s/he might have preferred gender-neutral pronouns. But when discussing with McKinney going to law school, she did refer to depression or other mental health struggles, and that may have been a factor in her eventual decision.
Re personalisation and abuse, not everyone is as blase (don’t know how to insert accents) as you, McKinney, and your prescription for how to respond may not suit other contributors who are not as laissez faire as yourself. I hate the idea of banning people (even said so in the case of bob mcmanus!), but we do, after all, have posting rules for a reason. (Mind you, having now checked them, I see that I regularly violate them by not censoring words like “fuck” and “shit”, on the basis that we are all adults and there is no need to be mealy-mouthed, but this may be one of those pesky European attitudes, so I guess I shouldn’t impose it on the rest of you).
GFTNC–The posting rules do seem to have morphed into ‘guidelines’ over time (I blame Trump!), which is fine by me–the more folks I’m arguing with tell me about themselves, the better (usually). The ObWi Overlords still speak up when someone gets too aggressive, so there does appear to be some kind of firewall.
GFTNC–The posting rules do seem to have morphed into ‘guidelines’ over time (I blame Trump!), which is fine by me–the more folks I’m arguing with tell me about themselves, the better (usually). The ObWi Overlords still speak up when someone gets too aggressive, so there does appear to be some kind of firewall.
exciting times in Parliament today!
(if only we could have a few defections from our Senate majority!)
exciting times in Parliament today!
(if only we could have a few defections from our Senate majority!)
exciting times in Parliament today!
Yes indeed. And there is now the rumour that Sir Nicholas Soames (Winston Churchill’s grandson, and a stalwart Tory) is going to vote against the government. Since I believe Boris Johnson has referred to Tories who vote against the government as traitors, it’s going to be interesting to see if he is prepared to call the grandson of his “hero” (I put it in quotes since many think his hero-worship is purely self-serving) a traitor.
On a lighter note, and for those who like amusing anecdotes, I heard the late Clement Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud, once a Liberal MP, now posthumously revealed as a pedophile) telling the story of how he was in China after a parliamentary trip with another of Winston Churchill’s grandsons:
exciting times in Parliament today!
Yes indeed. And there is now the rumour that Sir Nicholas Soames (Winston Churchill’s grandson, and a stalwart Tory) is going to vote against the government. Since I believe Boris Johnson has referred to Tories who vote against the government as traitors, it’s going to be interesting to see if he is prepared to call the grandson of his “hero” (I put it in quotes since many think his hero-worship is purely self-serving) a traitor.
On a lighter note, and for those who like amusing anecdotes, I heard the late Clement Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud, once a Liberal MP, now posthumously revealed as a pedophile) telling the story of how he was in China after a parliamentary trip with another of Winston Churchill’s grandsons:
the more folks I’m arguing with tell me about themselves, the better (usually).
Since I can find nothing in the posting rules against revealing one’s own personal information (just as well in my case, since I’ve already violated them enough with uncensored profanity), I interpret this remark of McKinney’s as meaning that those who insult or abuse others are revealing something about themselves. Without calling out anyone in particular, I agree.
the more folks I’m arguing with tell me about themselves, the better (usually).
Since I can find nothing in the posting rules against revealing one’s own personal information (just as well in my case, since I’ve already violated them enough with uncensored profanity), I interpret this remark of McKinney’s as meaning that those who insult or abuse others are revealing something about themselves. Without calling out anyone in particular, I agree.
“exciting times in Parliament today!”
Yes, indeed.
I’ve heard that the seats in Parliament between “government” and “opposition” are separated by “two sword lengths”.
Someone put Boris in the middle, and have at it.
“exciting times in Parliament today!”
Yes, indeed.
I’ve heard that the seats in Parliament between “government” and “opposition” are separated by “two sword lengths”.
Someone put Boris in the middle, and have at it.
a surprising glimmer of hope! the woman who used the Bible to justify denying a ‘mixed race’ couple the opportunity to give her money for the use of her venue did something amazing. she read her Bible!
a surprising glimmer of hope! the woman who used the Bible to justify denying a ‘mixed race’ couple the opportunity to give her money for the use of her venue did something amazing. she read her Bible!
Truly an exceptional example of someone being willing to check their understanding and admit that they were in error. Good for her — her position on gay marriage notwithstanding.
And kudos to her husband for asking her to quote her source on interracial marriage!
We progress by baby steps. But at least we do progress occasionally.
Truly an exceptional example of someone being willing to check their understanding and admit that they were in error. Good for her — her position on gay marriage notwithstanding.
And kudos to her husband for asking her to quote her source on interracial marriage!
We progress by baby steps. But at least we do progress occasionally.
Welp!
What does the Kama Sutra have to say on the subject?
Welp!
What does the Kama Sutra have to say on the subject?
What does the Bible have to say about the God-given right to own and use a firearm?
What does the Bible have to say about the God-given right to own and use a firearm?
And The Lord said unto Shemp, “Be thou a goodly man with arms of fire, then only thou shall stoppeth the unholy man with arms of fire. So shall you all purchase arms of fire at thy local Wal*Mart.”
— Shemp, 19:42
And The Lord said unto Shemp, “Be thou a goodly man with arms of fire, then only thou shall stoppeth the unholy man with arms of fire. So shall you all purchase arms of fire at thy local Wal*Mart.”
— Shemp, 19:42
And if we don’t, what happens?
A Moe-Smite?
And if we don’t, what happens?
A Moe-Smite?
Enough MPs defect to defeat the government by 27 votes! Parliament takes control of the right to legislate in the next couple of days….
Enough MPs defect to defeat the government by 27 votes! Parliament takes control of the right to legislate in the next couple of days….
/low whistle.
Boris sure f’ed that up.
/low whistle.
Boris sure f’ed that up.
and the NC GOP just got a fistful of oh no you don’t.
NC could actually become a democracy next year!
and the NC GOP just got a fistful of oh no you don’t.
NC could actually become a democracy next year!
So that probably means a general election….
which probably means the opposition will be too split (between Greens, LibDems, Labour) and Ukip will not fight the Tories, which means Boris will probably win.
I certainly hope not.
Rats.
So that probably means a general election….
which probably means the opposition will be too split (between Greens, LibDems, Labour) and Ukip will not fight the Tories, which means Boris will probably win.
I certainly hope not.
Rats.
Nicholas Soames confirms on Newsnight that the chief whip, a friend of his, has told him that tomorrow he will have the regrettable duty of writing to him to withdraw the Conservative whip. This means that two ex-chancellors and very many ex-members of the cabinet will also be having the whip withdrawn. (Nicholas Soames says he thinks this is exactly what the BoJo/Dominic Cummings partnership planned all along).
The Conservative Party is collapsing into something else, something much worse.
O tempora. O mores.
Nicholas Soames confirms on Newsnight that the chief whip, a friend of his, has told him that tomorrow he will have the regrettable duty of writing to him to withdraw the Conservative whip. This means that two ex-chancellors and very many ex-members of the cabinet will also be having the whip withdrawn. (Nicholas Soames says he thinks this is exactly what the BoJo/Dominic Cummings partnership planned all along).
The Conservative Party is collapsing into something else, something much worse.
O tempora. O mores.
a surprising glimmer of hope!
Well done.
a surprising glimmer of hope!
Well done.
So that probably means a general election….
I’m seeing speculation that Boris may not be able to get the necessary 2/3 majority to hold a new election either. Maybe Parliament will just keep going, doing what they want about Brexit, i.e. banning a no-deal Brexit. Without giving Johnson a chance to elect more supportive MPs.
Could be interesting indeed.
So that probably means a general election….
I’m seeing speculation that Boris may not be able to get the necessary 2/3 majority to hold a new election either. Maybe Parliament will just keep going, doing what they want about Brexit, i.e. banning a no-deal Brexit. Without giving Johnson a chance to elect more supportive MPs.
Could be interesting indeed.
Yes, there’s lots of speculation about different gambits he might try, including if he can’t get the 2/3 majority, many of them depressing and possibly still giving him what he wants. The only hopeful sign is that apparently there is now a huge anti-Dominic Cummings feeling building. This can only be a good thing, though it’s probably too late to make much difference.
Yes, there’s lots of speculation about different gambits he might try, including if he can’t get the 2/3 majority, many of them depressing and possibly still giving him what he wants. The only hopeful sign is that apparently there is now a huge anti-Dominic Cummings feeling building. This can only be a good thing, though it’s probably too late to make much difference.
Fetuses prevented from unionizing, after having post-fetal university education taken away from them as well:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/09/alaska-leading-the-latest-assault-on-unions
Fetuses must become armed and violent.
Fetuses prevented from unionizing, after having post-fetal university education taken away from them as well:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/09/alaska-leading-the-latest-assault-on-unions
Fetuses must become armed and violent.
Gee, I guess if there is no Brexit, Johnson won’t be making those big fake payments to the National Health Service.
Then you can join Americans in this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-hospital-treated-these-patients-then-it-sued-them/ar-AAGJvv2
There will be blood.
Gee, I guess if there is no Brexit, Johnson won’t be making those big fake payments to the National Health Service.
Then you can join Americans in this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-hospital-treated-these-patients-then-it-sued-them/ar-AAGJvv2
There will be blood.
It must be the hyphenated name:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sit-up-man-jacob-rees-mogg-lambasted-for-lounging-during-key-brexit-debate-in-parliament-2019-09-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
A swift kick in the bollocks is what he likes.
It must be the hyphenated name:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sit-up-man-jacob-rees-mogg-lambasted-for-lounging-during-key-brexit-debate-in-parliament-2019-09-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
A swift kick in the bollocks is what he likes.
Christianity came up earlier, so I thought I’d toss this in.
An evangelical blog I read sometimes.
https://internetmonk.com/archive/88239#comments
The people in the comments mostly agree that the primitive communism described in Acts wouldn’t work on a countrywide scale but they mostly seem to lean towards a mixed economy.
The host describes himself ( in an earlier post) as a moderate Republican ( doesn’t like Trump). In the comments he supports a mixed economy. To me this sounds like the Sanders- Warren stance. ( I am in the crowd that doesn’t think they are that far apart on policy and hopes their followers don’t succeed in starting a war between them and handing the nomination to good old Joe. But I digress.)
I used to be an evangelical. Now I’m mostly mainline Protestant. I don’t really get what happened to evangelicals—perhaps it was a function of where I live, but in the 90’s they seemed to be moving to the center and there were many Sojourners types who were on the left. Still are, of course, but I had the impression they were more influential then. A far right friend I sometimes mention here was nowhere near as far right then. My impression is that Bush and 9/11 and the rightwing media changed all that, or else I was just engaged in wishful thinking. During the 2000’s my friend started reading that crap and watching Fox. Iirc once he had some book by Ann Coulter that dealt in part with the flaws in evolutionary biology. Yeah, Ann Coulter, leading expert in science. Other times he would be reading Brigitte Gabriel and other Islamophobes. I think I was more aware of Islamophobia years before most because of my friend’s crackpot reading list.
But the people in that thread and at that blog are more like the evangelicals I used to think were typical. A mixture of views going from center right to Sanders left, but not much of this Trumpian ugliness though in other threads I think I have seen some Trump supporters. There have been heated exchanges, but it is more balanced than what you would expect from a subculture where about 80 percent of white evangelicals are Trump voters.
The Elizabeth Bruenig piece linked at that post is also worth reading and going by the polls, more representative of what most white evangelicals support.
Christianity came up earlier, so I thought I’d toss this in.
An evangelical blog I read sometimes.
https://internetmonk.com/archive/88239#comments
The people in the comments mostly agree that the primitive communism described in Acts wouldn’t work on a countrywide scale but they mostly seem to lean towards a mixed economy.
The host describes himself ( in an earlier post) as a moderate Republican ( doesn’t like Trump). In the comments he supports a mixed economy. To me this sounds like the Sanders- Warren stance. ( I am in the crowd that doesn’t think they are that far apart on policy and hopes their followers don’t succeed in starting a war between them and handing the nomination to good old Joe. But I digress.)
I used to be an evangelical. Now I’m mostly mainline Protestant. I don’t really get what happened to evangelicals—perhaps it was a function of where I live, but in the 90’s they seemed to be moving to the center and there were many Sojourners types who were on the left. Still are, of course, but I had the impression they were more influential then. A far right friend I sometimes mention here was nowhere near as far right then. My impression is that Bush and 9/11 and the rightwing media changed all that, or else I was just engaged in wishful thinking. During the 2000’s my friend started reading that crap and watching Fox. Iirc once he had some book by Ann Coulter that dealt in part with the flaws in evolutionary biology. Yeah, Ann Coulter, leading expert in science. Other times he would be reading Brigitte Gabriel and other Islamophobes. I think I was more aware of Islamophobia years before most because of my friend’s crackpot reading list.
But the people in that thread and at that blog are more like the evangelicals I used to think were typical. A mixture of views going from center right to Sanders left, but not much of this Trumpian ugliness though in other threads I think I have seen some Trump supporters. There have been heated exchanges, but it is more balanced than what you would expect from a subculture where about 80 percent of white evangelicals are Trump voters.
The Elizabeth Bruenig piece linked at that post is also worth reading and going by the polls, more representative of what most white evangelicals support.
I’d like to here from our British friends if this depiction of the Brexit situation is fully on the mark or not:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/09/britain-politics-chaotic-constitution-working/597340/
I’d like to here from our British friends if this depiction of the Brexit situation is fully on the mark or not:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/09/britain-politics-chaotic-constitution-working/597340/
hear would be less tin-eared.
hear would be less tin-eared.
the opposition Labour Party wants to delay Britain’s exit, negotiate a new deal, and put it back to the people in a second referendum, with the option to scrap Brexit altogether.
That Atlantic piece seems pretty on the mark to me, although I defer to Nigel and Pro Bono who I think have a deeper understanding of it all than I. However, the sentence above seems dodgy to me in this respect: Labour do seem now to have committed to this, but since Corbyn fought tooth and nail to avoid committing to another referendum before now, because he is actually a Brexiteer (unlike the majority of Labour voters), I would not absolutely rule out the possibility that another referendum would be finagled somehow to still ensure some sort of Brexit if Labour was in power, perhaps by the format of the actual questions/options in the referendum.
the opposition Labour Party wants to delay Britain’s exit, negotiate a new deal, and put it back to the people in a second referendum, with the option to scrap Brexit altogether.
That Atlantic piece seems pretty on the mark to me, although I defer to Nigel and Pro Bono who I think have a deeper understanding of it all than I. However, the sentence above seems dodgy to me in this respect: Labour do seem now to have committed to this, but since Corbyn fought tooth and nail to avoid committing to another referendum before now, because he is actually a Brexiteer (unlike the majority of Labour voters), I would not absolutely rule out the possibility that another referendum would be finagled somehow to still ensure some sort of Brexit if Labour was in power, perhaps by the format of the actual questions/options in the referendum.
Marianne Williamson proves that not all Thoughts And Prayers are created equally.
Marianne Williamson proves that not all Thoughts And Prayers are created equally.
That way, instead of dropping our nuclear warheads into hurricanes, we can use em fer whut they was intended, incinerating republicans.
This two things seem related:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-energy-department-halt-shift-energy-saving-light-bulbs
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/third-trump-administration-interior-department-gas-oil-company
The faster we melt the icecaps and the glaciers, the sooner we can get the mining and oil drilling equipment in there, plus our military, and exploit those areas of the globe, and the more we drill, the faster that pesky ice melts and the faster we can drill.
That is American, Russian, and Chinese government policy. Sort of an unsigned, unspoken international treaty.
Pompeo has said so.
Unless we kill all of them, we’re fucked.
Bolsonaro doing his assigned part: burning down the Amazon forest and clearing those savages out a there.
A poison blow dart right in the carotid artery for him.
That way, instead of dropping our nuclear warheads into hurricanes, we can use em fer whut they was intended, incinerating republicans.
This two things seem related:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-energy-department-halt-shift-energy-saving-light-bulbs
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/third-trump-administration-interior-department-gas-oil-company
The faster we melt the icecaps and the glaciers, the sooner we can get the mining and oil drilling equipment in there, plus our military, and exploit those areas of the globe, and the more we drill, the faster that pesky ice melts and the faster we can drill.
That is American, Russian, and Chinese government policy. Sort of an unsigned, unspoken international treaty.
Pompeo has said so.
Unless we kill all of them, we’re fucked.
Bolsonaro doing his assigned part: burning down the Amazon forest and clearing those savages out a there.
A poison blow dart right in the carotid artery for him.
We don’t really need the Bahamas, do we?
They got anything we can use for ourselves?
No? Then fuck em.
We don’t really need the Bahamas, do we?
They got anything we can use for ourselves?
No? Then fuck em.
I dearly love America:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/driverless-cars-will-lead-to-more-sex-in-cars-study-finds-2018-11-12
And here I was merely thinking the upside was that I would no longer have to prop my book up on the steering wheel on long-distance road trips.
I dearly love America:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/driverless-cars-will-lead-to-more-sex-in-cars-study-finds-2018-11-12
And here I was merely thinking the upside was that I would no longer have to prop my book up on the steering wheel on long-distance road trips.
On the way to your place or mine?
On the way to your place or mine?
We don’t really need the Bahamas, do we?
Well, if they don’t have a Trump-branded property, what use are they????
We don’t really need the Bahamas, do we?
Well, if they don’t have a Trump-branded property, what use are they????
I am delighted to see that even a supposed cautious moderate like Harris has come out with a pretty aggressive climate change plan.
I am delighted to see that even a supposed cautious moderate like Harris has come out with a pretty aggressive climate change plan.
Come on, Nigel. Even a reasonably cautious conservative should have an aggressive climate change plan.
You might not feel that a conservative’s plan is aggressive enough. But anyone with sense will acknowledge that we have a major problem, and by this time (i.e. after years of delay) it is to take major actions to deal with it. (“Deal with it”, by now, is pretty much “minimize the damage” rather than “avoid major effects.”)
To not have a plan, you have to be a) blind to reality and b) either a reactionary who sees everything in a “culture wars” context, or a radical libertarian.
Come on, Nigel. Even a reasonably cautious conservative should have an aggressive climate change plan.
You might not feel that a conservative’s plan is aggressive enough. But anyone with sense will acknowledge that we have a major problem, and by this time (i.e. after years of delay) it is to take major actions to deal with it. (“Deal with it”, by now, is pretty much “minimize the damage” rather than “avoid major effects.”)
To not have a plan, you have to be a) blind to reality and b) either a reactionary who sees everything in a “culture wars” context, or a radical libertarian.
Absolutely – but politicians tend to be trimmers, and as a class have been slowtiming climate action for a long time.
(And the conservative in this case is Biden.)
If Trump is not re-elected, it’s just possible to be slightly optimistic.
Absolutely – but politicians tend to be trimmers, and as a class have been slowtiming climate action for a long time.
(And the conservative in this case is Biden.)
If Trump is not re-elected, it’s just possible to be slightly optimistic.
Don’t forget c) member of a Doomsday cult.
That seems to be a Christian specialty. Afaik no other maintstream religion has spawned a significant faction that actually desires and intends to foster the ending of the world. Hindoos may see Shiva destroying the world as a salvation from reincarnation but do not feel themselves called to do it for him. For Jews and Muslims it would be pure heresy. G#d does not need humans for that and humans could not push G#d towards that. But through the centuries there have been Christian theologians that believed in a divine earth-ending mission for the true believers and even in the possibility of forcing G#d’s hand on that.
Don’t forget c) member of a Doomsday cult.
That seems to be a Christian specialty. Afaik no other maintstream religion has spawned a significant faction that actually desires and intends to foster the ending of the world. Hindoos may see Shiva destroying the world as a salvation from reincarnation but do not feel themselves called to do it for him. For Jews and Muslims it would be pure heresy. G#d does not need humans for that and humans could not push G#d towards that. But through the centuries there have been Christian theologians that believed in a divine earth-ending mission for the true believers and even in the possibility of forcing G#d’s hand on that.
For Jews and Muslims it would be pure heresy.
does anyone know what mainstream Muslim feeling in the ME about climate change / hydrocarbon pollution / plastic pollution is? given that a major source of income from the region is oil?
(i could look it up, but i’m lazy)
For Jews and Muslims it would be pure heresy.
does anyone know what mainstream Muslim feeling in the ME about climate change / hydrocarbon pollution / plastic pollution is? given that a major source of income from the region is oil?
(i could look it up, but i’m lazy)
I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.
I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.
I am worried about Biden as the candidate:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/04/cnn-climate-forum-biden-228035
I am worried about Biden as the candidate:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/04/cnn-climate-forum-biden-228035
I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.
Several third world countries with generally low elevations (e.g. Bengladesh) are seriously concerned — if you could lose a third to 3/4 of your territory from rising sea levels, you would be concerned, too. Unless you are in Florida and in denial.
I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.
Several third world countries with generally low elevations (e.g. Bengladesh) are seriously concerned — if you could lose a third to 3/4 of your territory from rising sea levels, you would be concerned, too. Unless you are in Florida and in denial.
Their governments may be concerned. Or just hoping for handouts from first-world countries. Most of the people have much more immediate concerns than climate change which they may know little or nothing about. Even in the US, climate change isn’t at the top of most people’s lists of concerns.
Their governments may be concerned. Or just hoping for handouts from first-world countries. Most of the people have much more immediate concerns than climate change which they may know little or nothing about. Even in the US, climate change isn’t at the top of most people’s lists of concerns.
Perhaps not, Charles, but it should be at or near the top of everyone’s list of immediate concerns.
Action now, as opposed to in a decade or so’s time, is essential.
And it is largely the less developed nations most at risk from rises in temperature and sea levels, and least able to afford to mitigate the consequences.
Even in the US, climate change isn’t at the top of most people’s lists of concerns.
Depends on whether you’re a Democrat or Republican – along with concern for the environment, it is the issue with the greatest disparity of concern between supporters of the two parties.
Over this decade it is also the issue which has shown by far the greatest increase in concern:
https://www.people-press.org/2019/01/24/publics-2019-priorities-economy-health-care-education-and-security-all-near-top-of-list/
Perhaps not, Charles, but it should be at or near the top of everyone’s list of immediate concerns.
Action now, as opposed to in a decade or so’s time, is essential.
And it is largely the less developed nations most at risk from rises in temperature and sea levels, and least able to afford to mitigate the consequences.
Even in the US, climate change isn’t at the top of most people’s lists of concerns.
Depends on whether you’re a Democrat or Republican – along with concern for the environment, it is the issue with the greatest disparity of concern between supporters of the two parties.
Over this decade it is also the issue which has shown by far the greatest increase in concern:
https://www.people-press.org/2019/01/24/publics-2019-priorities-economy-health-care-education-and-security-all-near-top-of-list/
We could have climate chaos, now deliberately encouraged by so-called conservatives for p (creating chaos by ignoring all norms is how p has run his life, and, yes, haven’t we noticed Pompeo and company admitting now that global climate change is inevitable, so damn the torpedoes and make money from its consequences) at the same time we experience deliberate political and cultural chaos.
This is the most important political piece you will read during this election cycle, which could be the last, at least as a recognizable political “process” in America:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/trump-voters-chaos.html
Via Hullabaloo and another guy.
Thomas Edsall is a sober observer of the scene.
Folks may think I WANT chaos.
No, I merely want to fulfill these goons’ perverted desire for savage chaos and give it back at them good and hard.
Once they get a good taste of real chaotic, dangerous upheaval, of the sort they’ll want to hide indoors during, as p and company’s heads literally end up on pikes alongside roadsides, they’ll go fuck themselves and STFU.
Radical Hutus want to disrupt. They like the suffering.
Disrupt them.
We could have climate chaos, now deliberately encouraged by so-called conservatives for p (creating chaos by ignoring all norms is how p has run his life, and, yes, haven’t we noticed Pompeo and company admitting now that global climate change is inevitable, so damn the torpedoes and make money from its consequences) at the same time we experience deliberate political and cultural chaos.
This is the most important political piece you will read during this election cycle, which could be the last, at least as a recognizable political “process” in America:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/trump-voters-chaos.html
Via Hullabaloo and another guy.
Thomas Edsall is a sober observer of the scene.
Folks may think I WANT chaos.
No, I merely want to fulfill these goons’ perverted desire for savage chaos and give it back at them good and hard.
Once they get a good taste of real chaotic, dangerous upheaval, of the sort they’ll want to hide indoors during, as p and company’s heads literally end up on pikes alongside roadsides, they’ll go fuck themselves and STFU.
Radical Hutus want to disrupt. They like the suffering.
Disrupt them.
Even in the US, climate change isn’t at the top of most people’s lists of concerns.
I have friends who are trying to decide whether to keep their house and eventually pass it on to their daughter, or sell it and give her the money. Because it’s not unlikely that their lot will be underwater in her lifetime. Beyond unlikely that it will be so in her kid’s.
And no, they don’t live in some swanky beachfront joint. That whole part of town will probably be underwater.
Talk to some lobstermen around here about climate change.
Speak for yourself, buddy.
Even in the US, climate change isn’t at the top of most people’s lists of concerns.
I have friends who are trying to decide whether to keep their house and eventually pass it on to their daughter, or sell it and give her the money. Because it’s not unlikely that their lot will be underwater in her lifetime. Beyond unlikely that it will be so in her kid’s.
And no, they don’t live in some swanky beachfront joint. That whole part of town will probably be underwater.
Talk to some lobstermen around here about climate change.
Speak for yourself, buddy.
Meanwhile, armed for chaos:
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/right-wing-media-threaten-violence-retaliation-gun-safety-proposals
They just MIGHT have to shoot us if we legislate.
Mind you, they won;t be able to help themselves. It’s just that their trigger fingers are attached to their assholes, where their principles originate.
If a conservative American EVER attempts to thwart my jaywalking, I will fucking shoot them in their head.
And I’ve yet to see a jaywalker shoot up a Walmart, a school, a church, or a country music festival, though jaywalking could be an early sign, a canary in the outrage mine, of what’s coming to republican conservatism in America.
Meanwhile, armed for chaos:
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/right-wing-media-threaten-violence-retaliation-gun-safety-proposals
They just MIGHT have to shoot us if we legislate.
Mind you, they won;t be able to help themselves. It’s just that their trigger fingers are attached to their assholes, where their principles originate.
If a conservative American EVER attempts to thwart my jaywalking, I will fucking shoot them in their head.
And I’ve yet to see a jaywalker shoot up a Walmart, a school, a church, or a country music festival, though jaywalking could be an early sign, a canary in the outrage mine, of what’s coming to republican conservatism in America.
Republicans think we live in The Economy.
Democrats think we live in The Environment.
Libertarians, I don’t know.
Then there’s the Christ-is-coming-soon types, who seem to believe that Life, the Dow, and everything is merely an extensive audition for Heaven or Hell, neither of which environments has anything like an economy, so let’s have those tax cuts now, dammit.
All these taken together are “people” — a species which, like any other, proliferates until it chokes on its own waste, “capitalists” and “socialists” together.
–TP
Republicans think we live in The Economy.
Democrats think we live in The Environment.
Libertarians, I don’t know.
Then there’s the Christ-is-coming-soon types, who seem to believe that Life, the Dow, and everything is merely an extensive audition for Heaven or Hell, neither of which environments has anything like an economy, so let’s have those tax cuts now, dammit.
All these taken together are “people” — a species which, like any other, proliferates until it chokes on its own waste, “capitalists” and “socialists” together.
–TP
re conservative republican vermin and their second amendment solutions, this could be an incitement to savage killing violence:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-wages-war-asylum-official-demoted
re conservative republican vermin and their second amendment solutions, this could be an incitement to savage killing violence:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-wages-war-asylum-official-demoted
Break all of the fucking laws:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-have-broken-law-by-altering-hurricane-dorian-map-2019-9
That’s O.K.
It serves as precedent for the means of wiping the worldwide conservative nationalist movement off the face of the Earth.
Break all of the fucking laws:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-have-broken-law-by-altering-hurricane-dorian-map-2019-9
That’s O.K.
It serves as precedent for the means of wiping the worldwide conservative nationalist movement off the face of the Earth.
Too bad p’s brother is dead:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/boris-johnsons-own-brother-resigns-in-protest-at-his-handling-of-brexit?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Too bad p’s brother is dead:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/boris-johnsons-own-brother-resigns-in-protest-at-his-handling-of-brexit?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Speak for yourself, buddy.
Even if the “most people” formulation is correct, so what? Most people aren’t climate experts or national leaders. Most people are oblivious to what their local governments do, even though their local governments have a more direct impact on their daily lives than many of the other things they concern themselves with. Most people are largely ignorant of the mathematics of personal finance.
Oh, but really poor people in Third World countries don’t have the time or the need to concern themselves with those things, so those things must not be important. You know, like open-heart surgery isn’t important because they can’t afford it.
As concerns climate change, very poor people in Third World countries will be no less dislocated or dead when it hits them, regardless of their lack of “preoccupation.” Maybe that’s why other people should be worrying about it for them.
I really don’t know what “point” was being made with that comment.
Speak for yourself, buddy.
Even if the “most people” formulation is correct, so what? Most people aren’t climate experts or national leaders. Most people are oblivious to what their local governments do, even though their local governments have a more direct impact on their daily lives than many of the other things they concern themselves with. Most people are largely ignorant of the mathematics of personal finance.
Oh, but really poor people in Third World countries don’t have the time or the need to concern themselves with those things, so those things must not be important. You know, like open-heart surgery isn’t important because they can’t afford it.
As concerns climate change, very poor people in Third World countries will be no less dislocated or dead when it hits them, regardless of their lack of “preoccupation.” Maybe that’s why other people should be worrying about it for them.
I really don’t know what “point” was being made with that comment.
Too bad p’s brother is dead:
But his sister isn’t.
She’s supposed to be a lot saner than he is. But I haven’t noticed her speaking out like this.
Too bad p’s brother is dead:
But his sister isn’t.
She’s supposed to be a lot saner than he is. But I haven’t noticed her speaking out like this.
I really don’t know what “point” was being made with that comment.
The point I took, perhaps incorrectly, was that we are being self-indulgent by worrying about this. I.e. it isn’t really worth wasting time over it.
I really don’t know what “point” was being made with that comment.
The point I took, perhaps incorrectly, was that we are being self-indulgent by worrying about this. I.e. it isn’t really worth wasting time over it.
yep: “a first-world luxury”
yep: “a first-world luxury”
Guess they’re standing their ground
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/09/05/nra-rips-san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-after-being-labeled-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/
Guess they’re standing their ground
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/09/05/nra-rips-san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-after-being-labeled-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/
NRA’s mad SF is using their playbook?
NRA’s mad SF is using their playbook?
Official religious declarations about climate change via the UN:
https://unfccc.int/news/islamic-declaration-on-climate-change
Islamic; Catholic; Anglican; Buddhist; Jewish; and a Hindu response that was forthcoming at the time of the release in 2015.
Official religious declarations about climate change via the UN:
https://unfccc.int/news/islamic-declaration-on-climate-change
Islamic; Catholic; Anglican; Buddhist; Jewish; and a Hindu response that was forthcoming at the time of the release in 2015.
Don’t think we haven’t heard what the republican party and the worldwide conservative movement have been saying about us these last many decades:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSh1zpafboM
I speak their language.
Fly, my pretties!
Don’t think we haven’t heard what the republican party and the worldwide conservative movement have been saying about us these last many decades:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSh1zpafboM
I speak their language.
Fly, my pretties!
Of course they are:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/umm-theres-a-whistleblower-about-the-presidents-tax-returns
Of course they are:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/umm-theres-a-whistleblower-about-the-presidents-tax-returns
JDT, the talkingpointsmemo article asks why this isn’t a bigger deal. The obvious response is that this administration breaking the law has become so commonplace that an additional instance is barely news. How far we have fallen.
JDT, the talkingpointsmemo article asks why this isn’t a bigger deal. The obvious response is that this administration breaking the law has become so commonplace that an additional instance is barely news. How far we have fallen.
From the TPM article:
Yep.
From the TPM article:
Yep.
and it’s not just that we’re used to it; a further problem is that everybody realizes there will be no consequences.
Trump and the Senate GOP have formed a criminal conspiracy to allow him to get away with anything he wants, so long as he’s nice to the Senators.
the Dems can hold hearings, but everybody knows they will amount to nothing but frowns and wagged fingers.
what we have here is a Constitutional failure (which created by a Electoral College failure).
f James Madison
and it’s not just that we’re used to it; a further problem is that everybody realizes there will be no consequences.
Trump and the Senate GOP have formed a criminal conspiracy to allow him to get away with anything he wants, so long as he’s nice to the Senators.
the Dems can hold hearings, but everybody knows they will amount to nothing but frowns and wagged fingers.
what we have here is a Constitutional failure (which created by a Electoral College failure).
f James Madison
Well, that went well….
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/05/mike-pence-ireland-shat-on-the-carpet
Well, that went well….
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/05/mike-pence-ireland-shat-on-the-carpet
BTW, can we not speak of Brexit for a while ?
BTW, can we not speak of Brexit for a while ?
At last! A solution to the gun violence we’ve been seeing:
https://youtu.be/dCf4_qQOKgQ
“Make guns gay” What a concept!
At last! A solution to the gun violence we’ve been seeing:
https://youtu.be/dCf4_qQOKgQ
“Make guns gay” What a concept!
Their governments (you know, those shithole countries-ed) may be concerned. Or just hoping for handouts from first-world countries.
Yes…”handouts”. The condescension, it burns.
By burning carbon, the “advanced” world got through the industrial revolution first. They reaped huge first across the line advantages that they still enjoy. But yes, those left (or pushed) behind….they are just asking for “handouts”.
Fuck that.
Their governments (you know, those shithole countries-ed) may be concerned. Or just hoping for handouts from first-world countries.
Yes…”handouts”. The condescension, it burns.
By burning carbon, the “advanced” world got through the industrial revolution first. They reaped huge first across the line advantages that they still enjoy. But yes, those left (or pushed) behind….they are just asking for “handouts”.
Fuck that.
what we have here is a Constitutional failure (which created by a Electoral College failure).
Comparisons to the 1850’s may apply here, and thus the Constitution is doing exactly what it was designed to do in a political crisis…i.e., ensure political gridlock.
Doing nothing is a political choice, and generally favors the powerful, the well off and the comfortable.
My Brexit sermon follows.
what we have here is a Constitutional failure (which created by a Electoral College failure).
Comparisons to the 1850’s may apply here, and thus the Constitution is doing exactly what it was designed to do in a political crisis…i.e., ensure political gridlock.
Doing nothing is a political choice, and generally favors the powerful, the well off and the comfortable.
My Brexit sermon follows.
Yes…”handouts”. The condescension, it burns.
I suspect that the handouts, or whatever you want to call them, will be evenly distributed to not their populations, but their Swiss bank accounts.
Yes…”handouts”. The condescension, it burns.
I suspect that the handouts, or whatever you want to call them, will be evenly distributed to not their populations, but their Swiss bank accounts.
By burning carbon, the “advanced” world got through the industrial revolution first. They reaped huge first across the line advantages that they still enjoy. But yes, those left (or pushed) behind….they are just asking for “handouts”.
Fuck that.
Indeed. Financing renewable energy projects in developing countries is a win/win idea.
Charles is fighting the battles of a generation back.
By burning carbon, the “advanced” world got through the industrial revolution first. They reaped huge first across the line advantages that they still enjoy. But yes, those left (or pushed) behind….they are just asking for “handouts”.
Fuck that.
Indeed. Financing renewable energy projects in developing countries is a win/win idea.
Charles is fighting the battles of a generation back.
I suspect that the handouts, or whatever you want to call them, will be evenly distributed to not their populations, but their Swiss bank accounts.
But that is very much a function of how the support is structured. To take the obvious (and probably not directly relevant) example, nobody gets rich off foreign aid in the form of Peace Corps volunteers. But in fostering education, improved agricultural practices, etc., they still manage to do a lot of good.
Not to say that there isn’t a good chance of the aid being in a form that can be corruptly stolen. But it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s conceivable that we might have learned something….
I suspect that the handouts, or whatever you want to call them, will be evenly distributed to not their populations, but their Swiss bank accounts.
But that is very much a function of how the support is structured. To take the obvious (and probably not directly relevant) example, nobody gets rich off foreign aid in the form of Peace Corps volunteers. But in fostering education, improved agricultural practices, etc., they still manage to do a lot of good.
Not to say that there isn’t a good chance of the aid being in a form that can be corruptly stolen. But it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s conceivable that we might have learned something….
Some third world countries are already using over 80% renewable energy. Of course, it’s dung and anything else organic that they can scrounge.
Some of the third world countries biggest problems are barriers to imports from each other and from the rest of the world. And the hundreds of billions of dollars in dead capital due to weak to nonexistent property rights.
Some third world countries are already using over 80% renewable energy. Of course, it’s dung and anything else organic that they can scrounge.
Some of the third world countries biggest problems are barriers to imports from each other and from the rest of the world. And the hundreds of billions of dollars in dead capital due to weak to nonexistent property rights.
This
I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.
followed by this
Some of the third world countries biggest problems are barriers to imports from each other and from the rest of the world. And the hundreds of billions of dollars in dead capital due to weak to nonexistent property rights..
Ahh,got it. climate change is a first world problem. The real problem is property rights!!
This
I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.
followed by this
Some of the third world countries biggest problems are barriers to imports from each other and from the rest of the world. And the hundreds of billions of dollars in dead capital due to weak to nonexistent property rights..
Ahh,got it. climate change is a first world problem. The real problem is property rights!!
Being wealthy makes it much easier to deal with climate, changing or not. People in poor countries struggle with the climate conditions they currently have. Never mind the possible changes in those conditions. Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.
Being wealthy makes it much easier to deal with climate, changing or not. People in poor countries struggle with the climate conditions they currently have. Never mind the possible changes in those conditions. Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.
The gift that keeps on giving:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/is-trump-strong-arming-ukraines-new-president-for-political-gain/2019/09/05/4eb239b0-cffa-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html
Putin’s ROI for Trump just keeps growing.
The gift that keeps on giving:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/is-trump-strong-arming-ukraines-new-president-for-political-gain/2019/09/05/4eb239b0-cffa-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html
Putin’s ROI for Trump just keeps growing.
That article I linked to with religious responses to climate change also included a bit about the concept of Climate Debt that addresses CharlesWT’s First World/Third World framing (and flips the bird to the president’s response to the CNN Climate Forum. Yes, the US uses cleaner tech than a lot of the world — so what? We still owe for past action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_debt
That article I linked to with religious responses to climate change also included a bit about the concept of Climate Debt that addresses CharlesWT’s First World/Third World framing (and flips the bird to the president’s response to the CNN Climate Forum. Yes, the US uses cleaner tech than a lot of the world — so what? We still owe for past action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_debt
CharlesWT: Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.
Yes. It would allow their rapacious oligarchs to open bigger Swiss bank accounts than even their corrupt politicians that you postulated earlier.
But this snooty attitude toward poor countries, as a simple assertion of a generalization of a prejudice, will not do.
Which countries do you have in mind specifically? What property rights do people there have or not have? What is their historical foundation in colonialism? Who drew their borders and called them “countries” in the first place? Let’s not have a mash-up of the laws, traditions, and histories of different “poor countries” into one Platonic Ideal of a “poor country”. Let’s discuss specific cases. Educate before you preach.
–TP
CharlesWT: Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.
Yes. It would allow their rapacious oligarchs to open bigger Swiss bank accounts than even their corrupt politicians that you postulated earlier.
But this snooty attitude toward poor countries, as a simple assertion of a generalization of a prejudice, will not do.
Which countries do you have in mind specifically? What property rights do people there have or not have? What is their historical foundation in colonialism? Who drew their borders and called them “countries” in the first place? Let’s not have a mash-up of the laws, traditions, and histories of different “poor countries” into one Platonic Ideal of a “poor country”. Let’s discuss specific cases. Educate before you preach.
–TP
“Dead capital is an economic term related to property which is informally held that it is not legally recognized. The uncertainty of ownership decreases the value of the asset and/or the ability to lend or borrow against it. These lost forms of value are dead capital.
The term dead capital was coined by Peruvian Economist Hernando de Soto Polar.
De Soto estimates there is US$ 9.3 trillion in dead capital globally. The US$ 9.3 trillion are assets owned by poor or middle-class people in emerging economies which cannot be realized due to poor policies, procedures or bureaucracy.
If these assets in the informal sector were recognized and brought into the mainstream, market economy, they could become the key to fostering development.”
Dead capital
“Experts have found out a direct correlation between a nation’s wealth and having an adequate property rights system. This is because real estate is a form of capital and capital raises economic productivity and thus creates wealth. In a number of countries, too many citizens cannot access this capital because their ownership rights are not adequately recorded. This makes it a “dead capital” that cannot be used as collateral for a loan which might be used to start a business, for example. According to the famous Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, the value of the extralegal property worldwide is largely in excess of 10 trillion dollars! In Peru, he led a far-ranging and very successful administrative reform that resulted in giving titles to more than 1.2 million families and helped some 380,000 firms to enter the formal economy.”
Unlocking the Dead Capital
“Dead capital is an economic term related to property which is informally held that it is not legally recognized. The uncertainty of ownership decreases the value of the asset and/or the ability to lend or borrow against it. These lost forms of value are dead capital.
The term dead capital was coined by Peruvian Economist Hernando de Soto Polar.
De Soto estimates there is US$ 9.3 trillion in dead capital globally. The US$ 9.3 trillion are assets owned by poor or middle-class people in emerging economies which cannot be realized due to poor policies, procedures or bureaucracy.
If these assets in the informal sector were recognized and brought into the mainstream, market economy, they could become the key to fostering development.”
Dead capital
“Experts have found out a direct correlation between a nation’s wealth and having an adequate property rights system. This is because real estate is a form of capital and capital raises economic productivity and thus creates wealth. In a number of countries, too many citizens cannot access this capital because their ownership rights are not adequately recorded. This makes it a “dead capital” that cannot be used as collateral for a loan which might be used to start a business, for example. According to the famous Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, the value of the extralegal property worldwide is largely in excess of 10 trillion dollars! In Peru, he led a far-ranging and very successful administrative reform that resulted in giving titles to more than 1.2 million families and helped some 380,000 firms to enter the formal economy.”
Unlocking the Dead Capital
CharlesWT: Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.
Tony P: Yes. It would allow their rapacious oligarchs to open bigger Swiss bank accounts than even their corrupt politicians that you postulated earlier.
I was writing a similar response. Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice. If you don’t have that prerequisite in place, they are irrelevant.
CharlesWT: Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.
Tony P: Yes. It would allow their rapacious oligarchs to open bigger Swiss bank accounts than even their corrupt politicians that you postulated earlier.
I was writing a similar response. Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice. If you don’t have that prerequisite in place, they are irrelevant.
Property rights are great. Not being underwater, also great.
Bangladesh, at 1 and 1.5 meters sea level rise.
At 1 meter sea level rise, 15 million people are displaced. At a meter and a half, it’s 18 million. And that is just Bangladesh, which is probably the most concentrated population that is likely to be affected, but it is far from the only one.
Where are they gonna go? Assume their property rights in the land they live on, or their house, or their livestock, or whatever moveable property they might own, are recognized, what are the value of those things when they are underwater?
Are you going to buy a Bangladeshi’s house?
Property rights are great. Not being underwater, also great.
Bangladesh, at 1 and 1.5 meters sea level rise.
At 1 meter sea level rise, 15 million people are displaced. At a meter and a half, it’s 18 million. And that is just Bangladesh, which is probably the most concentrated population that is likely to be affected, but it is far from the only one.
Where are they gonna go? Assume their property rights in the land they live on, or their house, or their livestock, or whatever moveable property they might own, are recognized, what are the value of those things when they are underwater?
Are you going to buy a Bangladeshi’s house?
Are you going to buy a Bangladeshi’s house?
Perhaps more to the point, are you, or any bank, going to lend him money with his house (and the land under it — soon to be under water as well) for collateral? Gives a whole new perspective on the term “sunk cost”
Are you going to buy a Bangladeshi’s house?
Perhaps more to the point, are you, or any bank, going to lend him money with his house (and the land under it — soon to be under water as well) for collateral? Gives a whole new perspective on the term “sunk cost”
Looks like people in Bangladesh don’t legally own very much.
Property Rights Index in Bangladesh compared to Asia
Looks like people in Bangladesh don’t legally own very much.
Property Rights Index in Bangladesh compared to Asia
I notice this paragraph in the linked article:
Which is pretty much the point I was making.
I notice this paragraph in the linked article:
Which is pretty much the point I was making.
Charles, I don’t think too many people here would argue against basic property rights. Many if not most (if not all) of us actually own private property of some form.
And yes, the more wealth you have, the better positioned you are to avoid or mitigate the consequences of climate change, to you, personally.
None of that addresses – or rather, all of that ignores – the most obvious of those consequences. 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate because the place they used to live is underwater is still 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate. Even if they have money, it’s a big lift.
And 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate is just the tip of the iceberg, both in terms of the number of people affected and in the nature of the effect. The situation of Bangladesh is often cited when people talk about this stuff, it’s only one of many similar situations.
Property rights are great. They don’t address the thing we’re actually talking about.
Charles, I don’t think too many people here would argue against basic property rights. Many if not most (if not all) of us actually own private property of some form.
And yes, the more wealth you have, the better positioned you are to avoid or mitigate the consequences of climate change, to you, personally.
None of that addresses – or rather, all of that ignores – the most obvious of those consequences. 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate because the place they used to live is underwater is still 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate. Even if they have money, it’s a big lift.
And 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate is just the tip of the iceberg, both in terms of the number of people affected and in the nature of the effect. The situation of Bangladesh is often cited when people talk about this stuff, it’s only one of many similar situations.
Property rights are great. They don’t address the thing we’re actually talking about.
Property rights are great. They don’t address the thing we’re actually talking about.
that’s because you’re not thinking like a libertarian.
Property rights are great. They don’t address the thing we’re actually talking about.
that’s because you’re not thinking like a libertarian.
What Tony P said yesterday at 9:04:
Except I’d say that Libertarians think we live in The Market. A universe of free and equal beings, exchanging things of value without coercion of any kind and with perfect knowledge about the up and downsides of every transaction.
Sounds great, where do I sign up?
Sensible people understand that we live on a planet, the only planet we are ever going to live on, and which offers us and every other thing that lives here ample but finite resources with which to sustain ourselves.
And sensible people understand that everything we do or don’t do has an effect on that irreplaceable and finite system.
It’s an enormously resilient system, but our preferences will count for exactly nothing in its calculus of how to balance itself. Free market, no free market, property rights, no property rights – these are not questions that the planet ponders.
If the ice melts, the water rises. The rest is commentary.
What Tony P said yesterday at 9:04:
Except I’d say that Libertarians think we live in The Market. A universe of free and equal beings, exchanging things of value without coercion of any kind and with perfect knowledge about the up and downsides of every transaction.
Sounds great, where do I sign up?
Sensible people understand that we live on a planet, the only planet we are ever going to live on, and which offers us and every other thing that lives here ample but finite resources with which to sustain ourselves.
And sensible people understand that everything we do or don’t do has an effect on that irreplaceable and finite system.
It’s an enormously resilient system, but our preferences will count for exactly nothing in its calculus of how to balance itself. Free market, no free market, property rights, no property rights – these are not questions that the planet ponders.
If the ice melts, the water rises. The rest is commentary.
when all you’ve got is a market, every problem is a market failure.
when all you’ve got is a market, every problem is a market failure.
One factor notoriously ignored by libertarian theory is the limited human lifespan. Some of the arguments might be valid if humans possessed relative immortality (=do not die unless killed). Absent that maximizing personal benefits would mean to exploit the resources owned in exact accordance with one’s lifespan (=use them and/or the benefits derived from them up in a way that they are gone the exact moment you die).
Also delayed damages are outside possible calculation. If what I do will harm no one alive at the time of my death, there can be no valid litigation however great the damage my actions will cause later.
A thought experiment: We find a miraculous way to defer the negative consequences of our polluting and climate changing policies for 200 years but when that time has passed all the the conequences will hit at once and there is no way to postpone. Assuming that no human being will live longer than 150 years, we would not have anyone violating anyone’s property rights by polluting and heating up the world for the next 50 years. We would know with near certainty that at the end of the deferral Earth would become completely inhabitable almost instantly but libertarian or FME theory would have to declare that a completely invalid factor since there can be by definition no interaction between the property holders now and those in the future (no overlapping lifespan).
One factor notoriously ignored by libertarian theory is the limited human lifespan. Some of the arguments might be valid if humans possessed relative immortality (=do not die unless killed). Absent that maximizing personal benefits would mean to exploit the resources owned in exact accordance with one’s lifespan (=use them and/or the benefits derived from them up in a way that they are gone the exact moment you die).
Also delayed damages are outside possible calculation. If what I do will harm no one alive at the time of my death, there can be no valid litigation however great the damage my actions will cause later.
A thought experiment: We find a miraculous way to defer the negative consequences of our polluting and climate changing policies for 200 years but when that time has passed all the the conequences will hit at once and there is no way to postpone. Assuming that no human being will live longer than 150 years, we would not have anyone violating anyone’s property rights by polluting and heating up the world for the next 50 years. We would know with near certainty that at the end of the deferral Earth would become completely inhabitable almost instantly but libertarian or FME theory would have to declare that a completely invalid factor since there can be by definition no interaction between the property holders now and those in the future (no overlapping lifespan).
I find the best way to solve a given problem is to take it to whatever level of abstraction is necessary to make it conceptually simple enough to solve with whatever my preferred solution was before I started considering that problem.
I find the best way to solve a given problem is to take it to whatever level of abstraction is necessary to make it conceptually simple enough to solve with whatever my preferred solution was before I started considering that problem.
libertarianism can’t even handle a relatively simple collective action problem like vaccinations without twisting itself into knots while trying to find a fundamental principle to stand on. it’s not going to come close to handling something like GCC.
libertarianism can’t even handle a relatively simple collective action problem like vaccinations without twisting itself into knots while trying to find a fundamental principle to stand on. it’s not going to come close to handling something like GCC.
“it’s not going to come close to handling something like GCC.”
Let alone g++.
“it’s not going to come close to handling something like GCC.”
Let alone g++.
I was writing a similar response. Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice.
The foregoing is implicit in the notion of property rights. By definition a “right” can and must be enforced in a known and predictable way. Otherwise, it is Darwinian anarchy.
Therefore, pretty much everyone here missing Charles’ point, which is less Libertarian than simple rules of a successful, market economy.
If people think Climate Change can be addressed without wealth, i.e. resources, and without taking into account the impact on the ability to replicate wealth, i.e. a functioning, market-based economy, then good luck to everyone in that Brave, New and Previously Unknown World. When you run out of beans, you can’t eat. It takes a tractor and diesel or gas to run a tractor and a First World industrial base to grow your first commercially-available and exportable bean. Getting that bean from, e.g. the US, to Bangladesh also requires a First World industrial base.
Sure, I could theoretically grow my own food, but I can’t grow enough to feed my displaced neighbor. If my displaced neighbor gets hungry enough, he will hit me over the head and take my food. Bad situation. So, if we are going to feed people consistently, we will have to do it in a liberal, market economy.
I was writing a similar response. Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice.
The foregoing is implicit in the notion of property rights. By definition a “right” can and must be enforced in a known and predictable way. Otherwise, it is Darwinian anarchy.
Therefore, pretty much everyone here missing Charles’ point, which is less Libertarian than simple rules of a successful, market economy.
If people think Climate Change can be addressed without wealth, i.e. resources, and without taking into account the impact on the ability to replicate wealth, i.e. a functioning, market-based economy, then good luck to everyone in that Brave, New and Previously Unknown World. When you run out of beans, you can’t eat. It takes a tractor and diesel or gas to run a tractor and a First World industrial base to grow your first commercially-available and exportable bean. Getting that bean from, e.g. the US, to Bangladesh also requires a First World industrial base.
Sure, I could theoretically grow my own food, but I can’t grow enough to feed my displaced neighbor. If my displaced neighbor gets hungry enough, he will hit me over the head and take my food. Bad situation. So, if we are going to feed people consistently, we will have to do it in a liberal, market economy.
libertarianism can’t even handle a relatively simple collective action problem like vaccinations without twisting itself into knots while trying to find a fundamental principle to stand on. it’s not going to come close to handling something like GCC.
Libertarianism frequently trips over itself in practice for reasons like vaccines and other public health concerns that traditionally are inherent in a state’s police power (or, overtime pay, or healthcare mandates or taxes of any kind). But, Charles’ point was more directed to (1) poor countries are often that way because there isn’t a mechanism to acquire, keep and build on property ownership and (2) without the mechanism to do so, Climate Change cannot be countered.
libertarianism can’t even handle a relatively simple collective action problem like vaccinations without twisting itself into knots while trying to find a fundamental principle to stand on. it’s not going to come close to handling something like GCC.
Libertarianism frequently trips over itself in practice for reasons like vaccines and other public health concerns that traditionally are inherent in a state’s police power (or, overtime pay, or healthcare mandates or taxes of any kind). But, Charles’ point was more directed to (1) poor countries are often that way because there isn’t a mechanism to acquire, keep and build on property ownership and (2) without the mechanism to do so, Climate Change cannot be countered.
Therefore, pretty much everyone here missing Charles’ point, which is less Libertarian than simple rules of a successful, market economy.
I’m not arguing against markets in general here – maybe just the idea that they’re THE solution to any number of problems. My question is, if the economy is successful, what difference does it make whether or not it’s a market-based economy? (And how much does and economy have to be market driven to qualify as a market-based economy? Is a successful mixed economy somehow less desirable, despite being successful? Or is the assumption here that the only successful economies are at least largely market based, making the “market” in “successful, market” redundant?)
Therefore, pretty much everyone here missing Charles’ point, which is less Libertarian than simple rules of a successful, market economy.
I’m not arguing against markets in general here – maybe just the idea that they’re THE solution to any number of problems. My question is, if the economy is successful, what difference does it make whether or not it’s a market-based economy? (And how much does and economy have to be market driven to qualify as a market-based economy? Is a successful mixed economy somehow less desirable, despite being successful? Or is the assumption here that the only successful economies are at least largely market based, making the “market” in “successful, market” redundant?)
My question is, if the economy is successful, what difference does it make whether or not it’s a market-based economy?
Can you give me some examples of a successful, non-market-based economy?
My question is, if the economy is successful, what difference does it make whether or not it’s a market-based economy?
Can you give me some examples of a successful, non-market-based economy?
Depending on your definition, China. I’d say it’s not a purely market-based economy without hesitation.
Depending on your definition, China. I’d say it’s not a purely market-based economy without hesitation.
Depending on your definition, China. I’d say it’s not a purely market-based economy without hesitation.
Interesting point. I’m not sure how I’d characterize China either. It’s wealth comes from it’s market economy, but it’s still a dictatorship without the rule of law that attends the liberal concept of property rights.
Also, China is a net food importer–success!!!–and anything but altruistic, so how would China be an example of an economy that will mitigate the effects of Climate Change? If anything, I’d submit that the PRC in particular is one of the leading causes on GCC.
Depending on your definition, China. I’d say it’s not a purely market-based economy without hesitation.
Interesting point. I’m not sure how I’d characterize China either. It’s wealth comes from it’s market economy, but it’s still a dictatorship without the rule of law that attends the liberal concept of property rights.
Also, China is a net food importer–success!!!–and anything but altruistic, so how would China be an example of an economy that will mitigate the effects of Climate Change? If anything, I’d submit that the PRC in particular is one of the leading causes on GCC.
China is a recent contributor. And the US is one of the worst countries for carbon production on a per-capita basis to this day, and has far outpaced China historically. What aspect of China’s economy has made it such a contributor to GCC?
But I think we’re heading down a bit of a rabbit hole here, which is my fault for zeroing in on what I perceived to be a particular need to use the word “market” the way you did.
China is a recent contributor. And the US is one of the worst countries for carbon production on a per-capita basis to this day, and has far outpaced China historically. What aspect of China’s economy has made it such a contributor to GCC?
But I think we’re heading down a bit of a rabbit hole here, which is my fault for zeroing in on what I perceived to be a particular need to use the word “market” the way you did.
My underlying thought is more that, even if we could magically confer robust property rights across the globe, it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a global focus on mitigating AGW. I’m confident that it would not be sufficient. I’m wondering about necessary.
My underlying thought is more that, even if we could magically confer robust property rights across the globe, it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a global focus on mitigating AGW. I’m confident that it would not be sufficient. I’m wondering about necessary.
wj: Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice.
McKinney: The foregoing is implicit in the notion of property rights. By definition a “right” can and must be enforced in a known and predictable way.
I guess I didn’t find it implicit. You know it’s required. But my experience with libertarians is that they generally (perhaps not Charles) do not think about those necessary prerequisites. Either they assume, contrary of fact in many cases, that such institutions already exist. Or they are totally oblivious to the need.
wj: Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice.
McKinney: The foregoing is implicit in the notion of property rights. By definition a “right” can and must be enforced in a known and predictable way.
I guess I didn’t find it implicit. You know it’s required. But my experience with libertarians is that they generally (perhaps not Charles) do not think about those necessary prerequisites. Either they assume, contrary of fact in many cases, that such institutions already exist. Or they are totally oblivious to the need.
I assume at the same population density the US would also be in need of food imports. And the US have more good arable land too.
For that matter, there are several quite rich rule-of-law, civilized nations with market economies in the world that are net food importers (and quite a few net exporters that are neither of the above).
I assume at the same population density the US would also be in need of food imports. And the US have more good arable land too.
For that matter, there are several quite rich rule-of-law, civilized nations with market economies in the world that are net food importers (and quite a few net exporters that are neither of the above).
Libertarians see free markets as having no third parties intervening in market transactions. They know that to have a free market economy, you need a rule of law with civil courts to deal with disputes, police and criminal courts to deal with trespass, theft, fraud, extortion, coercion, assaults, et.
Libertarians see free markets as having no third parties intervening in market transactions. They know that to have a free market economy, you need a rule of law with civil courts to deal with disputes, police and criminal courts to deal with trespass, theft, fraud, extortion, coercion, assaults, et.
When you export about a quarter of all manufactures in the world, you have to import something. Food is something.
BTW, what sort of nation could be such a “winner” that it runs a net trade surplus with the whole rest of the world? A nation of underfed slaves, perhaps?
–TP
When you export about a quarter of all manufactures in the world, you have to import something. Food is something.
BTW, what sort of nation could be such a “winner” that it runs a net trade surplus with the whole rest of the world? A nation of underfed slaves, perhaps?
–TP
China’s economy appears to be a form of neo-imperialist mercantilism. While a vast improvement on the great leap backward, cultural devolution period, it has its limits. Which their economy appears to be bumping up against.
China’s economy appears to be a form of neo-imperialist mercantilism. While a vast improvement on the great leap backward, cultural devolution period, it has its limits. Which their economy appears to be bumping up against.
Libertarians see free markets as having no third parties intervening in market transactions. They know that to have a free market economy, you need a rule of law with civil courts to deal with disputes, police and criminal courts to deal with trespass, theft, fraud, extortion, coercion, assaults, et.
All of which constitute third party interference in potential transactions.
Which is to say, their demand for “no 3rd party intervention” is actually a demand for “no interventions that inconvenience me, but plenty of interventions which help me.”
Libertarians see free markets as having no third parties intervening in market transactions. They know that to have a free market economy, you need a rule of law with civil courts to deal with disputes, police and criminal courts to deal with trespass, theft, fraud, extortion, coercion, assaults, et.
All of which constitute third party interference in potential transactions.
Which is to say, their demand for “no 3rd party intervention” is actually a demand for “no interventions that inconvenience me, but plenty of interventions which help me.”
List of countries by current account balance
List of countries by current account balance
If people think Climate Change can be addressed without wealth
I don’t see anyone here making such a claim.
Charles’ appears to be arguing that the way to address the impact of climate change on poorer people is to make sure they have property rights.
The first thing to note here is that poorer people – poorer nations in particular – make at most minimal contribution to the human causes of climate change. Their lack of wealth is not what is causing the problem. Suddenly enriching them through the mechanism of private property is not likely to solve the problem. They are not involved in the problem, by and large, except via bearing the brunt of it.
The second thing to note is that one of the greatest dangers at the moment is the inclination of poorer countries to follow the same path the developed world took in building themselves into wealthy nations. Which is to say, industrialization. People in emerging economies want cars, A/C’s, TV’s, the whole host of things we take for granted, and which they don’t have. Any argument against them following that same path to wealth is, and must be, both necessary and profoundly unfair. They are obliged to take one for the team, while we refuse to make even the most basic adjustments to our own level of comfort and convenience.
Net/net, the path to what we would consider to be normal levels of wealth among emerging economies is likely to make things profoundly worse, rather than the obvious. From the point of view of human contribution to climate change.
Property rights are a great thing. I hope that people around the world are increasingly able to derive the full value, in whatever form they wish, from the things they build and own and from the fruit of their labor and diligence.
None of that addresses the causes of climate change. We – people who have been benefiting from the numerous advantages of modern industry for the last 250 or so years – are the cause of climate change. Our refusal to change what we do, and how we do it, is the issue.
Nobody whatsoever in this train of discussion is arguing against market economies, or against poorer and emerging nations improving the material conditions of their people’s lives. Nobody is arguing against the goodness of property rights.
Nobody is arguing against them or for them, for that matter, because they aren’t really all that relevant to a discussion of the causes of climate change and the things that need to happen to address it.
We need to stop pulling carbon based fuels out of the ground and burning them to power our lives. We need to change what we eat, and how we grow what we eat. And we need to take immediate and direct action to mitigate the consequences that are already, irretrievably, baked into the atmosphere and oceans.
That is what needs to happen.
It’s great if property rights are strengthened for the people for whom they are currently weak or nonexistent. Doing that is almost completely orthogonal to the human causes of climate change.
If people think Climate Change can be addressed without wealth
I don’t see anyone here making such a claim.
Charles’ appears to be arguing that the way to address the impact of climate change on poorer people is to make sure they have property rights.
The first thing to note here is that poorer people – poorer nations in particular – make at most minimal contribution to the human causes of climate change. Their lack of wealth is not what is causing the problem. Suddenly enriching them through the mechanism of private property is not likely to solve the problem. They are not involved in the problem, by and large, except via bearing the brunt of it.
The second thing to note is that one of the greatest dangers at the moment is the inclination of poorer countries to follow the same path the developed world took in building themselves into wealthy nations. Which is to say, industrialization. People in emerging economies want cars, A/C’s, TV’s, the whole host of things we take for granted, and which they don’t have. Any argument against them following that same path to wealth is, and must be, both necessary and profoundly unfair. They are obliged to take one for the team, while we refuse to make even the most basic adjustments to our own level of comfort and convenience.
Net/net, the path to what we would consider to be normal levels of wealth among emerging economies is likely to make things profoundly worse, rather than the obvious. From the point of view of human contribution to climate change.
Property rights are a great thing. I hope that people around the world are increasingly able to derive the full value, in whatever form they wish, from the things they build and own and from the fruit of their labor and diligence.
None of that addresses the causes of climate change. We – people who have been benefiting from the numerous advantages of modern industry for the last 250 or so years – are the cause of climate change. Our refusal to change what we do, and how we do it, is the issue.
Nobody whatsoever in this train of discussion is arguing against market economies, or against poorer and emerging nations improving the material conditions of their people’s lives. Nobody is arguing against the goodness of property rights.
Nobody is arguing against them or for them, for that matter, because they aren’t really all that relevant to a discussion of the causes of climate change and the things that need to happen to address it.
We need to stop pulling carbon based fuels out of the ground and burning them to power our lives. We need to change what we eat, and how we grow what we eat. And we need to take immediate and direct action to mitigate the consequences that are already, irretrievably, baked into the atmosphere and oceans.
That is what needs to happen.
It’s great if property rights are strengthened for the people for whom they are currently weak or nonexistent. Doing that is almost completely orthogonal to the human causes of climate change.
the idea that property rights are even in the top 50 things that we need to work on seem preposterous.
from my reading of the relevant literature, the idea that GCC can be handled by strong property rights for people in the areas likely to be affected first by GCC is based on the premise that the lawsuits then brought by these people would be enough to make the polluters change their behavior. poor flooded farmers would sue polluters and the polluters would be forced to switch to clean methods in order to avoid future lawsuits.
but there’s no doubt that the same people pushing that idea would also have no problem arguing that any such suits would be nonsense because there’s no way to prove that the specific polluter named in the suit was responsible for the water that flooded the plaintiffs’ homes. [and besides, the poor farmer is just looking for a handout! should’ve been born in Iowa, sucker!]
and in the unlikely event that a polluter would lose a suit like that, the reaction would be immediate legislation forbidding future such suits in the name of protecting the economy and our way of life.
the idea that property rights are even in the top 50 things that we need to work on seem preposterous.
from my reading of the relevant literature, the idea that GCC can be handled by strong property rights for people in the areas likely to be affected first by GCC is based on the premise that the lawsuits then brought by these people would be enough to make the polluters change their behavior. poor flooded farmers would sue polluters and the polluters would be forced to switch to clean methods in order to avoid future lawsuits.
but there’s no doubt that the same people pushing that idea would also have no problem arguing that any such suits would be nonsense because there’s no way to prove that the specific polluter named in the suit was responsible for the water that flooded the plaintiffs’ homes. [and besides, the poor farmer is just looking for a handout! should’ve been born in Iowa, sucker!]
and in the unlikely event that a polluter would lose a suit like that, the reaction would be immediate legislation forbidding future such suits in the name of protecting the economy and our way of life.
So it’s a “universal property rights will make everything super-duper fair, even across national borders” kind of thing.
So it’s a “universal property rights will make everything super-duper fair, even across national borders” kind of thing.
Sometimes (OK repeatedly), the ability of this administration to come up with things which will damage the country is simply amazing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/06/military-service-was-once-fast-track-us-citizenship-trump-administration-keeps-narrowing-that-possibility/
Support our troops! — but only if they’re native born, and preferably white, folks like us. Otherwise, even if they’re stationed in somewhere that we have great political support, e.g. Kentucky, they’re unimportant. See the list of places where military projects (specifically and explicitly approved and funded by Congress) are being shut down in order to steal funds for the ego wall.
Sometimes (OK repeatedly), the ability of this administration to come up with things which will damage the country is simply amazing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/06/military-service-was-once-fast-track-us-citizenship-trump-administration-keeps-narrowing-that-possibility/
Support our troops! — but only if they’re native born, and preferably white, folks like us. Otherwise, even if they’re stationed in somewhere that we have great political support, e.g. Kentucky, they’re unimportant. See the list of places where military projects (specifically and explicitly approved and funded by Congress) are being shut down in order to steal funds for the ego wall.
Reading my own comment made me think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meBXuuy9xto
Reading my own comment made me think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meBXuuy9xto
Grateful immigrants become the best citizens. That’s what drives me completely insane about all of this anti-immigration bullsh*t. It’s the same crap we went through with refugees from the Middle East several years back – you know, because they were all terrorists, even the ones who worked on our behalf and who only wanted to leave their home countries because they were likely to be tortured and killed for helping the US. F**king stupid.
Grateful immigrants become the best citizens. That’s what drives me completely insane about all of this anti-immigration bullsh*t. It’s the same crap we went through with refugees from the Middle East several years back – you know, because they were all terrorists, even the ones who worked on our behalf and who only wanted to leave their home countries because they were likely to be tortured and killed for helping the US. F**king stupid.
No matter how hard they try, it strikes me libertarians cannot get around the vast collective action problem that constitutes the major stumbling block to effectively mitigating GCC.
cf tragedy of the commons/negative externalities
If one accepts the science, then one is logically compelled to seek public policies (i.e., “interventions”) that either bend market outcomes (taxes, etc.) in some way to influence participants or simply take markets over and/or shut them down or radically redirect those resources (command economy).
As I recall, libertarians did not march in the streets demanding the rollback of the federal seizure (pretty much) of our domestic production during WWII.
But I guess some interventions are better than others, right?
No matter how hard they try, it strikes me libertarians cannot get around the vast collective action problem that constitutes the major stumbling block to effectively mitigating GCC.
cf tragedy of the commons/negative externalities
If one accepts the science, then one is logically compelled to seek public policies (i.e., “interventions”) that either bend market outcomes (taxes, etc.) in some way to influence participants or simply take markets over and/or shut them down or radically redirect those resources (command economy).
As I recall, libertarians did not march in the streets demanding the rollback of the federal seizure (pretty much) of our domestic production during WWII.
But I guess some interventions are better than others, right?
I assume at the same population density the US would also be in need of food imports. And the US have more good arable land too.
Have you tested those assumptions?
Libertarians see free markets as having no third parties intervening in market transactions. They know that to have a free market economy, you need a rule of law with civil courts to deal with disputes, police and criminal courts to deal with trespass, theft, fraud, extortion, coercion, assaults, et.
My understanding is that Libertarians view the employer/employee relationship as an example of a market transaction that should be free from third party intervention. It is also my understanding that prostitution would be legal in a Libertarian jurisdiction because it is a negotiated transaction between two adults. Question: In a Libertarian society, would I, as an employer, be free to require my female employees to be sexually intimate with me as a part of the mutual exchange of consideration supporting our employment contract?
If the answer is yes, then Harvey Weinstein is a Libertarian, yes?
So it’s a “universal property rights will make everything super-duper fair, even across national borders” kind of thing.
Nothing is ever super-duper fair. If you can get “more-or-less fair”, you’re way ahead of the game. Leaving that aside, no, no one is saying what you said. What is being said is pretty simple: (1) it will take a liberal, market-driven,First World industrial base to replicate the wealth necessary to deal with Climate Change, and property rights are at the core of such a state of affairs; and (2) poor countries, without the means to address Climate Change internally, are poor generally because the key ingredient to a liberal, market-driven First World industrial base is the liberal notion of property rights (as opposed the oligarch’s notion of property rights, see, e.g. net worth of Fidel Castro, Nicholas Maduro, Vladimir Putin, etc).
I assume at the same population density the US would also be in need of food imports. And the US have more good arable land too.
Have you tested those assumptions?
Libertarians see free markets as having no third parties intervening in market transactions. They know that to have a free market economy, you need a rule of law with civil courts to deal with disputes, police and criminal courts to deal with trespass, theft, fraud, extortion, coercion, assaults, et.
My understanding is that Libertarians view the employer/employee relationship as an example of a market transaction that should be free from third party intervention. It is also my understanding that prostitution would be legal in a Libertarian jurisdiction because it is a negotiated transaction between two adults. Question: In a Libertarian society, would I, as an employer, be free to require my female employees to be sexually intimate with me as a part of the mutual exchange of consideration supporting our employment contract?
If the answer is yes, then Harvey Weinstein is a Libertarian, yes?
So it’s a “universal property rights will make everything super-duper fair, even across national borders” kind of thing.
Nothing is ever super-duper fair. If you can get “more-or-less fair”, you’re way ahead of the game. Leaving that aside, no, no one is saying what you said. What is being said is pretty simple: (1) it will take a liberal, market-driven,First World industrial base to replicate the wealth necessary to deal with Climate Change, and property rights are at the core of such a state of affairs; and (2) poor countries, without the means to address Climate Change internally, are poor generally because the key ingredient to a liberal, market-driven First World industrial base is the liberal notion of property rights (as opposed the oligarch’s notion of property rights, see, e.g. net worth of Fidel Castro, Nicholas Maduro, Vladimir Putin, etc).
russell: It’s great if property rights are strengthened for the people for whom they are currently weak or nonexistent. Doing that is almost completely orthogonal to the human causes of climate change.
I say that if you breathe air, you have a “property right” in the atmosphere. (If your “person” consists of stock certificates, you don’t.) We Americans may have a highly evolved system of property rights based on Rule of Law, but where the hell are our property rights w.r.t. the atmosphere?
Libertarians might howl or scoff, but I want to see the following in order to take this “property rights solve everything” business seriously:
1) A tax on every atom of fossil carbon extracted in or imported into the US. Maybe a fraction of a penny per mole. This is based on the fact that, close enough for government work, every atom of fossil carbon that enters The Economy eventually becomes a molecule of CO2 dumped into The Environment, thus impinging on our “property right” in the atmosphere.
2) The tax to be collected at source — from the miner, or driller, or importer. Those “persons” could eat the cost, or pass it on — they’d be Free to Choose for themselves, on strictly Free Market principles. But We the People would collect the “dumping fee” up front.
3) The money would immediately (say, monthly) get distributed among all persons in the US who breathe, on a strictly per-capita basis. The surviving Koch brother and a newborn in “the inner city” would both receive the exact same dollar amount, since each has the exact same “property right” in the atmosphere.
Almost certainly, Democrats would favor a higher carbon tax of this form than Republicans. And who knows what Libertarians would favor? But the dollar amounts are negotiable. “Compromise”, so beloved of “moderates” and “independents”, is always possible when all we’re doing is haggling over the price. It’s establishing what “property rights” are that I’m on about.
–TP
russell: It’s great if property rights are strengthened for the people for whom they are currently weak or nonexistent. Doing that is almost completely orthogonal to the human causes of climate change.
I say that if you breathe air, you have a “property right” in the atmosphere. (If your “person” consists of stock certificates, you don’t.) We Americans may have a highly evolved system of property rights based on Rule of Law, but where the hell are our property rights w.r.t. the atmosphere?
Libertarians might howl or scoff, but I want to see the following in order to take this “property rights solve everything” business seriously:
1) A tax on every atom of fossil carbon extracted in or imported into the US. Maybe a fraction of a penny per mole. This is based on the fact that, close enough for government work, every atom of fossil carbon that enters The Economy eventually becomes a molecule of CO2 dumped into The Environment, thus impinging on our “property right” in the atmosphere.
2) The tax to be collected at source — from the miner, or driller, or importer. Those “persons” could eat the cost, or pass it on — they’d be Free to Choose for themselves, on strictly Free Market principles. But We the People would collect the “dumping fee” up front.
3) The money would immediately (say, monthly) get distributed among all persons in the US who breathe, on a strictly per-capita basis. The surviving Koch brother and a newborn in “the inner city” would both receive the exact same dollar amount, since each has the exact same “property right” in the atmosphere.
Almost certainly, Democrats would favor a higher carbon tax of this form than Republicans. And who knows what Libertarians would favor? But the dollar amounts are negotiable. “Compromise”, so beloved of “moderates” and “independents”, is always possible when all we’re doing is haggling over the price. It’s establishing what “property rights” are that I’m on about.
–TP
Question: In a Libertarian society, would I, as an employer, be free to require my female employees to be sexually intimate with me as a part of the mutual exchange of consideration supporting our employment contract?
I would say that it shouldn’t be illegal if it’s clearly stated in the employment contract and the employee makes an overt acknowledgment of the requirement. My impression of the Weinstein affair is that people were being blindsided by the requirement after the fact. Which brings in fraud, coercion, assault and who knows what else.
Question: In a Libertarian society, would I, as an employer, be free to require my female employees to be sexually intimate with me as a part of the mutual exchange of consideration supporting our employment contract?
I would say that it shouldn’t be illegal if it’s clearly stated in the employment contract and the employee makes an overt acknowledgment of the requirement. My impression of the Weinstein affair is that people were being blindsided by the requirement after the fact. Which brings in fraud, coercion, assault and who knows what else.
What is being said is pretty simple: it will take a liberal, market-driven,First World industrial base to replicate the wealth necessary to deal with Climate Change, and property rights are at the core of such a state of affairs
so i’ve read a dozen or so articles about the libertarian property-rights angle for GCC this afternoon, and they follow the argument that increasing the property rights of those affected most by GCC will allow them to sue polluters and thereby make pollution too expensive.
here’s Adler again:
he then goes on to argue that libertarians should treat GW the way they do other property damages:
property rights are the mechanism by which these people who no longer have property to stand on will be afforded redress.
What is being said is pretty simple: it will take a liberal, market-driven,First World industrial base to replicate the wealth necessary to deal with Climate Change, and property rights are at the core of such a state of affairs
so i’ve read a dozen or so articles about the libertarian property-rights angle for GCC this afternoon, and they follow the argument that increasing the property rights of those affected most by GCC will allow them to sue polluters and thereby make pollution too expensive.
here’s Adler again:
he then goes on to argue that libertarians should treat GW the way they do other property damages:
property rights are the mechanism by which these people who no longer have property to stand on will be afforded redress.
The paper on free market environmentalism linked above either proposes or believes that libertarians propose privatizing the commons is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons.
The paper on free market environmentalism linked above either proposes or believes that libertarians propose privatizing the commons is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons.
Food for thought!
Food for thought!
privatizing the commons is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons
well, sure!
once the commons is in private hands, then it’s no longer ‘the commons’!
privatizing the commons is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons
well, sure!
once the commons is in private hands, then it’s no longer ‘the commons’!
increasing the property rights of those affected most by GCC will allow them to sue polluters and thereby make pollution too expensive.
The people of Bangladesh vs ARAMCO. Place your bets.
privatizing the commons is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons
The term “tragedy of the commons” was IIRC coined by a libertarian think piece arguing, exactly, that privatizing the commons is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons. The assumption was that anyone who did not have a personal, private property in a resource would be unable to restrain themselves from abusing it.
The author was apparently unable to imagine any other way that people might live in community, or think about a shared resource. Simply didn’t enter his mind. And, given his assumptions, the author was correct – if the only response to a shared resource is to abuse it by taking as much of it as you can get away with, the shared resource – the commons – will in fact be degraded.
Commoning was a viable way of life, for a lot of people, for centuries. It no longer is, for a thousand reasons, not least because we no longer have the mental furniture – the vocabulary, the repertoire of fundamental ideas – to imagine it. We did, now we don’t.
increasing the property rights of those affected most by GCC will allow them to sue polluters and thereby make pollution too expensive.
The people of Bangladesh vs ARAMCO. Place your bets.
privatizing the commons is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons
The term “tragedy of the commons” was IIRC coined by a libertarian think piece arguing, exactly, that privatizing the commons is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons. The assumption was that anyone who did not have a personal, private property in a resource would be unable to restrain themselves from abusing it.
The author was apparently unable to imagine any other way that people might live in community, or think about a shared resource. Simply didn’t enter his mind. And, given his assumptions, the author was correct – if the only response to a shared resource is to abuse it by taking as much of it as you can get away with, the shared resource – the commons – will in fact be degraded.
Commoning was a viable way of life, for a lot of people, for centuries. It no longer is, for a thousand reasons, not least because we no longer have the mental furniture – the vocabulary, the repertoire of fundamental ideas – to imagine it. We did, now we don’t.
Leaving that aside, no, no one is saying what you said.
I was responding to cleek’s immediately preceding comment. And from a later cleek comment:
so i’ve read a dozen or so articles about the libertarian property-rights angle for GCC this afternoon, and they follow the argument that increasing the property rights of those affected most by GCC will allow them to sue polluters and thereby make pollution too expensive.
Maybe no one here is saying it (except maybe Charles?), but someone is.
Leaving that aside, no, no one is saying what you said.
I was responding to cleek’s immediately preceding comment. And from a later cleek comment:
so i’ve read a dozen or so articles about the libertarian property-rights angle for GCC this afternoon, and they follow the argument that increasing the property rights of those affected most by GCC will allow them to sue polluters and thereby make pollution too expensive.
Maybe no one here is saying it (except maybe Charles?), but someone is.
I would say that it shouldn’t be illegal if it’s clearly stated in the employment contract and the employee makes an overt acknowledgment of the requirement. My impression of the Weinstein affair is that people were being blindsided by the requirement after the fact. Which brings in fraud, coercion, assault and who knows what else.
Ok, and this is one reason why I’m not a Libertarian: if your first sentence were the theoretical law, then Weinstein would not have had to do what he did to circumvent the actual law, which he had to get around. That is, if was legal to tie sexual consent to employment, Weinstein could have been straight up–if using employment as a cudgel to compel sex can be seen as “straight up”–with the objects of his desire and made a quid pro quo offer of employment in exchange for sex. Quid pro quo’s are illegal in the US–and rightly so, assuming it’s necessary to state the obvious– because there is an inherently exploitative potential in many employment relationships, e.g. the very poor, the very needy, etc. It’s why we have minimum wage and overtime statutes and a host of other, relatively mild, third party intrusions into the market.
(and the reason i read all those articles was to try to figure out why Charles was saying property rights are the way to go. i assumed it was some libertarian orthodoxy that i hadn’t heard of before, and wanted to know what it was all about.)
I would say that it shouldn’t be illegal if it’s clearly stated in the employment contract and the employee makes an overt acknowledgment of the requirement. My impression of the Weinstein affair is that people were being blindsided by the requirement after the fact. Which brings in fraud, coercion, assault and who knows what else.
Ok, and this is one reason why I’m not a Libertarian: if your first sentence were the theoretical law, then Weinstein would not have had to do what he did to circumvent the actual law, which he had to get around. That is, if was legal to tie sexual consent to employment, Weinstein could have been straight up–if using employment as a cudgel to compel sex can be seen as “straight up”–with the objects of his desire and made a quid pro quo offer of employment in exchange for sex. Quid pro quo’s are illegal in the US–and rightly so, assuming it’s necessary to state the obvious– because there is an inherently exploitative potential in many employment relationships, e.g. the very poor, the very needy, etc. It’s why we have minimum wage and overtime statutes and a host of other, relatively mild, third party intrusions into the market.
(and the reason i read all those articles was to try to figure out why Charles was saying property rights are the way to go. i assumed it was some libertarian orthodoxy that i hadn’t heard of before, and wanted to know what it was all about.)
I want to hear the Libertarian plan for establishing strong worldwide property rights within the next decade in order to mitigate the worst of the coming environmental collapse.
I also note that McKinney’s critique here amounts to “but how will we pay for all of this without shrinking the economy?” And that this question ignores the possibility that we are where we are because we have already expanded the economy beyond the sustainable point on a “fossil fuel” bubble.
GCC is a market correction enforced on the global economy by the ecological system we live in. Guess what, oil dude, you got caught holding the bag when the bubble burst, so you get to pay and that value gets wiped out.
So put that value to work in the decade that we have trying to build something that will not be wiped out when that bubble bursts, and realize from the start that you will not come out of this making money off of the deal.
Yep. It’ll hurt. Welcome to spaceship earth.
I want to hear the Libertarian plan for establishing strong worldwide property rights within the next decade in order to mitigate the worst of the coming environmental collapse.
I also note that McKinney’s critique here amounts to “but how will we pay for all of this without shrinking the economy?” And that this question ignores the possibility that we are where we are because we have already expanded the economy beyond the sustainable point on a “fossil fuel” bubble.
GCC is a market correction enforced on the global economy by the ecological system we live in. Guess what, oil dude, you got caught holding the bag when the bubble burst, so you get to pay and that value gets wiped out.
So put that value to work in the decade that we have trying to build something that will not be wiped out when that bubble bursts, and realize from the start that you will not come out of this making money off of the deal.
Yep. It’ll hurt. Welcome to spaceship earth.
It’s why we have minimum wage and overtime statutes and a host of other, relatively mild, third party intrusions into the market.
Which can and often do make people worse off instead of better. When you eliminate someone’s least worse option without providing them with an alternative, you’re not doing them any favors.
It’s why we have minimum wage and overtime statutes and a host of other, relatively mild, third party intrusions into the market.
Which can and often do make people worse off instead of better. When you eliminate someone’s least worse option without providing them with an alternative, you’re not doing them any favors.
I also note that McKinney’s critique here amounts to “but how will we pay for all of this without shrinking the economy?” And that this question ignores the possibility that we are where we are because we have already expanded the economy beyond the sustainable point on a “fossil fuel” bubble.
GCC is a market correction enforced on the global economy by the ecological system we live in. Guess what, oil dude, you got caught holding the bag when the bubble burst, so you get to pay and that value gets wiped out.
So put that value to work in the decade that we have trying to build something that will not be wiped out when that bubble bursts, and realize from the start that you will not come out of this making money off of the deal.
Yep. It’ll hurt. Welcome to spaceship earth.
If only. If Big Oil is going to pay, how is that going to work (leaving aside ‘how do we grow enough beans to feed everyone if we can’t drive our tractors and combines and whatnot?’)? Big Oil may have a trillion or so collectively in cash somewhere, but most of its value is in reserves, physical and other capital assets. Here’s the thing about capital assets: I can say my house is worth 100M, but if in fact I can only get 500K for it, that’s how much I actually have, and therefore, that’s how much is available to pay for my contribution to GCC. IN other words, you can’t get more from capital assets than someone is willing to pay. If you outlaw fossil fuels, the value of Big Oil’s capital assets is zero if not negative. Like it or not, if you are counting on Big Oil to pay to fix GCC, you either have to let it remain economically viable or you just put a bullet in its head and take pennies on the dollar, and even then you only get to do that one time.
Which leaves what’s left of the private sector to pick up the slack, assuming the death of Big Oil doesn’t pull everything else in with it.
And even then, you will not fix the problem and will most likely make it much worse if your fix is “Tough s**t private sector, we’re coming for your money and we won’t stop until we say we’ve taken enough to fix the problem”. Assuming government were to do that, (1) the private sector would cease to exist and (2) GCC would be a secondary concern because there wouldn’t be any beans and we’d all starve to death. Not just Americans, but pretty much the world.
So, like it or not, you won’t fix anything by killing the golden goose.
I also note that McKinney’s critique here amounts to “but how will we pay for all of this without shrinking the economy?” And that this question ignores the possibility that we are where we are because we have already expanded the economy beyond the sustainable point on a “fossil fuel” bubble.
GCC is a market correction enforced on the global economy by the ecological system we live in. Guess what, oil dude, you got caught holding the bag when the bubble burst, so you get to pay and that value gets wiped out.
So put that value to work in the decade that we have trying to build something that will not be wiped out when that bubble bursts, and realize from the start that you will not come out of this making money off of the deal.
Yep. It’ll hurt. Welcome to spaceship earth.
If only. If Big Oil is going to pay, how is that going to work (leaving aside ‘how do we grow enough beans to feed everyone if we can’t drive our tractors and combines and whatnot?’)? Big Oil may have a trillion or so collectively in cash somewhere, but most of its value is in reserves, physical and other capital assets. Here’s the thing about capital assets: I can say my house is worth 100M, but if in fact I can only get 500K for it, that’s how much I actually have, and therefore, that’s how much is available to pay for my contribution to GCC. IN other words, you can’t get more from capital assets than someone is willing to pay. If you outlaw fossil fuels, the value of Big Oil’s capital assets is zero if not negative. Like it or not, if you are counting on Big Oil to pay to fix GCC, you either have to let it remain economically viable or you just put a bullet in its head and take pennies on the dollar, and even then you only get to do that one time.
Which leaves what’s left of the private sector to pick up the slack, assuming the death of Big Oil doesn’t pull everything else in with it.
And even then, you will not fix the problem and will most likely make it much worse if your fix is “Tough s**t private sector, we’re coming for your money and we won’t stop until we say we’ve taken enough to fix the problem”. Assuming government were to do that, (1) the private sector would cease to exist and (2) GCC would be a secondary concern because there wouldn’t be any beans and we’d all starve to death. Not just Americans, but pretty much the world.
So, like it or not, you won’t fix anything by killing the golden goose.
Which can and often do make people worse off instead of better. When you eliminate someone’s least worse option without providing them with an alternative, you’re not doing them any favors.
I would need fairly clear and compelling evidence of this, assuming I understand the context. Our economy seems just fine with minimum wage and time and a half and not allowing men to compel women to submit in exchange for employment (or who promote women who do submit over women who won’t), to name a few.
I’ve seen plenty of outright employee oppression that was perfectly legal. We are not all equally endowed, equally independent and rational economic actors. A viable, civilized and liberal society levels the playing field up to a point (at present we are several degrees short of where I would be in being pro-employee). Where that point is lies somewhere between Libertarian and Progressive policy preferences. Neither are viable long term, IMO. Neither are economically realistic, much less sustainable IMO.
Which can and often do make people worse off instead of better. When you eliminate someone’s least worse option without providing them with an alternative, you’re not doing them any favors.
I would need fairly clear and compelling evidence of this, assuming I understand the context. Our economy seems just fine with minimum wage and time and a half and not allowing men to compel women to submit in exchange for employment (or who promote women who do submit over women who won’t), to name a few.
I’ve seen plenty of outright employee oppression that was perfectly legal. We are not all equally endowed, equally independent and rational economic actors. A viable, civilized and liberal society levels the playing field up to a point (at present we are several degrees short of where I would be in being pro-employee). Where that point is lies somewhere between Libertarian and Progressive policy preferences. Neither are viable long term, IMO. Neither are economically realistic, much less sustainable IMO.
McTx I’ve seen plenty of outright employee oppression that was perfectly legal.
I’d be interested in a couple of your examples, if you can say.
McTx I’ve seen plenty of outright employee oppression that was perfectly legal.
I’d be interested in a couple of your examples, if you can say.
Which can and often do make people worse off instead of better.
Maybe. The study of the impact of minimum wage legislation may be rife with conflicting conclusions, but the elimination of 8 year olds going down into the mines is fairly clear.
Ya’ know, price signals often make some people worse off instead of better. Amazing, yes!
Same for public policy.
The glibertarian response is to claim the so-called free market is (a.) more “efficient”; and (b.) Liberty! What is left unsaid is the current distribution of both power and wealth.
Strangely, they take that for granted.
How very strange, indeed.
If glibertarians were really sincere, they would advocate a One World “watchman” state, randomly redistribute all the people of the world based on a lottery, and give them each an equal share of existing wealth and resources.
This is an unrealistic plan that matches exactly their unrealistic policy prescriptions and their plethora of unfounded assumptions.
Which can and often do make people worse off instead of better.
Maybe. The study of the impact of minimum wage legislation may be rife with conflicting conclusions, but the elimination of 8 year olds going down into the mines is fairly clear.
Ya’ know, price signals often make some people worse off instead of better. Amazing, yes!
Same for public policy.
The glibertarian response is to claim the so-called free market is (a.) more “efficient”; and (b.) Liberty! What is left unsaid is the current distribution of both power and wealth.
Strangely, they take that for granted.
How very strange, indeed.
If glibertarians were really sincere, they would advocate a One World “watchman” state, randomly redistribute all the people of the world based on a lottery, and give them each an equal share of existing wealth and resources.
This is an unrealistic plan that matches exactly their unrealistic policy prescriptions and their plethora of unfounded assumptions.
The people of Bangladesh vs ARAMCO. Place your bets.
In addition to being able to hire far better lawyers (even as a class action suit, how much can Bangladeshi farmers afford?), look for ARAMCO to a) successfully get a change of venue (because of course with everybody in Bangladesh impacted, they can’t get an impartial jury there) and b) argue that they just pumped the oil (and have no control over whether it was burned or made into plastics or whatever).
We’re having a duel. But you get a water pistol and I get a main battle tank. But hey, they’re both guns, right? So it’s essentially a fair fight.
The people of Bangladesh vs ARAMCO. Place your bets.
In addition to being able to hire far better lawyers (even as a class action suit, how much can Bangladeshi farmers afford?), look for ARAMCO to a) successfully get a change of venue (because of course with everybody in Bangladesh impacted, they can’t get an impartial jury there) and b) argue that they just pumped the oil (and have no control over whether it was burned or made into plastics or whatever).
We’re having a duel. But you get a water pistol and I get a main battle tank. But hey, they’re both guns, right? So it’s essentially a fair fight.
The goose isn’t golden and it’s already dead. It’s been on life support for decades with everyone in the family afraid to pull the plug because they aren’t ready to pay the hospital bill for decades of end-of-life care and the decedent’s estate is all leveraged debt.
The starvation you say will happen is going to happen either now or in the future and will be far worse in the future as we run up climate debt to ease our passage for the moment. Which goes back to Hartmut’s 10:51 about Libertarians and lifespans.
The goose isn’t golden and it’s already dead. It’s been on life support for decades with everyone in the family afraid to pull the plug because they aren’t ready to pay the hospital bill for decades of end-of-life care and the decedent’s estate is all leveraged debt.
The starvation you say will happen is going to happen either now or in the future and will be far worse in the future as we run up climate debt to ease our passage for the moment. Which goes back to Hartmut’s 10:51 about Libertarians and lifespans.
I’d be interested in a couple of your examples, if you can say.
I can give some examples, but I’m going to switch from “oppression” to the broader “mistreatment”: un-provable age discrimination, extended work hours on a daily but under 40 hours weekly basis and then that under adverse work conditions, cutting hours to avoid full time employee benefits, questionable use of “independent contractors”, hiring subcontractors who the employer knows will not follow OSHA, FLSA, etc (essentially using a cat’s paw to avoid the law). And so on.
A gray area that has troubled me for years is an attorney I heard of back in the day who would hire single, financially-strapped mothers as clerical help and then lend them more money than they could repay. He would then call the loans and allow them work off their debt in the Weinstein way. Nothing in writing, no paper trail and not an employment-related quid-pro-quo. He should be shot of course for being a despicable human being, but that’s beside the point. I’m not sure where the illegality lies.
There is a lot of gray area and I’m almost always opposed to government mandates, generally because they almost never work. The low hanging fruit is minimum wage and time and a half for hours over 40 and that’s already on the books. Plus, you wind up with a lot of unintended consequences that reward the litigious and punish the rest. Rather, I favor tax and other incentives to encourage employee opportunities to buy-in (after a certain number of years in service), to encourage larger, richer insurance and retirement benefits, those kinds of things.
I’d be interested in a couple of your examples, if you can say.
I can give some examples, but I’m going to switch from “oppression” to the broader “mistreatment”: un-provable age discrimination, extended work hours on a daily but under 40 hours weekly basis and then that under adverse work conditions, cutting hours to avoid full time employee benefits, questionable use of “independent contractors”, hiring subcontractors who the employer knows will not follow OSHA, FLSA, etc (essentially using a cat’s paw to avoid the law). And so on.
A gray area that has troubled me for years is an attorney I heard of back in the day who would hire single, financially-strapped mothers as clerical help and then lend them more money than they could repay. He would then call the loans and allow them work off their debt in the Weinstein way. Nothing in writing, no paper trail and not an employment-related quid-pro-quo. He should be shot of course for being a despicable human being, but that’s beside the point. I’m not sure where the illegality lies.
There is a lot of gray area and I’m almost always opposed to government mandates, generally because they almost never work. The low hanging fruit is minimum wage and time and a half for hours over 40 and that’s already on the books. Plus, you wind up with a lot of unintended consequences that reward the litigious and punish the rest. Rather, I favor tax and other incentives to encourage employee opportunities to buy-in (after a certain number of years in service), to encourage larger, richer insurance and retirement benefits, those kinds of things.
In addition to being able to hire far better lawyers (even as a class action suit, how much can Bangladeshi farmers afford?), look for ARAMCO to a) successfully get a change of venue (because of course with everybody in Bangladesh impacted, they can’t get an impartial jury there) and b) argue that they just pumped the oil (and have no control over whether it was burned or made into plastics or whatever).
We’re having a duel. But you get a water pistol and I get a main battle tank. But hey, they’re both guns, right? So it’s essentially a fair fight.
WJ, you are out of your element. If–the world’s biggest “if”–Bangladesh had a make-able claim against a deep pocket or a class of deep pockets, getting competent counsel would be the least of its worries. I make a good living as an hourly fee lawyer with a good client base. My contingent fee, plaintiff attorney friends out-earn me by orders of magnitude. Orders. We have a second home until I retire (which we need because I need a home where I work), they have large jets, vineyards in Napa, homes in Hawaii/Colorado/Wyoming, ranches here and there. No shortage of lawyers who are very, very, very good and who will take 40% of the recovery.
The goose isn’t golden and it’s already dead. It’s been on life support for decades with everyone in the family afraid to pull the plug because they aren’t ready to pay the hospital bill for decades of end-of-life care and the decedent’s estate is all leveraged debt.
The starvation you say will happen is going to happen either now or in the future and will be far worse in the future as we run up climate debt to ease our passage for the moment. Which goes back to Hartmut’s 10:51 about Libertarians and lifespans.
Perhaps, but if you are correct, find your redoubt because the end is coming. Very few have your outlook and even less are willing to pay the price to fix the problem as you would have it fixed.
In addition to being able to hire far better lawyers (even as a class action suit, how much can Bangladeshi farmers afford?), look for ARAMCO to a) successfully get a change of venue (because of course with everybody in Bangladesh impacted, they can’t get an impartial jury there) and b) argue that they just pumped the oil (and have no control over whether it was burned or made into plastics or whatever).
We’re having a duel. But you get a water pistol and I get a main battle tank. But hey, they’re both guns, right? So it’s essentially a fair fight.
WJ, you are out of your element. If–the world’s biggest “if”–Bangladesh had a make-able claim against a deep pocket or a class of deep pockets, getting competent counsel would be the least of its worries. I make a good living as an hourly fee lawyer with a good client base. My contingent fee, plaintiff attorney friends out-earn me by orders of magnitude. Orders. We have a second home until I retire (which we need because I need a home where I work), they have large jets, vineyards in Napa, homes in Hawaii/Colorado/Wyoming, ranches here and there. No shortage of lawyers who are very, very, very good and who will take 40% of the recovery.
The goose isn’t golden and it’s already dead. It’s been on life support for decades with everyone in the family afraid to pull the plug because they aren’t ready to pay the hospital bill for decades of end-of-life care and the decedent’s estate is all leveraged debt.
The starvation you say will happen is going to happen either now or in the future and will be far worse in the future as we run up climate debt to ease our passage for the moment. Which goes back to Hartmut’s 10:51 about Libertarians and lifespans.
Perhaps, but if you are correct, find your redoubt because the end is coming. Very few have your outlook and even less are willing to pay the price to fix the problem as you would have it fixed.
Better use of my time and resources than trying to argue with death cult capitalism. Plant a billion trees: https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/plant-a-billion/
Better use of my time and resources than trying to argue with death cult capitalism. Plant a billion trees: https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/plant-a-billion/
If we (for some definition of “we”) somehow decided to leave the fossil fuels reserves in the ground, a huge amount of the book value of pretty much all of the big energy companies would disappear. Because their big asset is all of the stuff that’s in the ground that they haven’t extracted yet.
At some point I worked out a back-of-envelope measure of what that would actually amount to, as a percentage of the book value of (for instance) the DJIA. I forget what it came to, but it was a lot. As in, it would probably cost my wife and I, personally, five or six figures.
I talked about it with my wife, and we agreed that, were that option available, we’d take the hit. That is probably an unusual position.
If you did it all at once, it would crater a truly enormous sector of the global economy. Not just the producers, but all of the stuff downstream of that. At present, the world literally runs on old dead dinosaurs and ancient trees. There is no simple or easy or quick path away from that, that doesn’t also involve utter chaos.
If we, for some definition of “we”, were to decide to embark on a mobilization plan to transition away from all of that, we would be looking at a generation of effort. That wouldn’t get us 100%, it could hypothetically get us to a place where we could “bend the curve” of the rate of growth of carbon emissions. So, over time, we might mitigate how bad things will be eventually. That would need to be, at a very bare minimum, a regional or state level effort if it were to make a dent. Realistically it would need to be national, to be really effective it would need to be in concert with other countries. All working more or less together, for something like 25 or 30 years.
That is the best-case scenario. We are not on track for the best-case scenario.
We ought to have begun addressing this 40 or 50 years ago. It was brought to our attention, it was discussed, publicly, and was considered at the level of public policy. In the end, we did not take the bull by the horns.
I don’t really know what is going to happen, to be honest. I have no freaking idea. It’s possible that the energy industry will simply continue to pump every fucking atom of carbon out of the ground and sell it to people who will burn it the hell up. That, to an overwhelming degree, has been our response for the last 40 or 50 years. And there are a lot of people who have vested interests I can hardly even conceive of – vested interests that make my wife and my five or six figure haircut look like milk money – who are more than extremely motivated to do exactly that. And, plan to do that. And, will do that, unless somebody or something prevents them doing that. In my opinion, the world would be, literally, well served if those folks were rounded up and sent out to sea on an ice floe with some polar bears for company, but that is not going to happen.
It’s also possible, but not a sure thing, that when people who are, say, 35 and under begin to assume positions of responsibility and power in the world, they *will* actually take the bull by the horns, and the stuff we should have been doing 40 or 50 years ago, and should be doing now but we’re not, will start getting done in 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years from now. And, the generation-long clock will start from there.
That is probably the real-world best case – the best-case scenario that could, if we’re lucky, actually happen.
Changes could be gradual, or they could actually be fairly dramatic. The onset of the Younger Dryas – a change of 2 to 6 degrees C, which is hella dramatic – apparently occurred over, not centuries, but decades. Within a single human lifespan. The flip back to warmer temperatures was even shorter, apparently. Single-digit years, maybe.
It’s hard to even imagine what that kind of instability looks like, on the ground.
What worries me, more than anything, is that we are highly likely to see disruptions in settled patterns of life, at medium to large scale, in time frames that are really hard to respond to. The war in Syria spun off about 6 million refugees, about a million of whom ended up in the EU, which got some EU countries flirting with fascism. Which, 70 and 80 years ago – not so long ago – almost destroyed that whole continent.
People’s memories are short, and when their backs are up against a wall they act out in regrettable ways. For lack of a better word.
That was 6 million people overall, 1 million in the EU. What happens when it’s 10 or 20 or 100 million people? You can try to tell them to stay the hell home, but if they’re gonna die if they stay home, they’re not gonna stay home. They’ll take their chances with anyplace they can get to.
Which could be a place that is already stressed, for any of 100 reasons, especially if they are also subject to climate related issues.
So, famine, loss of access to fresh water, decline of whatever way of life people have lived for as long as they can remember. Then migration, then hostility anger and hatred. Then war or worse.
It’s not hard to see coming. We don’t have a good track record of being pro-active about stuff like this.
Things are shifting, climate-wise, and that will force other shifts. A lot of that could be handled gracefully, with some planning and good intentions, but humans are not famous for either of those.
If we (for some definition of “we”) somehow decided to leave the fossil fuels reserves in the ground, a huge amount of the book value of pretty much all of the big energy companies would disappear. Because their big asset is all of the stuff that’s in the ground that they haven’t extracted yet.
At some point I worked out a back-of-envelope measure of what that would actually amount to, as a percentage of the book value of (for instance) the DJIA. I forget what it came to, but it was a lot. As in, it would probably cost my wife and I, personally, five or six figures.
I talked about it with my wife, and we agreed that, were that option available, we’d take the hit. That is probably an unusual position.
If you did it all at once, it would crater a truly enormous sector of the global economy. Not just the producers, but all of the stuff downstream of that. At present, the world literally runs on old dead dinosaurs and ancient trees. There is no simple or easy or quick path away from that, that doesn’t also involve utter chaos.
If we, for some definition of “we”, were to decide to embark on a mobilization plan to transition away from all of that, we would be looking at a generation of effort. That wouldn’t get us 100%, it could hypothetically get us to a place where we could “bend the curve” of the rate of growth of carbon emissions. So, over time, we might mitigate how bad things will be eventually. That would need to be, at a very bare minimum, a regional or state level effort if it were to make a dent. Realistically it would need to be national, to be really effective it would need to be in concert with other countries. All working more or less together, for something like 25 or 30 years.
That is the best-case scenario. We are not on track for the best-case scenario.
We ought to have begun addressing this 40 or 50 years ago. It was brought to our attention, it was discussed, publicly, and was considered at the level of public policy. In the end, we did not take the bull by the horns.
I don’t really know what is going to happen, to be honest. I have no freaking idea. It’s possible that the energy industry will simply continue to pump every fucking atom of carbon out of the ground and sell it to people who will burn it the hell up. That, to an overwhelming degree, has been our response for the last 40 or 50 years. And there are a lot of people who have vested interests I can hardly even conceive of – vested interests that make my wife and my five or six figure haircut look like milk money – who are more than extremely motivated to do exactly that. And, plan to do that. And, will do that, unless somebody or something prevents them doing that. In my opinion, the world would be, literally, well served if those folks were rounded up and sent out to sea on an ice floe with some polar bears for company, but that is not going to happen.
It’s also possible, but not a sure thing, that when people who are, say, 35 and under begin to assume positions of responsibility and power in the world, they *will* actually take the bull by the horns, and the stuff we should have been doing 40 or 50 years ago, and should be doing now but we’re not, will start getting done in 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years from now. And, the generation-long clock will start from there.
That is probably the real-world best case – the best-case scenario that could, if we’re lucky, actually happen.
Changes could be gradual, or they could actually be fairly dramatic. The onset of the Younger Dryas – a change of 2 to 6 degrees C, which is hella dramatic – apparently occurred over, not centuries, but decades. Within a single human lifespan. The flip back to warmer temperatures was even shorter, apparently. Single-digit years, maybe.
It’s hard to even imagine what that kind of instability looks like, on the ground.
What worries me, more than anything, is that we are highly likely to see disruptions in settled patterns of life, at medium to large scale, in time frames that are really hard to respond to. The war in Syria spun off about 6 million refugees, about a million of whom ended up in the EU, which got some EU countries flirting with fascism. Which, 70 and 80 years ago – not so long ago – almost destroyed that whole continent.
People’s memories are short, and when their backs are up against a wall they act out in regrettable ways. For lack of a better word.
That was 6 million people overall, 1 million in the EU. What happens when it’s 10 or 20 or 100 million people? You can try to tell them to stay the hell home, but if they’re gonna die if they stay home, they’re not gonna stay home. They’ll take their chances with anyplace they can get to.
Which could be a place that is already stressed, for any of 100 reasons, especially if they are also subject to climate related issues.
So, famine, loss of access to fresh water, decline of whatever way of life people have lived for as long as they can remember. Then migration, then hostility anger and hatred. Then war or worse.
It’s not hard to see coming. We don’t have a good track record of being pro-active about stuff like this.
Things are shifting, climate-wise, and that will force other shifts. A lot of that could be handled gracefully, with some planning and good intentions, but humans are not famous for either of those.
I favor tax and other incentives
I tend to agree with you. With some caveats about adequately funding tax enforcement, and jail time (not in white collar minimum security resorts either) for tax fraud.
But of course, since it’s “tax“, it can’t be acceptable. At least to any real libertarian.
I favor tax and other incentives
I tend to agree with you. With some caveats about adequately funding tax enforcement, and jail time (not in white collar minimum security resorts either) for tax fraud.
But of course, since it’s “tax“, it can’t be acceptable. At least to any real libertarian.
If–the world’s biggest “if”–Bangladesh had a make-able claim
And that’s all she wrote.
Check out how Bhopal played out. Where there were clear acts of malfeasance, and clear chains of responsibility, and the result was a couple thousand people dead from chemical poisoning.
A clear, direct line from A to B.
Union Carbide settled for $470M, which is a lot of money, but did not break the bank. Seven guys got two years and a $2,000 fine, and were then released after the verdict was found. The Indian government tried to extradite the CEO of Union Carbide, the US courts weren’t having it.
The facility got passed around like a hot potato from one owner to another. It’s basically still there, I don’t think it’s ever been fully cleaned up.
And that was that.
15 million Bangladeshis have not one slim chance in hell of even getting a first-world energy company in court let alone getting them to make them whole. The causes of, and responsibility for, stuff like sea level rise is too diffuse.
Maybe they could shake some money out of them. Spread that around 15 million people, and you’re not making a very big dent. For outfits like ARAMCO and ExxonMobil, it’s just a cost of doing business.
If–the world’s biggest “if”–Bangladesh had a make-able claim
And that’s all she wrote.
Check out how Bhopal played out. Where there were clear acts of malfeasance, and clear chains of responsibility, and the result was a couple thousand people dead from chemical poisoning.
A clear, direct line from A to B.
Union Carbide settled for $470M, which is a lot of money, but did not break the bank. Seven guys got two years and a $2,000 fine, and were then released after the verdict was found. The Indian government tried to extradite the CEO of Union Carbide, the US courts weren’t having it.
The facility got passed around like a hot potato from one owner to another. It’s basically still there, I don’t think it’s ever been fully cleaned up.
And that was that.
15 million Bangladeshis have not one slim chance in hell of even getting a first-world energy company in court let alone getting them to make them whole. The causes of, and responsibility for, stuff like sea level rise is too diffuse.
Maybe they could shake some money out of them. Spread that around 15 million people, and you’re not making a very big dent. For outfits like ARAMCO and ExxonMobil, it’s just a cost of doing business.
When you look at it that way, Trump is the single most representative president in the history of the US. It’s all about stiffing the smaller guy to maintain a lifestyle.
When you look at it that way, Trump is the single most representative president in the history of the US. It’s all about stiffing the smaller guy to maintain a lifestyle.
personally, i don’t think taxes or lawsuits are going to do it. the system that needs disrupting is far bigger than all of the courts in the world. and the time scale is shorter than the [whacks calculator a la Colbert] eternity it would take to force all oil companies out of the oil business – an end that would only lead to immense suffering anyway.
what needs to happen is that we need an alternative to oil, right now. we should be spending every cent we have to find it. instead of dicking around with tax incentives and waiting for the oil industry to put itself out of business, governments should be going after this with literally everything they have. screw F35s and aircraft carriers and walls, we should be laser-focused on alternative energy sources.
the weapons we have will last a while, and we have enough already. we can hold off making new ones for a bit.
but we won’t.
because Freedom ™
personally, i don’t think taxes or lawsuits are going to do it. the system that needs disrupting is far bigger than all of the courts in the world. and the time scale is shorter than the [whacks calculator a la Colbert] eternity it would take to force all oil companies out of the oil business – an end that would only lead to immense suffering anyway.
what needs to happen is that we need an alternative to oil, right now. we should be spending every cent we have to find it. instead of dicking around with tax incentives and waiting for the oil industry to put itself out of business, governments should be going after this with literally everything they have. screw F35s and aircraft carriers and walls, we should be laser-focused on alternative energy sources.
the weapons we have will last a while, and we have enough already. we can hold off making new ones for a bit.
but we won’t.
because Freedom ™
Because money
Because money
No, cleek, we must listen to Big Oil Neville Chamberlain. We can’t afford to antagonize Climate Hitler now while the economy is still vulnerable. We will oppose him after a brief interval of regrouping and stock repatriation.
No, cleek, we must listen to Big Oil Neville Chamberlain. We can’t afford to antagonize Climate Hitler now while the economy is still vulnerable. We will oppose him after a brief interval of regrouping and stock repatriation.
McKinney, in a comment on the previous page:
When you run out of beans, you can’t eat.
True for beans. Not true for, say, beef.
It takes a tractor and diesel or gas to run a tractor and a First World industrial base to grow your first commercially-available and exportable bean.
Also true. But all it implies is that fueling tractors should be one of the highest-value uses of fossil (hydro-)carbon atoms. Growing crops to feed people rather than to feed cattle, and commuting in small electric cars rather than in sun-darkening 3-row-seating SUVs, may decrease some people’s enjoyment of life, of course. But it could be what The Invisible Hand would guide The Free Market into doing, if The Invisible Hand were not deaf, dumb, and blind as a matter of public policy.
People are going to make money — “create wealth”, if you prefer — by inventing all sorts of ways to make life comfortable without knee-jerk reliance on fossil fuel “reserves”. Americans could be those people. They would simply be different Americans from the ones whose “wealth” consists of untapped oil in the ground.
But it’s a fair bet they will be Chinese, instead.
–TP
McKinney, in a comment on the previous page:
When you run out of beans, you can’t eat.
True for beans. Not true for, say, beef.
It takes a tractor and diesel or gas to run a tractor and a First World industrial base to grow your first commercially-available and exportable bean.
Also true. But all it implies is that fueling tractors should be one of the highest-value uses of fossil (hydro-)carbon atoms. Growing crops to feed people rather than to feed cattle, and commuting in small electric cars rather than in sun-darkening 3-row-seating SUVs, may decrease some people’s enjoyment of life, of course. But it could be what The Invisible Hand would guide The Free Market into doing, if The Invisible Hand were not deaf, dumb, and blind as a matter of public policy.
People are going to make money — “create wealth”, if you prefer — by inventing all sorts of ways to make life comfortable without knee-jerk reliance on fossil fuel “reserves”. Americans could be those people. They would simply be different Americans from the ones whose “wealth” consists of untapped oil in the ground.
But it’s a fair bet they will be Chinese, instead.
–TP
But all it implies is that fueling tractors should be one of the highest-value uses of fossil (hydro-)carbon atoms.
There’s no obvious reason why a farm tractor couldn’t be electric. Indeed, because you don’t need widespread recharging infrastructure, it would be easier to implement than electric cars.
But all it implies is that fueling tractors should be one of the highest-value uses of fossil (hydro-)carbon atoms.
There’s no obvious reason why a farm tractor couldn’t be electric. Indeed, because you don’t need widespread recharging infrastructure, it would be easier to implement than electric cars.
There’s no obvious reason why a farm tractor couldn’t be electric.
Or self-driving!
And few, if any pedestrians to run over. Elon Musk really missed the boat on this one.
There’s no obvious reason why a farm tractor couldn’t be electric.
Or self-driving!
And few, if any pedestrians to run over. Elon Musk really missed the boat on this one.
Population density
China 145/km²
United States 34/km²
These two countries are almost identical in size.
Now imagine the US population quadrupled*.
Do the US export 3/4 of the food produced in-country? If not, the US would become by necessity a net food importer if they** had the same population density as China or they would have to vastly expand and/or modify*** the agrarian sector.
*and we ‘know’ that the country cannot stand/bear any more immigration or it would collapse
**as a grammar nazi I prefer the plural when referring to the US.
***switching from crops not for direct human consumption (e.g. cotton or animal feed) to those that humans will eat (grain, vegetables etc.)
Population density
China 145/km²
United States 34/km²
These two countries are almost identical in size.
Now imagine the US population quadrupled*.
Do the US export 3/4 of the food produced in-country? If not, the US would become by necessity a net food importer if they** had the same population density as China or they would have to vastly expand and/or modify*** the agrarian sector.
*and we ‘know’ that the country cannot stand/bear any more immigration or it would collapse
**as a grammar nazi I prefer the plural when referring to the US.
***switching from crops not for direct human consumption (e.g. cotton or animal feed) to those that humans will eat (grain, vegetables etc.)
wj: There’s no obvious reason why a farm tractor couldn’t be electric.
No obvious reason, true. Power-to-weight, endurance, and who knows what else, may be problematic with current batteries. But that’s all beside the point. The main point is that McKinney’s worry about growing enough beans absent fossil fuels is a red herring. Even if farm machinery had to run on steam fueled by coal, its climate impact would be mighty small compared to commuting in SUVs.
bobbyp: Elon Musk really missed the boat on this one.
Or maybe the potential market wasn’t big enough for his
greedentrepreneurial ambition:)Hartmut: ***switching from crops not for direct human consumption (e.g. cotton or animal feed) to those that humans will eat (grain, vegetables etc.)
Don’t get the RWNJs started on the “Libs will confiscate your hamburgers” mantra. Let’s keep our vegetarian conspiracies confidential.
–TP
wj: There’s no obvious reason why a farm tractor couldn’t be electric.
No obvious reason, true. Power-to-weight, endurance, and who knows what else, may be problematic with current batteries. But that’s all beside the point. The main point is that McKinney’s worry about growing enough beans absent fossil fuels is a red herring. Even if farm machinery had to run on steam fueled by coal, its climate impact would be mighty small compared to commuting in SUVs.
bobbyp: Elon Musk really missed the boat on this one.
Or maybe the potential market wasn’t big enough for his
greedentrepreneurial ambition:)Hartmut: ***switching from crops not for direct human consumption (e.g. cotton or animal feed) to those that humans will eat (grain, vegetables etc.)
Don’t get the RWNJs started on the “Libs will confiscate your hamburgers” mantra. Let’s keep our vegetarian conspiracies confidential.
–TP
Maybe we should inform those RWNJs that most of the beef they consume is foreign (Latino) and a lot of it got fed with that Asian hippie crop soy and that other latino staple maize. As true patriots they should only eat home-grown cattle fed with true North American grass. And they should make also sure that the cattle is pure-bred English in (genetic) origin not miscegenated with dago cows via Argentina.
Maybe we should inform those RWNJs that most of the beef they consume is foreign (Latino) and a lot of it got fed with that Asian hippie crop soy and that other latino staple maize. As true patriots they should only eat home-grown cattle fed with true North American grass. And they should make also sure that the cattle is pure-bred English in (genetic) origin not miscegenated with dago cows via Argentina.
No one ‘missed the boat’ – if you exclude our governments.
The tech for electric vehicles will very rapidly be repurposed to agricultural, mining etc vehicles. Indeed for some specialised applications it already has:
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/
For now it’s just a function of cost and size of market.
Left to the market, we’d probably be near 100% renewables before the end of the century, but that’s nowhere near fast enough. The only thing that’s going to speed the process is government regulation and investment.
No one ‘missed the boat’ – if you exclude our governments.
The tech for electric vehicles will very rapidly be repurposed to agricultural, mining etc vehicles. Indeed for some specialised applications it already has:
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/
For now it’s just a function of cost and size of market.
Left to the market, we’d probably be near 100% renewables before the end of the century, but that’s nowhere near fast enough. The only thing that’s going to speed the process is government regulation and investment.
Contra McKinney and the techno dreamers, I opine that this short squib gets to the heart of the matter wrt GCC.
This is not strictly a problem of “free markets” vs. something else. It strikes to the heart of the human condition.
Take it for what it’s worth.
Contra McKinney and the techno dreamers, I opine that this short squib gets to the heart of the matter wrt GCC.
This is not strictly a problem of “free markets” vs. something else. It strikes to the heart of the human condition.
Take it for what it’s worth.
**as a grammar nazi I prefer the plural when referring to the US.
Technically, “United States” is singular. It refers to the union, not a collection of states. So, “it” not “they”. (I can grammar nazi with the best. 😉
**as a grammar nazi I prefer the plural when referring to the US.
Technically, “United States” is singular. It refers to the union, not a collection of states. So, “it” not “they”. (I can grammar nazi with the best. 😉
Unfuckingtotallybelievable:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/noaa-trump-hurricane-dorian-alabama/597628/
Civil war across America first, then address global warming, because it is unaddressable, even to secure a single objective fucking weather forecast, with the current cast of cruel, dumbass, miserable malignities among the living.
With them in the world, I’m rooting for the worst global warming scenarios and chaos.
I’m heading for California tomorrow via a week a camping and hiking in Utah, including the Escalante Staircase.
Going to to do my best to not post, a relief to all haha, so I’ll see ya’ll in October.
Solve all issues before I return.
Be well, all.
Unfuckingtotallybelievable:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/noaa-trump-hurricane-dorian-alabama/597628/
Civil war across America first, then address global warming, because it is unaddressable, even to secure a single objective fucking weather forecast, with the current cast of cruel, dumbass, miserable malignities among the living.
With them in the world, I’m rooting for the worst global warming scenarios and chaos.
I’m heading for California tomorrow via a week a camping and hiking in Utah, including the Escalante Staircase.
Going to to do my best to not post, a relief to all haha, so I’ll see ya’ll in October.
Solve all issues before I return.
Be well, all.
the Bellmores among us have scored a huge victory against the violent oppression of energy efficient lightbulbs
freedom, baby
the Bellmores among us have scored a huge victory against the violent oppression of energy efficient lightbulbs
freedom, baby
halting climate change, as he himself says, requires us to “dramatically alter our way of life.” This is not something most people are willing to do, regardless of empathy.
This.
If we can’t get past this, the rest of the debate is just words.
One way or another, our “way of life” will be altered. Ours, or our grandkids’.
Enjoy Utah, JDT, that place is magic.
halting climate change, as he himself says, requires us to “dramatically alter our way of life.” This is not something most people are willing to do, regardless of empathy.
This.
If we can’t get past this, the rest of the debate is just words.
One way or another, our “way of life” will be altered. Ours, or our grandkids’.
Enjoy Utah, JDT, that place is magic.
JDT, I’ve pretty much stayed out of the Trump Alabama thing, I will say, the very first forecast I saw on twc had the track right across florida, I know because it went over my house, into the gulf. The forecaster then explained that once in the gulf it could go anywhere, but most likely Alabama or the FL panhandle. I immediately called my significant other to see if I was needed there.
So, I guess I dont understand what the issue is at all, but I may be missing some nuance.
Even at that, why are we still talking about it?
JDT, I’ve pretty much stayed out of the Trump Alabama thing, I will say, the very first forecast I saw on twc had the track right across florida, I know because it went over my house, into the gulf. The forecaster then explained that once in the gulf it could go anywhere, but most likely Alabama or the FL panhandle. I immediately called my significant other to see if I was needed there.
So, I guess I dont understand what the issue is at all, but I may be missing some nuance.
Even at that, why are we still talking about it?
So, I guess I dont understand what the issue is at all, but I may be missing some nuance.
Even at that, why are we still talking about it?
The nuance, as I understand it, is that by the time of Trump’s tweet the National Weather Service had long since revised its forecast. The projected storm track was, by then, turning north rather then crossing Florida into the Gulf.
As for why we are still talking about it, that’s entirely due to Trump. He could have admitted to a mistake. (OK only in theory. He seems to be psychologically incapable of admitting to error.) Or he could have just dropped the subject and moved on to other things. But no, he keeps coming back to it.
So, I guess I dont understand what the issue is at all, but I may be missing some nuance.
Even at that, why are we still talking about it?
The nuance, as I understand it, is that by the time of Trump’s tweet the National Weather Service had long since revised its forecast. The projected storm track was, by then, turning north rather then crossing Florida into the Gulf.
As for why we are still talking about it, that’s entirely due to Trump. He could have admitted to a mistake. (OK only in theory. He seems to be psychologically incapable of admitting to error.) Or he could have just dropped the subject and moved on to other things. But no, he keeps coming back to it.
I could care less about the blame game WRT Penghazi. What bothers me is that it reinforces what we have all seen time and time again. Trump’s limited attention span grabs hold of information presented within the first couple minutes in his briefings and forms unshakeable impressions of the information that he will resist changing come what may. Then he stops paying attention to anything further, having decided in his gut what his course will be.
I could care less about the blame game WRT Penghazi. What bothers me is that it reinforces what we have all seen time and time again. Trump’s limited attention span grabs hold of information presented within the first couple minutes in his briefings and forms unshakeable impressions of the information that he will resist changing come what may. Then he stops paying attention to anything further, having decided in his gut what his course will be.
“Nuance”?! A fucking Sharpie circle on a map is not “nuance”, it’s dementia.
The only reason to be “still talking about it” is because He, Trump is overdue for His next over-the-top piece of assholery. Which some people will predictably react to with a knee-jerk “what’s the big deal?” because soshulism is baaad.
So an early forecast had Dorian possibly crossing Florida and maybe getting to Alabama. How many days out was that? How many days between the first forecast that showed Dorian NOT going into the Gulf and the last time Donnie the Weatherman pretended to know better than yet another set of technical experts?
Jeebus.
–TP
“Nuance”?! A fucking Sharpie circle on a map is not “nuance”, it’s dementia.
The only reason to be “still talking about it” is because He, Trump is overdue for His next over-the-top piece of assholery. Which some people will predictably react to with a knee-jerk “what’s the big deal?” because soshulism is baaad.
So an early forecast had Dorian possibly crossing Florida and maybe getting to Alabama. How many days out was that? How many days between the first forecast that showed Dorian NOT going into the Gulf and the last time Donnie the Weatherman pretended to know better than yet another set of technical experts?
Jeebus.
–TP
So, I guess I dont understand what the issue is at all, but I may be missing some nuance.
the forecast that showed the storm cutting across FL was three days old by the time Trump tweeted about it. the actual forecast when he was tweeting had changed to show it going up the east coast. and this was after Trump cancelled a trip overseas so that he could stay here and “monitor the hurricane”. (which he was doing from the golf course, of course)
and then, instead of simply admitting the forecast had changed, he tweeted out a map that had been drawn on as proof that He Was Right. which made him look stupid. then he doubled-down on it. and now he’s got NOAA mgmt trying to cover for him.
it’s just his typical pattern of ignorant statements and refusal to admit mistakes and of fouling everything around him in the process.
he should have tweeted about the up-to-date forecast, if he was going to tweet about it at all. but he’s either lazy or stupid or had some other reason for going with the out of date forecast. and someone should have made him correct his tweet, but they didn’t or couldn’t, instead of putting out bad info – NOAA tried, but he can’t stand being corrected. so now we have to listen to his bullshit.
So, I guess I dont understand what the issue is at all, but I may be missing some nuance.
the forecast that showed the storm cutting across FL was three days old by the time Trump tweeted about it. the actual forecast when he was tweeting had changed to show it going up the east coast. and this was after Trump cancelled a trip overseas so that he could stay here and “monitor the hurricane”. (which he was doing from the golf course, of course)
and then, instead of simply admitting the forecast had changed, he tweeted out a map that had been drawn on as proof that He Was Right. which made him look stupid. then he doubled-down on it. and now he’s got NOAA mgmt trying to cover for him.
it’s just his typical pattern of ignorant statements and refusal to admit mistakes and of fouling everything around him in the process.
he should have tweeted about the up-to-date forecast, if he was going to tweet about it at all. but he’s either lazy or stupid or had some other reason for going with the out of date forecast. and someone should have made him correct his tweet, but they didn’t or couldn’t, instead of putting out bad info – NOAA tried, but he can’t stand being corrected. so now we have to listen to his bullshit.
Fun fact about the administration’s new “public charge” rule for immigrants.
But then, the administration’s interest in what the military actually needs is generally close to nonexistent. See there clever idea to remove service in the military as an expidited path to citizenship. When the military is increasingly recruited from our immigrant population.
Fun fact about the administration’s new “public charge” rule for immigrants.
But then, the administration’s interest in what the military actually needs is generally close to nonexistent. See there clever idea to remove service in the military as an expidited path to citizenship. When the military is increasingly recruited from our immigrant population.
Starting to mimic the Foreign Legion (just with worse pay and fewer benefits). Maybe it would help to loudly announce your pride to have successfully imitated the French (after earlier adopting the Italian model by hiring modern day condottieri a la Blackwater). Next step: Janissaries and Mamluks (slave soldiers). And when the general abortion ban passes SCOTUS muster, the excess children can be turned into child soldiers (even cheaper and less scrupulous).
Starting to mimic the Foreign Legion (just with worse pay and fewer benefits). Maybe it would help to loudly announce your pride to have successfully imitated the French (after earlier adopting the Italian model by hiring modern day condottieri a la Blackwater). Next step: Janissaries and Mamluks (slave soldiers). And when the general abortion ban passes SCOTUS muster, the excess children can be turned into child soldiers (even cheaper and less scrupulous).
oh shit… i just realized that Trump’s original hurricane tweet was a warning that Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama could possibly be ‘hurt’.
but there’s no map that has all of them being hurt.
the map he tweeted, where he drew in AL, didn’t include the Carolinas at all. he had no idea at all what he was talking about.
someone should delete his twitter account, for the good of the nation.
oh shit… i just realized that Trump’s original hurricane tweet was a warning that Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama could possibly be ‘hurt’.
but there’s no map that has all of them being hurt.
the map he tweeted, where he drew in AL, didn’t include the Carolinas at all. he had no idea at all what he was talking about.
someone should delete his twitter account, for the good of the nation.
Even at that, why are we still talking about it?
Because the president’s behavior is bizarre.
And being that he is president, that is a matter of concern.
Even at that, why are we still talking about it?
Because the president’s behavior is bizarre.
And being that he is president, that is a matter of concern.
Ok, suppose that we reach the point that officials can demand to see your “papers” at any time. Why would those officials, or anyone else, necessarily believe what they read?
After all, they would be government-issued documents. And we are being taught that nothing from the government is real for more than a moment. Heck, you can’t even trust the weather forecast any more! https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
I can remember when the biggest problem with the weather forecast was that beyond 12 hours out it was basically a guess. Less, depending on where you lived and the availability of ground stations around you. Guess we’re moving on again.
Ok, suppose that we reach the point that officials can demand to see your “papers” at any time. Why would those officials, or anyone else, necessarily believe what they read?
After all, they would be government-issued documents. And we are being taught that nothing from the government is real for more than a moment. Heck, you can’t even trust the weather forecast any more! https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
I can remember when the biggest problem with the weather forecast was that beyond 12 hours out it was basically a guess. Less, depending on where you lived and the availability of ground stations around you. Guess we’re moving on again.
wj, especially polling places (in certain localities) are highly selective about which government-issued papers they accept as genuine and valid. E.g. concealed carry permits are 100% genuine and reliable while passports or birth certificates are highly suspicious (true patriots don’t need passports just to start with) and more likely forged than not.
wj, especially polling places (in certain localities) are highly selective about which government-issued papers they accept as genuine and valid. E.g. concealed carry permits are 100% genuine and reliable while passports or birth certificates are highly suspicious (true patriots don’t need passports just to start with) and more likely forged than not.
I’ve never heard of a passport not being totally acceptable! Anywhere in the US. Have you got a source for that?
I could maybe see a birth certificate not being accepted at a polling place. For those places that require ID, it doesn’t include a photo (and the photo wouldn’t be much use anyway) to demonstrate that you really are the registered voter.
I’ve never heard of a passport not being totally acceptable! Anywhere in the US. Have you got a source for that?
I could maybe see a birth certificate not being accepted at a polling place. For those places that require ID, it doesn’t include a photo (and the photo wouldn’t be much use anyway) to demonstrate that you really are the registered voter.
Of course on paper a passport is a valid ID but iirc there have been recent cases of people trying to use their’s as a voter ID getting accused of it being forged (without a shred of evidence and usually only aimed at persons suspected of Dem leanings or looking Latino or Muslim).
In essence, if voter suppression by requiring difficult to obtain IDs fails, said IDs will be questioned as the next step.
And US citizens with valid papers have been arrested and/or deported under Trump with baseless claims of those papers being forged (and no opportunity for the victims to challenge that).
Of course on paper a passport is a valid ID but iirc there have been recent cases of people trying to use their’s as a voter ID getting accused of it being forged (without a shred of evidence and usually only aimed at persons suspected of Dem leanings or looking Latino or Muslim).
In essence, if voter suppression by requiring difficult to obtain IDs fails, said IDs will be questioned as the next step.
And US citizens with valid papers have been arrested and/or deported under Trump with baseless claims of those papers being forged (and no opportunity for the victims to challenge that).
Guess we’re moving on again.
we’re moving on into crazy town.
hosting the Taliban, at Camp David, days before 9/11 ?
this is what the GOP has come to ?
Guess we’re moving on again.
we’re moving on into crazy town.
hosting the Taliban, at Camp David, days before 9/11 ?
this is what the GOP has come to ?
And US citizens with valid papers have been arrested and/or deported under Trump with baseless claims of those papers being forged (and no opportunity for the victims to challenge that).
I was aware of that. But that was ICE, which has gotten massively politicized. Not to mention gratuitously nasty.
I haven’t seen anything on local poll workers refusing to accept a US passport as ID.
And US citizens with valid papers have been arrested and/or deported under Trump with baseless claims of those papers being forged (and no opportunity for the victims to challenge that).
I was aware of that. But that was ICE, which has gotten massively politicized. Not to mention gratuitously nasty.
I haven’t seen anything on local poll workers refusing to accept a US passport as ID.
St. Charles County, Missouri had cases where poll workers would at first not accept a valid US passport as voter ID and demanded a driver’s licence instead and then still complained about the extra effort when confronted with the letter of the law. There were also claims that poll workers there were, implied deliberately, misinformed about what IDs were valid and possibly even explicitly instructed to ignore a court order on the matter that had partially invalidated new restrictive measures.
Polling stations also refused to remove misleading/false info they had posted outside concerning necessary/valid ID.
The topic is a bit difficult to google efficiently since the results are dominated by links to voter ID laws (that of course consider a valid US passport a proper voter ID). But the question is of course about cases where poll workers for whatever reason reject IDs that the local law considers valid.
St. Charles County, Missouri had cases where poll workers would at first not accept a valid US passport as voter ID and demanded a driver’s licence instead and then still complained about the extra effort when confronted with the letter of the law. There were also claims that poll workers there were, implied deliberately, misinformed about what IDs were valid and possibly even explicitly instructed to ignore a court order on the matter that had partially invalidated new restrictive measures.
Polling stations also refused to remove misleading/false info they had posted outside concerning necessary/valid ID.
The topic is a bit difficult to google efficiently since the results are dominated by links to voter ID laws (that of course consider a valid US passport a proper voter ID). But the question is of course about cases where poll workers for whatever reason reject IDs that the local law considers valid.
A US passport is evidence of US citizenship, but not evidence of residence at a particular address.
The official instructions on the passport, from the US Department of State is that you are supposed to write in your address in pencil, so that you can change it if you move.
Much better evidence of actual residence is a current utility bill, but RNWJ arglebargleVOTERFRAUD!acornN*CLANG!
A US passport is evidence of US citizenship, but not evidence of residence at a particular address.
The official instructions on the passport, from the US Department of State is that you are supposed to write in your address in pencil, so that you can change it if you move.
Much better evidence of actual residence is a current utility bill, but RNWJ arglebargleVOTERFRAUD!acornN*CLANG!
My impression (correct me if I’m wrong) is that proof of residence happens when registering to vote. For that, yes, utility bills etc. are useful.
But at the polls, what is required is proof that the person standing there is the person (or, to be exact, has the same name as) who listed in the list of registered voters. For that you need a photo ID** and a utility bill won’t do.
** Admittedly, if the purpose of the Voter ID regulations is voter suppression, rather than actual identification, the photo is irrelevant.
My impression (correct me if I’m wrong) is that proof of residence happens when registering to vote. For that, yes, utility bills etc. are useful.
But at the polls, what is required is proof that the person standing there is the person (or, to be exact, has the same name as) who listed in the list of registered voters. For that you need a photo ID** and a utility bill won’t do.
** Admittedly, if the purpose of the Voter ID regulations is voter suppression, rather than actual identification, the photo is irrelevant.
Regarding voter fraud:
In order to perpetrate voter fraud at a meaningful level, a big-ish number of people would have to vote who were not supposed to.
In most places, that would require pretending to be someone who *was* supposed to vote, at a particular time and place.
And to actually pull this off, it would be necessary for no-one to be aware that it had happened. Otherwise folks running the voting process would take some kind of remedial action.
Where I live, when you go to vote, you have to give your name and address in order to gain access to the voting booth. Nobody asks for ID, they just check your name off on a list of registered voters. Then, after you vote, they check your name off again, on the way out.
Somebody could walk up, say they were me, and cast a vote. And, as soon as I showed up, they’d know something was up. If anyone attempted this in numbers large enough to actually change an election outcome, it would be blindingly obvious that a fraud was being attempted in about 15 minutes.
One is an anomaly. Two is suspicious. Five is a red flag. Ten, and they’d call the FBI.
There are something north of 2,000 registered voters in my precint. The people who chsck your name off coming and going probably know 10 or 20 percent of those folks by sight.
You would have to impersonate the people who the tellers don’t know, and who also aren’t going to show up later in the day, in numbers large enough to make a difference.
In every precint, in every town, in my district.
For one House seat.
The whole topic is bullshit. (R)’s want to prevent people who are not likely to vote for them from voting. That is the reality.
Regarding voter fraud:
In order to perpetrate voter fraud at a meaningful level, a big-ish number of people would have to vote who were not supposed to.
In most places, that would require pretending to be someone who *was* supposed to vote, at a particular time and place.
And to actually pull this off, it would be necessary for no-one to be aware that it had happened. Otherwise folks running the voting process would take some kind of remedial action.
Where I live, when you go to vote, you have to give your name and address in order to gain access to the voting booth. Nobody asks for ID, they just check your name off on a list of registered voters. Then, after you vote, they check your name off again, on the way out.
Somebody could walk up, say they were me, and cast a vote. And, as soon as I showed up, they’d know something was up. If anyone attempted this in numbers large enough to actually change an election outcome, it would be blindingly obvious that a fraud was being attempted in about 15 minutes.
One is an anomaly. Two is suspicious. Five is a red flag. Ten, and they’d call the FBI.
There are something north of 2,000 registered voters in my precint. The people who chsck your name off coming and going probably know 10 or 20 percent of those folks by sight.
You would have to impersonate the people who the tellers don’t know, and who also aren’t going to show up later in the day, in numbers large enough to make a difference.
In every precint, in every town, in my district.
For one House seat.
The whole topic is bullshit. (R)’s want to prevent people who are not likely to vote for them from voting. That is the reality.
JDT, I really hope you are at least lurking. Because I think this, from my kind of Republican, is something you should see.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-erase-a-decade-of-clean-air-progress-with-a-sharpie/2019/09/08/8d6393de-d248-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html
In fact, I doubt that there’s much in it that anybody here would disagree with.
JDT, I really hope you are at least lurking. Because I think this, from my kind of Republican, is something you should see.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-erase-a-decade-of-clean-air-progress-with-a-sharpie/2019/09/08/8d6393de-d248-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html
In fact, I doubt that there’s much in it that anybody here would disagree with.
(R)’s want to prevent people who are not likely to vote for them from voting. That is the reality.
Say rather that they want to prevent people who don’t look(/sound) like them from voting. Because they assume tnose people won’t vote for them. That is, they assume nobody in those groups would vote for them. Ever.
Granted, they’ve been working hard to alienate members of those groups. But it’s still an assumption which ignores a lot of individual variation in views.
(R)’s want to prevent people who are not likely to vote for them from voting. That is the reality.
Say rather that they want to prevent people who don’t look(/sound) like them from voting. Because they assume tnose people won’t vote for them. That is, they assume nobody in those groups would vote for them. Ever.
Granted, they’ve been working hard to alienate members of those groups. But it’s still an assumption which ignores a lot of individual variation in views.
That’s where the ‘likely’ comes in. Once you have p|ssed off significantly more than 50% of a detectable group even suppression at random for members of that group will work for you.
The only other calculation you’ve to do is whether that behaviour will repel more potential voters from your own target audience than attract. Will it be “They supress the votes non-whites, I can’t support that.” or “They keep the n-words and the [insert other racial slur at will] from voting. That’s how it should be, so who I’ll vote for the party doing it”?
Where those tactics are most aggressive ‘attracts more than repels’ seems to be a rather safe bet.
That’s where the ‘likely’ comes in. Once you have p|ssed off significantly more than 50% of a detectable group even suppression at random for members of that group will work for you.
The only other calculation you’ve to do is whether that behaviour will repel more potential voters from your own target audience than attract. Will it be “They supress the votes non-whites, I can’t support that.” or “They keep the n-words and the [insert other racial slur at will] from voting. That’s how it should be, so who I’ll vote for the party doing it”?
Where those tactics are most aggressive ‘attracts more than repels’ seems to be a rather safe bet.
Over the last couple of years, there has been a disturbing tendency for Politico to do actual journalism…
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/09/jerry-falwell-liberty-university-loans-227914
Over the last couple of years, there has been a disturbing tendency for Politico to do actual journalism…
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/09/jerry-falwell-liberty-university-loans-227914
“My impression (correct me if I’m wrong) is that proof of residence happens when registering to vote. For that, yes, utility bills etc. are useful.”
Registration: utility bill for residence + signing a legally enforceable affidavit of eligibility. Proof of citizenship, okay, a passport doesn’t “prove” that you still have the franchise. So some of the “proof” stuff has to be spot checks on registrations.
“But at the polls, what is required is proof that the person standing there is the person (or, to be exact, has the same name as) who listed in the list of registered voters. For that you need a photo ID** and a utility bill won’t do.”
At the polls, what is required is a utility bill that says that “person with name X is still living at address Y”. Then their signature has to match.
You know, the same security that banks use.
It worked fine, before the GOP busted it.
“My impression (correct me if I’m wrong) is that proof of residence happens when registering to vote. For that, yes, utility bills etc. are useful.”
Registration: utility bill for residence + signing a legally enforceable affidavit of eligibility. Proof of citizenship, okay, a passport doesn’t “prove” that you still have the franchise. So some of the “proof” stuff has to be spot checks on registrations.
“But at the polls, what is required is proof that the person standing there is the person (or, to be exact, has the same name as) who listed in the list of registered voters. For that you need a photo ID** and a utility bill won’t do.”
At the polls, what is required is a utility bill that says that “person with name X is still living at address Y”. Then their signature has to match.
You know, the same security that banks use.
It worked fine, before the GOP busted it.
Sad that this could easily be mistaken for non-fake were it not from The Onion.
https://local.theonion.com/school-administration-reminds-female-students-bulletpro-1837617262
And it is actually sensible. Lots of vitals below the diaphragm. So, a bulletproof apron would make lots of sense. Still leaves open the problem of head protection.
Sad that this could easily be mistaken for non-fake were it not from The Onion.
https://local.theonion.com/school-administration-reminds-female-students-bulletpro-1837617262
And it is actually sensible. Lots of vitals below the diaphragm. So, a bulletproof apron would make lots of sense. Still leaves open the problem of head protection.
If the passport does not prove your right to vote why does (in some places) a concealed carry permit?
One advantage over here is that the (active) voting right cannot be legally separated from citizenship, You may not be eligible for office but you can (as an adult citizen) still vote even when/if behind bars for life. That some US states put it into the hands of a politician to restore (or not) the franchise to a convict by itself is a scandal.
If the passport does not prove your right to vote why does (in some places) a concealed carry permit?
One advantage over here is that the (active) voting right cannot be legally separated from citizenship, You may not be eligible for office but you can (as an adult citizen) still vote even when/if behind bars for life. That some US states put it into the hands of a politician to restore (or not) the franchise to a convict by itself is a scandal.
At my polling place, you have to sign your name, and the signature is compared to what’s already in the book from when you registered to vote. But, like russell wrote, you have to know where to show up to vote as a given person who is actually registered to vote, and who might have already been there or might show up later. I would guess that a 25-year-old or a female would set off alarm bells of some kind attempting to voting as 50-year-old and male me.
You do need ID to vote, because you need to be registered to vote, and you need ID to register. You just don’t need it every time you vote.
At my polling place, you have to sign your name, and the signature is compared to what’s already in the book from when you registered to vote. But, like russell wrote, you have to know where to show up to vote as a given person who is actually registered to vote, and who might have already been there or might show up later. I would guess that a 25-year-old or a female would set off alarm bells of some kind attempting to voting as 50-year-old and male me.
You do need ID to vote, because you need to be registered to vote, and you need ID to register. You just don’t need it every time you vote.
NC recently passed a voter ID law, so i’ll need to show my ID in 2020.
non-existent problem solved!
thanks GOP.
you’re always the best.
NC recently passed a voter ID law, so i’ll need to show my ID in 2020.
non-existent problem solved!
thanks GOP.
you’re always the best.
A properly implemented National ID Card would simplify voting and much else besides.
For example, if it was also a debit card, distributing the proceeds from a carbon tax would be dead easy.
But it would also solve the “immigration problem” without any of the build-a-wall nonsense, and that would rob He, Trump and his lickspittles of a major piece of their con-job spiel. So rest easy, “privacy” lovers.
–TP
A properly implemented National ID Card would simplify voting and much else besides.
For example, if it was also a debit card, distributing the proceeds from a carbon tax would be dead easy.
But it would also solve the “immigration problem” without any of the build-a-wall nonsense, and that would rob He, Trump and his lickspittles of a major piece of their con-job spiel. So rest easy, “privacy” lovers.
–TP
At the polls, what is required is a utility bill that says that “person with name X is still living at address Y”. Then their signature has to match.
Awkward if the utilities are in your spouse’s name. And you don’t have the same last name. But I suppose such violation of tradition is, in itself, ground to deny the franchise….
At the polls, what is required is a utility bill that says that “person with name X is still living at address Y”. Then their signature has to match.
Awkward if the utilities are in your spouse’s name. And you don’t have the same last name. But I suppose such violation of tradition is, in itself, ground to deny the franchise….
I haven’t had a printed utility bill in years.
I haven’t had a printed utility bill in years.
finally, a truly “conservative” plan to end gun violence!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/white-house-considers-controversial-plan-on-mental-illness-and-mass-shooting/2019/09/09/eb58b6f6-ce72-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
not only is it intrusive tattle-tale tech, it can be defeated by … not putting your watch on.
finally, a truly “conservative” plan to end gun violence!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/white-house-considers-controversial-plan-on-mental-illness-and-mass-shooting/2019/09/09/eb58b6f6-ce72-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
not only is it intrusive tattle-tale tech, it can be defeated by … not putting your watch on.
Mass shootings are behavioral outliers whos unpredictability will make it very difficult to do much about. Great effort, expense, and intrusion into people’s might reduce the occurrences a few percentage points.
Mass shootings are behavioral outliers whos unpredictability will make it very difficult to do much about. Great effort, expense, and intrusion into people’s might reduce the occurrences a few percentage points.
Ok, we were talking about GCC and the imminent threat (10-11) years it poses upthread. Does it make sense for the Obama’s to spend 14M on a mansion on Martha’s Vineyard? They’ve been pretty specific about the threat. Is there a gap between projections and actual behavior here?
Ok, we were talking about GCC and the imminent threat (10-11) years it poses upthread. Does it make sense for the Obama’s to spend 14M on a mansion on Martha’s Vineyard? They’ve been pretty specific about the threat. Is there a gap between projections and actual behavior here?
it makes more sense than having Trump fly in a 747 every weekend to go golfing.
it makes more sense than having Trump fly in a 747 every weekend to go golfing.
Perhaps Obama and family think a $14M hit is worth being able to live in Martha’s Vineyard as long as they can. 🙂
Perhaps Obama and family think a $14M hit is worth being able to live in Martha’s Vineyard as long as they can. 🙂
The bulk of the $14M is in green technology, high-quality insulation, and high-efficiency appliances and lighting.
The bulk of the $14M is in green technology, high-quality insulation, and high-efficiency appliances and lighting.
as always, what one person or family does is insignificant when it comes to GCC. it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.
that the Obamas bought an existing house (didn’t clear any new land, aren’t pouring concrete, aren’t cutting down trees for lumber, aren’t hauling materials to the site, etc) isn’t going to change anything.
as always, what one person or family does is insignificant when it comes to GCC. it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.
that the Obamas bought an existing house (didn’t clear any new land, aren’t pouring concrete, aren’t cutting down trees for lumber, aren’t hauling materials to the site, etc) isn’t going to change anything.
If you think the coasts are going to be underwater, is this where you’d spend 14M? If that’s what you really thought? It appears that MV’s elevation is such that it will always be there to some extent, but even so, aren’t storms going to get worse, etc? Seems like a strange choice for someone whose GCC concerns are so patent.
If you think the coasts are going to be underwater, is this where you’d spend 14M? If that’s what you really thought? It appears that MV’s elevation is such that it will always be there to some extent, but even so, aren’t storms going to get worse, etc? Seems like a strange choice for someone whose GCC concerns are so patent.
an existing house (didn’t clear any new land, aren’t pouring concrete, aren’t cutting down trees for lumber, aren’t hauling materials to the site, etc) isn’t going to change anything.
But you gotta admit it makes a great red herring.
an existing house (didn’t clear any new land, aren’t pouring concrete, aren’t cutting down trees for lumber, aren’t hauling materials to the site, etc) isn’t going to change anything.
But you gotta admit it makes a great red herring.
it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.
This sounds ominous, in a very authoritarian way. What if the “deciders” screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can’t be reversed and has made people’s lives significantly worse than they were?
it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.
This sounds ominous, in a very authoritarian way. What if the “deciders” screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can’t be reversed and has made people’s lives significantly worse than they were?
If you think the coasts are going to be underwater, is this where you’d spend 14M?
i’m sure they appreciate your concern.
according to the West Tisbury MA GIS website, the property they purchased is 30′ above sea level.
no sea level rise predictions come close to 9m rise in the next two centuries.
they’ll be fine.
If you think the coasts are going to be underwater, is this where you’d spend 14M?
i’m sure they appreciate your concern.
according to the West Tisbury MA GIS website, the property they purchased is 30′ above sea level.
no sea level rise predictions come close to 9m rise in the next two centuries.
they’ll be fine.
This sounds ominous, in a very authoritarian way.
our entire way of life is dependent on the very thing that is going to destroy that way of life.
do the math.
This sounds ominous, in a very authoritarian way.
our entire way of life is dependent on the very thing that is going to destroy that way of life.
do the math.
great red herring.
the stocks of which are immune to overfishing 🙁
great red herring.
the stocks of which are immune to overfishing 🙁
McTX: What if the “deciders” screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can’t be reversed …
Yeah, what if? What if the Saudis, the surviving Koch brother, and the “rolling coal” crowd continue to be the “deciders”?
The irony is too thick, but if we could water it down and run tractors with it, the ag sector would have fuel for at least a year.
–TP
McTX: What if the “deciders” screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can’t be reversed …
Yeah, what if? What if the Saudis, the surviving Koch brother, and the “rolling coal” crowd continue to be the “deciders”?
The irony is too thick, but if we could water it down and run tractors with it, the ag sector would have fuel for at least a year.
–TP
Is there a gap between projections and actual behavior here?
Now hold on just a darned minute here. Does this mean the matter about the size of Al Gore’s house is closed?
What if the “deciders” screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can’t be reversed and has made people’s lives significantly worse than they were?
But “what if” we (you know, “us” the deciders) don’t screw it up? Do we get a door prize from you?
Is there a gap between projections and actual behavior here?
Now hold on just a darned minute here. Does this mean the matter about the size of Al Gore’s house is closed?
What if the “deciders” screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can’t be reversed and has made people’s lives significantly worse than they were?
But “what if” we (you know, “us” the deciders) don’t screw it up? Do we get a door prize from you?
what if there aren’t actually any ‘deciders’ at all – what if the whole idea that there are is yet another strawman constructed so that ‘conservatives’ can defend the status quo against the threat of change?
hmm. a real puzzle, that one.
what if there aren’t actually any ‘deciders’ at all – what if the whole idea that there are is yet another strawman constructed so that ‘conservatives’ can defend the status quo against the threat of change?
hmm. a real puzzle, that one.
my own position is that we need something to replace fossil fuels, ASAP. and by replace i mean replace. as in, does everything we need, energy-wise, but without the greenhouse gasses.
it has to be something that eliminates the need to use fossil fuels. and the govt should put everything it has into finding that something, starting now.
it can’t be fixed by law, in the US or anywhere. people will just break the law, without an alternative energy source. so, “authoritarian” isn’t even a consideration.
my own position is that we need something to replace fossil fuels, ASAP. and by replace i mean replace. as in, does everything we need, energy-wise, but without the greenhouse gasses.
it has to be something that eliminates the need to use fossil fuels. and the govt should put everything it has into finding that something, starting now.
it can’t be fixed by law, in the US or anywhere. people will just break the law, without an alternative energy source. so, “authoritarian” isn’t even a consideration.
McTX: What if the “deciders” screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can’t be reversed …
In theory, that’s why we have an elected government. Not work out how to act without screwing it up for everyone. Unfortunately the model doesn’t work when a substantial portion of the Congress (not to mention the electorate) has been convinced that reality isn’t real. And therefore opted out of contributing to a solution. It leaves the design of a solution in fewer hands, with less diverse views.
McTX: What if the “deciders” screw it up and we find ourselves inextricably committed to a path that can’t be reversed …
In theory, that’s why we have an elected government. Not work out how to act without screwing it up for everyone. Unfortunately the model doesn’t work when a substantial portion of the Congress (not to mention the electorate) has been convinced that reality isn’t real. And therefore opted out of contributing to a solution. It leaves the design of a solution in fewer hands, with less diverse views.
The White House is considering a controversial proposal to study whether mass shootings could be prevented by monitoring mentally ill people for small changes that might foretell violence.
Maybe think about not letting them buy firearms. Then nobody has to follow them around.
Also, I’m not sure what the Obamas buying a house has to do with anything. Maybe Obama thinks GCC is a total pile of bull. Maybe he’s a big social justice hypocrite. Maybe he’s an idiot. Maybe he just likes Martha’s Vineyard.
People buy houses in places they want to live. If people have a lot of money, they often will buy expensive houses, and spend lots of money on them. They quite often don’t make their decisions based on future value or living conditions 100 years hence.
None of that has any bearing whatsoever on the issue of climate change.
FWIW cleek’s numbers are consistent with this.
Also FWIW, I can walk to water in any of three directions from where I live. It’s not “waterfront”, it’s just near the water. I’m a coastal elitist, we cluster near coasts. I live about 30′ above mean high tide, it’ll be centuries before where I live is underwater. Nonetheless, a couple of feet of sea level rise would FUBAR my daily life considerably.
Nobody actually knows exactly what is going to happen 50 or 100 years from now. We make best guesses, based on best available information. What sensible people do when faced with uncertainty is to make a realistic assessment of risk, a realistic assessment of possible danger, and then act accordingly.
Ever see one of these? You can whip one up on the back of an envelope. They make Excel templates for them.
Basically, when the potential damage for a scenario is catastrophic, even low percentage likelihoods deserve attention and action. We’re well into catastrophic potential damage, and well beyond low percentage likelihoods.
This is all very obvious stuff.
The White House is considering a controversial proposal to study whether mass shootings could be prevented by monitoring mentally ill people for small changes that might foretell violence.
Maybe think about not letting them buy firearms. Then nobody has to follow them around.
Also, I’m not sure what the Obamas buying a house has to do with anything. Maybe Obama thinks GCC is a total pile of bull. Maybe he’s a big social justice hypocrite. Maybe he’s an idiot. Maybe he just likes Martha’s Vineyard.
People buy houses in places they want to live. If people have a lot of money, they often will buy expensive houses, and spend lots of money on them. They quite often don’t make their decisions based on future value or living conditions 100 years hence.
None of that has any bearing whatsoever on the issue of climate change.
FWIW cleek’s numbers are consistent with this.
Also FWIW, I can walk to water in any of three directions from where I live. It’s not “waterfront”, it’s just near the water. I’m a coastal elitist, we cluster near coasts. I live about 30′ above mean high tide, it’ll be centuries before where I live is underwater. Nonetheless, a couple of feet of sea level rise would FUBAR my daily life considerably.
Nobody actually knows exactly what is going to happen 50 or 100 years from now. We make best guesses, based on best available information. What sensible people do when faced with uncertainty is to make a realistic assessment of risk, a realistic assessment of possible danger, and then act accordingly.
Ever see one of these? You can whip one up on the back of an envelope. They make Excel templates for them.
Basically, when the potential damage for a scenario is catastrophic, even low percentage likelihoods deserve attention and action. We’re well into catastrophic potential damage, and well beyond low percentage likelihoods.
This is all very obvious stuff.
it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.
I’m picking back up with Cleek’s statement upthread, which is a fair representation of the level of required change which I see discussed from time-to-time. The specifics, however, are pretty scant. Occassionally, you’ll see a reference to eliminating single family homes. Or limiting the size of cars.
Does anyone have a reasonably clear picture of what the post-GCC life style will be? What sacrifices are we expected to make in exchange for what benefits?
If you plan to sell this democratically, you’ll need to be upfront with people and be clear as to why the sacrifice is needed.
So far, I hear the sound and fury, but when I look at what the greenest of the Elites are up to, I see ‘for thee but not for me’, and that’s going to be a tough sell.
it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.
I’m picking back up with Cleek’s statement upthread, which is a fair representation of the level of required change which I see discussed from time-to-time. The specifics, however, are pretty scant. Occassionally, you’ll see a reference to eliminating single family homes. Or limiting the size of cars.
Does anyone have a reasonably clear picture of what the post-GCC life style will be? What sacrifices are we expected to make in exchange for what benefits?
If you plan to sell this democratically, you’ll need to be upfront with people and be clear as to why the sacrifice is needed.
So far, I hear the sound and fury, but when I look at what the greenest of the Elites are up to, I see ‘for thee but not for me’, and that’s going to be a tough sell.
Ok, maybe I’m missing something: we are all going to agree to this, voluntarily?
If, like taxes, we all agree to “it” “voluntarily”, why would you ask?
Did we all stop on Dec. 8, 1941, and say, “Hold on just a minute here, pard. I WANT SPECIFICS!”
Didn’t think so.
Ok, maybe I’m missing something: we are all going to agree to this, voluntarily?
If, like taxes, we all agree to “it” “voluntarily”, why would you ask?
Did we all stop on Dec. 8, 1941, and say, “Hold on just a minute here, pard. I WANT SPECIFICS!”
Didn’t think so.
Did we all stop on Dec. 8, 1941, and say, “Hold on just a minute here, pard. I WANT SPECIFICS!”
Didn’t think so.
Possibly not the best example, given the objectivity of sunken ships and nearly 3K dead. Moreover, with WWII, there was an end in sight.
We are told over and over again that GCC is real, it’s imminent and it could be really awful and if we don’t act now, it will be too late. Ok, I’m open to that, but I’m not buying a pig in a poke:
Tell me, with reasonable specificity, how my life and my family’s life is going to change? What real life accommodations are we going to have to make?
If the proponents of radical change aren’t going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won’t vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.
Did we all stop on Dec. 8, 1941, and say, “Hold on just a minute here, pard. I WANT SPECIFICS!”
Didn’t think so.
Possibly not the best example, given the objectivity of sunken ships and nearly 3K dead. Moreover, with WWII, there was an end in sight.
We are told over and over again that GCC is real, it’s imminent and it could be really awful and if we don’t act now, it will be too late. Ok, I’m open to that, but I’m not buying a pig in a poke:
Tell me, with reasonable specificity, how my life and my family’s life is going to change? What real life accommodations are we going to have to make?
If the proponents of radical change aren’t going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won’t vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.
If the proponents of radical change aren’t going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won’t vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.
I’m not sure who this means, but people running for office have proposals with varying degrees of detail. You probably wouldn’t vote for any of them because they’re part of “the Left.” Or maybe you’re talking about legislation that would authorize the current resident of the White House to do something. That would be weird.
If the proponents of radical change aren’t going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won’t vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.
I’m not sure who this means, but people running for office have proposals with varying degrees of detail. You probably wouldn’t vote for any of them because they’re part of “the Left.” Or maybe you’re talking about legislation that would authorize the current resident of the White House to do something. That would be weird.
Addressing Globel Climate Change
Step 1: Build wall on border with Mexico. Because you just know it’s all those illegal immigrants that are causing it.
Addressing Globel Climate Change
Step 1: Build wall on border with Mexico. Because you just know it’s all those illegal immigrants that are causing it.
Then
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/trump-contradicts-cbp-head-bahamian-refugees-argues-they-might-have-been-infiltrated-by-very-bad-people/
Riiiight. You’re a “very bad person”, maybe even a terrorist. And you want to get into the United States. So your clever plan is to go to the Bahamas, try to survive a hurricane, and then get in as a refugee. Of course.
Because that’s ever so much easier than just flying into Canada and hiking across the border. Or, better yet, just buying some fake papers which will get you in as just another tourist.
Or maybe you just love hurricanes…
Then
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/trump-contradicts-cbp-head-bahamian-refugees-argues-they-might-have-been-infiltrated-by-very-bad-people/
Riiiight. You’re a “very bad person”, maybe even a terrorist. And you want to get into the United States. So your clever plan is to go to the Bahamas, try to survive a hurricane, and then get in as a refugee. Of course.
Because that’s ever so much easier than just flying into Canada and hiking across the border. Or, better yet, just buying some fake papers which will get you in as just another tourist.
Or maybe you just love hurricanes…
I’m not sure who this means, but people running for office have proposals with varying degrees of detail. You probably wouldn’t vote for any of them because they’re part of “the Left.” Or maybe you’re talking about legislation that would authorize the current resident of the White House to do something. That would be weird.
I think it’s pretty clear. Most of the commentariat here is adamant that GCC is the penultimate issue we face and that the threat is existential. It is further the case, as Cleek says, that adherents of this view believe “it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.”
These are lifestyle changes–size of home, location of home, possibly family size, food that we eat, whatever.
I’m asking what specific sacrifices those of us who are not GCC cognoscenti are agreeing to make before we go all-in on whatever it is we are told we must do to prevent world wide disaster.
I’ve asked this now a couple of times. I’m sensing resistance/evasion, which is troubling. Sounds like we are being stampeded into something we’d never knowingly agree to. Which is not persuasive and, if the threat really is what everyone here says it is, then we all need to know.
It’s almost as if the GCC proponents won’t tell everyone what is coming because, if we knew, we’d take our chances on doing relatively nothing.
In a democracy, before we agree to something, we need to know what it is. If policy proponents won’t say, then they are the ones at fault that their policy preferences failed. Either you can be open and honest, or you can expect rejection for the very reason that, when asked, you declined to answer.
I’m not sure who this means, but people running for office have proposals with varying degrees of detail. You probably wouldn’t vote for any of them because they’re part of “the Left.” Or maybe you’re talking about legislation that would authorize the current resident of the White House to do something. That would be weird.
I think it’s pretty clear. Most of the commentariat here is adamant that GCC is the penultimate issue we face and that the threat is existential. It is further the case, as Cleek says, that adherents of this view believe “it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.”
These are lifestyle changes–size of home, location of home, possibly family size, food that we eat, whatever.
I’m asking what specific sacrifices those of us who are not GCC cognoscenti are agreeing to make before we go all-in on whatever it is we are told we must do to prevent world wide disaster.
I’ve asked this now a couple of times. I’m sensing resistance/evasion, which is troubling. Sounds like we are being stampeded into something we’d never knowingly agree to. Which is not persuasive and, if the threat really is what everyone here says it is, then we all need to know.
It’s almost as if the GCC proponents won’t tell everyone what is coming because, if we knew, we’d take our chances on doing relatively nothing.
In a democracy, before we agree to something, we need to know what it is. If policy proponents won’t say, then they are the ones at fault that their policy preferences failed. Either you can be open and honest, or you can expect rejection for the very reason that, when asked, you declined to answer.
Most of the commentariat here is adamant that GCC is the penultimate issue we face and that the threat is existential.
If we believe that GCC is the penultimate issue we face, which issue do we believe is the ultimate one?
Most of the commentariat here is adamant that GCC is the penultimate issue we face and that the threat is existential.
If we believe that GCC is the penultimate issue we face, which issue do we believe is the ultimate one?
If we believe that GCC is the penultimate issue we face, which issue do we believe is the ultimate one?
Some combination of Trump is the worst ever in the history of the world, abortion a/k/a reproductive freedom a/k/a women’s health and income/wealth inequality. And common sense gun control.
But I’d really like to hear from the regulars here in response to what seems like a pretty fair question: what are we giving up to save ourselves?
If we believe that GCC is the penultimate issue we face, which issue do we believe is the ultimate one?
Some combination of Trump is the worst ever in the history of the world, abortion a/k/a reproductive freedom a/k/a women’s health and income/wealth inequality. And common sense gun control.
But I’d really like to hear from the regulars here in response to what seems like a pretty fair question: what are we giving up to save ourselves?
I’ve asked this now a couple of times. I’m sensing resistance/evasion, which is troubling. Sounds like we are being stampeded into something we’d never knowingly agree to.
Not at all.
It means completely replacing fossil fuels within three decades. For all energy usage.
Something along these lines, which I’ve posted before:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119302319
As far as the US is concerned, most of the Democratic candidates for President are publishing plans, and saying what they are likely to cost, so you are either uninformed or disingenuous in claiming evasion.
I’ve asked this now a couple of times. I’m sensing resistance/evasion, which is troubling. Sounds like we are being stampeded into something we’d never knowingly agree to.
Not at all.
It means completely replacing fossil fuels within three decades. For all energy usage.
Something along these lines, which I’ve posted before:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148119302319
As far as the US is concerned, most of the Democratic candidates for President are publishing plans, and saying what they are likely to cost, so you are either uninformed or disingenuous in claiming evasion.
It means completely replacing fossil fuels within three decades. For all energy usage.
That means a lot of nuclear plants as wind and solar just won’t scale to 100% without severe reductions in quality of life.
As far as the US is concerned, most of the Democratic candidates for President are publishing plans, and saying what they are likely to cost, …
“The Democratic contenders have laid out plans costing anywhere from about $1 trillion (Pete Buttigieg) to $16 trillion (Bernie Sanders) in direct federal spending on climate change over the next decade. About half of the candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), which could cost as much as $90 trillion to implement. As important as any specific policy or position outlined last night were the general attitudes that were widely shared by the participants.
A number likened fighting climate change to the effort to win World War II, a metaphor that perhaps says more about their comfort with regimenting society than the speakers intended. During World War II, all industrial production was overseen by the federal government, food and fuel were rationed, and civil liberties were sharply curtailed in the interest of defeating the Axis powers.”
4 Memorable Moments From CNN’s Climate Town Hall: From Joe Biden’s call for high-speed rail to Kamala Harris’ call for banning plastic straws, the Democratic presidential candidates pushed a hard-green agenda.
It means completely replacing fossil fuels within three decades. For all energy usage.
That means a lot of nuclear plants as wind and solar just won’t scale to 100% without severe reductions in quality of life.
As far as the US is concerned, most of the Democratic candidates for President are publishing plans, and saying what they are likely to cost, …
“The Democratic contenders have laid out plans costing anywhere from about $1 trillion (Pete Buttigieg) to $16 trillion (Bernie Sanders) in direct federal spending on climate change over the next decade. About half of the candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), which could cost as much as $90 trillion to implement. As important as any specific policy or position outlined last night were the general attitudes that were widely shared by the participants.
A number likened fighting climate change to the effort to win World War II, a metaphor that perhaps says more about their comfort with regimenting society than the speakers intended. During World War II, all industrial production was overseen by the federal government, food and fuel were rationed, and civil liberties were sharply curtailed in the interest of defeating the Axis powers.”
4 Memorable Moments From CNN’s Climate Town Hall: From Joe Biden’s call for high-speed rail to Kamala Harris’ call for banning plastic straws, the Democratic presidential candidates pushed a hard-green agenda.
what are we giving up to save ourselves?
I’m shopping for a new car. (The old one being a 2001, and pretty much at the end of its design life.) So I’m looking at an electric, even though they are more expensive. Mostly, it will get recharged at home — using power from the solar panels I put up 15 odd years ago. The rest of the time, it will get charged from the grid . . . which in this part of the country is mostly hydro power.
Just for one small example.
what are we giving up to save ourselves?
I’m shopping for a new car. (The old one being a 2001, and pretty much at the end of its design life.) So I’m looking at an electric, even though they are more expensive. Mostly, it will get recharged at home — using power from the solar panels I put up 15 odd years ago. The rest of the time, it will get charged from the grid . . . which in this part of the country is mostly hydro power.
Just for one small example.
I was just playing with the actual, literal meanings of penultimate and ultimate.
As I understand it (but others here will give better, more informed and substantive answers regarding actual public policies etc if they can be bothered), we would be giving up: most of the meat we eat and replacing it with grains, legumes and vegetables which will be used to feed us more efficiently than they feed animals (and with a cocommitant reduction in methane emissions by no longer raising ruminant animals in such quantity); fossil-fuel guzzling technology like air conditioning except in life-threateningly hot environments (from which we will probably have to move) and cars, unless a way can be found to run them non pollutingly; much of the air travel we currently take for granted; uninsulated home environments; our current acceptance of completely unnecessary packaging and general wastage of resources. To name but a few. But your point, presumably, is how is this to be effected, and if forced on us by a (tyrannical) government, are we pinkoes prepared to put up with it? Because various respectably sourced plans for what we have to give up are pretty easily available (see Nigel’s 06.29 above for just one example), so you must have some other motive for asking this question…..
I was just playing with the actual, literal meanings of penultimate and ultimate.
As I understand it (but others here will give better, more informed and substantive answers regarding actual public policies etc if they can be bothered), we would be giving up: most of the meat we eat and replacing it with grains, legumes and vegetables which will be used to feed us more efficiently than they feed animals (and with a cocommitant reduction in methane emissions by no longer raising ruminant animals in such quantity); fossil-fuel guzzling technology like air conditioning except in life-threateningly hot environments (from which we will probably have to move) and cars, unless a way can be found to run them non pollutingly; much of the air travel we currently take for granted; uninsulated home environments; our current acceptance of completely unnecessary packaging and general wastage of resources. To name but a few. But your point, presumably, is how is this to be effected, and if forced on us by a (tyrannical) government, are we pinkoes prepared to put up with it? Because various respectably sourced plans for what we have to give up are pretty easily available (see Nigel’s 06.29 above for just one example), so you must have some other motive for asking this question…..
McTX: … what are we giving up to save ourselves?
Shades of Jack Benny, ovah hea, is what JDT would say.
For the uneducated: Jack Benny played a skinflint on radio and early TV. In one of his famous radio skits, a mugger confronts him:
“Your money or your life,” says the crook.
Five seconds of silence.
“Well??” the crook demands.
Benny, annoyed: “I’m thinking, I’m thinking.”
If you believe your house is on fire, you don’t worry about the inconvenience of getting your furniture wet. If you don’t believe it, you will very naturally resent even so slight an inconvenience as having to answer the door when the firemen knock.
Not knowing McKinney’s personal or family “specifics”, it’s hard to know how to answer his demand for detailed answers as to how his particular life(style) may change either with or without real action on greenhouse gasses. As others have said, there are published plans for action out there, which McKinney is free to evaluate for their impact on his own preferences.
What I can’t really picture McKinney doing is telling his grandkids: “Hey, its your end of the lifeboat that’s sinking. Why should I start bailing?”
–TP
McTX: … what are we giving up to save ourselves?
Shades of Jack Benny, ovah hea, is what JDT would say.
For the uneducated: Jack Benny played a skinflint on radio and early TV. In one of his famous radio skits, a mugger confronts him:
“Your money or your life,” says the crook.
Five seconds of silence.
“Well??” the crook demands.
Benny, annoyed: “I’m thinking, I’m thinking.”
If you believe your house is on fire, you don’t worry about the inconvenience of getting your furniture wet. If you don’t believe it, you will very naturally resent even so slight an inconvenience as having to answer the door when the firemen knock.
Not knowing McKinney’s personal or family “specifics”, it’s hard to know how to answer his demand for detailed answers as to how his particular life(style) may change either with or without real action on greenhouse gasses. As others have said, there are published plans for action out there, which McKinney is free to evaluate for their impact on his own preferences.
What I can’t really picture McKinney doing is telling his grandkids: “Hey, its your end of the lifeboat that’s sinking. Why should I start bailing?”
–TP
I’m still working on my legislation. My damned staff is so slow!
I’m still working on my legislation. My damned staff is so slow!
CharlesWT’s scary fiscal prediction: About half of the candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), which could cost as much as $90 trillion to implement.
Cost who? Paid to whom? That’s an important component, since the “price” isn’t going to be paid solely by me (for example), maybe partially. But I might get a job out of it.
fossil-fuel guzzling technology like air conditioning except in life-threateningly hot environments (from which we will probably have to move)
This is on my list of pain, because I live in the American south, and it’s hard to live here without air conditioning. But what are the chances that if research and development incentivizes designing more efficient air conditioners, we can do it? This is where the myth of American exceptionalism could come in handy – we can do this if we make a concerted effort. Same with a lot of technology – there are a lot of plastic alternatives out there, but they’re not as cheap, so the “market” isn’t going to make it happen by itself.
Many people are creating very impact-light lifestyles, hoping that it will make a difference. It’s hard to have the willpower to do it when for every plastic utensil you avoid, you know that someone is using ten and throwing away 50. That’s why it has to be regulated. We could actually be in this together.
CharlesWT’s scary fiscal prediction: About half of the candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), which could cost as much as $90 trillion to implement.
Cost who? Paid to whom? That’s an important component, since the “price” isn’t going to be paid solely by me (for example), maybe partially. But I might get a job out of it.
fossil-fuel guzzling technology like air conditioning except in life-threateningly hot environments (from which we will probably have to move)
This is on my list of pain, because I live in the American south, and it’s hard to live here without air conditioning. But what are the chances that if research and development incentivizes designing more efficient air conditioners, we can do it? This is where the myth of American exceptionalism could come in handy – we can do this if we make a concerted effort. Same with a lot of technology – there are a lot of plastic alternatives out there, but they’re not as cheap, so the “market” isn’t going to make it happen by itself.
Many people are creating very impact-light lifestyles, hoping that it will make a difference. It’s hard to have the willpower to do it when for every plastic utensil you avoid, you know that someone is using ten and throwing away 50. That’s why it has to be regulated. We could actually be in this together.
McKinney seems to be conflating 10-11 years to avoid going over the +2C mark with 10-11 years until the high water mark. They are not the same things and would not necessarily prompt the same sort of purchasing decisions.
McKinney seems to be conflating 10-11 years to avoid going over the +2C mark with 10-11 years until the high water mark. They are not the same things and would not necessarily prompt the same sort of purchasing decisions.
Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to reducing CO2 emissions in a country.
1) Regulatory. Use regulatory powers to change energy usage. This is the European (and perhaps the Californian) way. For example, the UK plans to ban fossil-fuel burning cars by 2040. Other countries have more ambitious timetables.
2) Economic. There’s cap and trade, which I suppose might work if we took it seriously. Or tax on fossil fuels, which could work if applied widely and in sufficient size.
To address McKT’s question: in the regulatory approach, it will affect whatever the regulations target. In the economic approach, it will restrict fossil fuel consumption to the areas where it has the most economic value.
Either way, he’ll be using an electric car rather than a petrol car, which means no more quick fill-ups. But also cleaner air and less traffic noise. And he’ll be paying more for electricity and transport.
But things are not all that bleak. LED light bulbs are now better in almost every way than filament light bulbs. When regulatory or price pressures encourage it, technology will often be there for us.
Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to reducing CO2 emissions in a country.
1) Regulatory. Use regulatory powers to change energy usage. This is the European (and perhaps the Californian) way. For example, the UK plans to ban fossil-fuel burning cars by 2040. Other countries have more ambitious timetables.
2) Economic. There’s cap and trade, which I suppose might work if we took it seriously. Or tax on fossil fuels, which could work if applied widely and in sufficient size.
To address McKT’s question: in the regulatory approach, it will affect whatever the regulations target. In the economic approach, it will restrict fossil fuel consumption to the areas where it has the most economic value.
Either way, he’ll be using an electric car rather than a petrol car, which means no more quick fill-ups. But also cleaner air and less traffic noise. And he’ll be paying more for electricity and transport.
But things are not all that bleak. LED light bulbs are now better in almost every way than filament light bulbs. When regulatory or price pressures encourage it, technology will often be there for us.
When regulatory or price pressures encourage it, technology will often be there for us.
Yep. What’s holding us back (largely) is the fossil fuel industry that has always (for a century and a half, anyway) held enormous political power. We may have to make some sacrifices, but if we support clean technology and lose fossil fuels, we won’t have to become ascetics.
When regulatory or price pressures encourage it, technology will often be there for us.
Yep. What’s holding us back (largely) is the fossil fuel industry that has always (for a century and a half, anyway) held enormous political power. We may have to make some sacrifices, but if we support clean technology and lose fossil fuels, we won’t have to become ascetics.
$90 trillion spread over 30 years is $3 trillion a year. We spend nearly half that amount each year on the military. Our economy is a $21 trillion/year machine.
The proposed costs are not insurmountable.
But McKinney wants some kind of detail, and I shall throw out something for him to consider. But in return, I expect the next time he trots his ass in here to promote tax cuts for the wealthy that he bring CONCRETE AND SPECIFIC DETAILS.
So, here goes:
McKinney and his wealth cohort-drop in standard of living by 20%
The Waltons, Gates, and their cohort – drop in their standard of living by 85% They can afford it.
Sliding scale for us lower orders.
What GFNC said.
Is this politically possible? Not likely. But to my way of thinking, it is simply imperative that we do so. Remember that “voice in the wilderness” that conservatives are so fond of reminding us of? Well?
As for the fears of a command economy….well, it worked. We won.
But you want to surrender before the fight even begins.
It is frankly incredible to me that the climate change scoffers continue in their blissful ignorance of the seriousness of this issue.
What is holding us back?
1. The diffuse nature of a relatively long roll out of this disaster.
2. The collective action problem-this is a world wide issue.
3. Vested interests resisting the inevitable haircut.
4. Political will.
We have choices, but the options will continue to narrow as time passes.
$90 trillion spread over 30 years is $3 trillion a year. We spend nearly half that amount each year on the military. Our economy is a $21 trillion/year machine.
The proposed costs are not insurmountable.
But McKinney wants some kind of detail, and I shall throw out something for him to consider. But in return, I expect the next time he trots his ass in here to promote tax cuts for the wealthy that he bring CONCRETE AND SPECIFIC DETAILS.
So, here goes:
McKinney and his wealth cohort-drop in standard of living by 20%
The Waltons, Gates, and their cohort – drop in their standard of living by 85% They can afford it.
Sliding scale for us lower orders.
What GFNC said.
Is this politically possible? Not likely. But to my way of thinking, it is simply imperative that we do so. Remember that “voice in the wilderness” that conservatives are so fond of reminding us of? Well?
As for the fears of a command economy….well, it worked. We won.
But you want to surrender before the fight even begins.
It is frankly incredible to me that the climate change scoffers continue in their blissful ignorance of the seriousness of this issue.
What is holding us back?
1. The diffuse nature of a relatively long roll out of this disaster.
2. The collective action problem-this is a world wide issue.
3. Vested interests resisting the inevitable haircut.
4. Political will.
We have choices, but the options will continue to narrow as time passes.
Maybe we should be pressing for specifics on what lifestyle change will be forced on us by AGW if we do nothing about it (or worse yet, take the Trumpian approach and actively make it more severe).
Maybe we should be pressing for specifics on what lifestyle change will be forced on us by AGW if we do nothing about it (or worse yet, take the Trumpian approach and actively make it more severe).
I would say most of the liberal-atti here are enamoured with technological changes, the promise of electric cars (but how will they be manufactured?), nuclear power, a bit of a nip and a tuck there….but no REAL PAIN.
This is entirely understandable.
But it is a recipe for disaster. The prime directive in the 3rd world is to attain a 1st world standard of living. They will burn the carbon it takes until they get there.
We have to pay to get them there faster and more efficiently. And pay them a lot.
(Either that, or we just stand by and let them bake or drown. “Exterminate the brutes”. Well, there ya’ go.)
Then, maybe, we find a collective world wide solution.
I would say most of the liberal-atti here are enamoured with technological changes, the promise of electric cars (but how will they be manufactured?), nuclear power, a bit of a nip and a tuck there….but no REAL PAIN.
This is entirely understandable.
But it is a recipe for disaster. The prime directive in the 3rd world is to attain a 1st world standard of living. They will burn the carbon it takes until they get there.
We have to pay to get them there faster and more efficiently. And pay them a lot.
(Either that, or we just stand by and let them bake or drown. “Exterminate the brutes”. Well, there ya’ go.)
Then, maybe, we find a collective world wide solution.
I’m still working on my legislation. My damned staff is so slow!
First you work out all the nitty gritty details to make McKinney less sads.
The grand policies flowing from these details will inevitably follow.
Then the final penultimate holistic vision where all is revealed.
But only if you are good.
Isn’t that how they rolled out supply side economics?
I’m still working on my legislation. My damned staff is so slow!
First you work out all the nitty gritty details to make McKinney less sads.
The grand policies flowing from these details will inevitably follow.
Then the final penultimate holistic vision where all is revealed.
But only if you are good.
Isn’t that how they rolled out supply side economics?
Drive less. Fly less. Take public transportation. Drive a car that gets better mileage. Eat less beef. Don’t turn the AC on until it gets really hot. When you do turn it on, cool the house to 75, not 68. Plant a shitload of trees and/or sponsor people who do.
Those are the things you can do, personally. If you are a farmer, or are in a position to make decisions about public transportation modalities or land use or power generation, there are other things you could also do. But I don’t think you are, so I’ll skip them.
Those things won’t get the whole thing done, so in addition to the above, significant public effort is needed. Those may have some impact on you, personally, or they may not.
It’s not actually that mysterious, we just keep finding reasons not to do it.
Drive less. Fly less. Take public transportation. Drive a car that gets better mileage. Eat less beef. Don’t turn the AC on until it gets really hot. When you do turn it on, cool the house to 75, not 68. Plant a shitload of trees and/or sponsor people who do.
Those are the things you can do, personally. If you are a farmer, or are in a position to make decisions about public transportation modalities or land use or power generation, there are other things you could also do. But I don’t think you are, so I’ll skip them.
Those things won’t get the whole thing done, so in addition to the above, significant public effort is needed. Those may have some impact on you, personally, or they may not.
It’s not actually that mysterious, we just keep finding reasons not to do it.
From CharlesWT’s quote: … Kamala Harris’ call for banning plastic straws …
While recognizing that Libertarians would shout “Help! Help! I’m bein’ repressed!!” at almost anything, I suppose we might ask whether banning plastic straws would accomplish something.
But we can also reasonably wonder: if giving up so tiny a convenience as plastic straws is too high a price to pay, what meaningful changes could the your-end-of-the-lifeboat-is-sinking crowd ever acquiesce to?
–TP
From CharlesWT’s quote: … Kamala Harris’ call for banning plastic straws …
While recognizing that Libertarians would shout “Help! Help! I’m bein’ repressed!!” at almost anything, I suppose we might ask whether banning plastic straws would accomplish something.
But we can also reasonably wonder: if giving up so tiny a convenience as plastic straws is too high a price to pay, what meaningful changes could the your-end-of-the-lifeboat-is-sinking crowd ever acquiesce to?
–TP
Sounds like we are being stampeded into something
The basic physics of greenhouse gases were figured out in the 19th C. The fact that industrial economies were increasing those gases in the atmosphere was figured out in the early 20th. Hansen went in front of Congress and waved the big red flag about this stuff in ’88. 30+ years ago.
A very slow stampede.
In my lifetime, this country has mobilized to build the interstate highway, put a man on the moon, get people to quit smoking and throwing their trash out the window of their cars, wear seat belts, make drunk driving beating your wife and calling black people “boy” or “girl” socially anathema, and let gay people participate in public life without fear of a beating or losing their jobs.
That is a hell of a lot to get done in 63 years.
It is in our power to drive smaller cars, eat less meat in general and beef specifically, and dial in the AC to a temperature that doesn’t raise goose flesh.
Plus change how we generate electricity, expand public transportation, build out intercity rail so people don’t fly distances less than 500 or 1000 miles, etc etc etc.
We used to be can-do people. Or at least we could do a pretty good imitation if we needed to.
Will some folks have to swap their Chevy Suburbans and Range Rovers for a mere small SUV or, god forbid, a hatchback? Yeah, maybe. It might even be a hybrid. Or – brace yourself – electric.
If that is a deal breaker, then we are fncked, and our grandkids will spit on our graves. And they should.
Sounds like we are being stampeded into something
The basic physics of greenhouse gases were figured out in the 19th C. The fact that industrial economies were increasing those gases in the atmosphere was figured out in the early 20th. Hansen went in front of Congress and waved the big red flag about this stuff in ’88. 30+ years ago.
A very slow stampede.
In my lifetime, this country has mobilized to build the interstate highway, put a man on the moon, get people to quit smoking and throwing their trash out the window of their cars, wear seat belts, make drunk driving beating your wife and calling black people “boy” or “girl” socially anathema, and let gay people participate in public life without fear of a beating or losing their jobs.
That is a hell of a lot to get done in 63 years.
It is in our power to drive smaller cars, eat less meat in general and beef specifically, and dial in the AC to a temperature that doesn’t raise goose flesh.
Plus change how we generate electricity, expand public transportation, build out intercity rail so people don’t fly distances less than 500 or 1000 miles, etc etc etc.
We used to be can-do people. Or at least we could do a pretty good imitation if we needed to.
Will some folks have to swap their Chevy Suburbans and Range Rovers for a mere small SUV or, god forbid, a hatchback? Yeah, maybe. It might even be a hybrid. Or – brace yourself – electric.
If that is a deal breaker, then we are fncked, and our grandkids will spit on our graves. And they should.
Trump is the worst ever in the history of the world
Not even close.
Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, King Leopold. All much, much worse.
In more modern times old favorites like Hitler and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, Pinochet and Franco.
A long, sad list.
He’s not the worst ever, he’s just *our* worst.
Trump is the worst ever in the history of the world
Not even close.
Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, King Leopold. All much, much worse.
In more modern times old favorites like Hitler and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, Pinochet and Franco.
A long, sad list.
He’s not the worst ever, he’s just *our* worst.
if giving up so tiny a convenience as plastic straws is too high a price to pay, what meaningful changes could the your-end-of-the-lifeboat-is-sinking crowd ever acquiesce to?
This, a thousand times.
if giving up so tiny a convenience as plastic straws is too high a price to pay, what meaningful changes could the your-end-of-the-lifeboat-is-sinking crowd ever acquiesce to?
This, a thousand times.
someone let me know when a “conservative” has a plan other than “unh uh. nope. you’re so wrong. better not do anything” – for any problem that doesn’t involve dropping bombs.
—
i looked my own county’s GIS website today, too.
if all of the world’s ice melts, my house will sit on a nice little peninsula, and we’ll be 150′ above sea level, directly overlooking a wee fjord. it’ll be the new equivalent of Martha’s Vineyard. we’ll be no farther than .5 miles in three directions from salt water.
we’re 150 miles inland right now.
that’s what 270′ sea level rise gets ya.
that’s probably a worst case scenario.
someone let me know when a “conservative” has a plan other than “unh uh. nope. you’re so wrong. better not do anything” – for any problem that doesn’t involve dropping bombs.
—
i looked my own county’s GIS website today, too.
if all of the world’s ice melts, my house will sit on a nice little peninsula, and we’ll be 150′ above sea level, directly overlooking a wee fjord. it’ll be the new equivalent of Martha’s Vineyard. we’ll be no farther than .5 miles in three directions from salt water.
we’re 150 miles inland right now.
that’s what 270′ sea level rise gets ya.
that’s probably a worst case scenario.
Umpteen million residential and commercial buildings will have to replace their natural gas (or oil) air and water heating systems. Tens/hundreds of billions of dollars of existing natural gas distribution systems will be abandoned.
Umpteen million residential and commercial buildings will have to replace their natural gas (or oil) air and water heating systems. Tens/hundreds of billions of dollars of existing natural gas distribution systems will be abandoned.
Per the EPA, the top 3 sources of greenhouse gases are transportation, power generation, and industry.
Residential and commercial are 4th at 12%, and residential is just a part of that. Agriculture us 5th, at 9 percent.
Go for the big producers and let residentual heating systems age out. Offer incentives for people to replace them voluntarily before them, if they wish. Require new construction to minimize or eliminate fossil heating over some reasonable timespan.
Where alternatives don’t exist, fall back to fossil if you have to. But even that can be part of a multi-leg household system.
Do what you can. Right? Rather than complain about “deciders” and do nothing.
If we had started this 40 years ago, oil and gas residential heating would an anomaly now. So, start now.
Per the EPA, the top 3 sources of greenhouse gases are transportation, power generation, and industry.
Residential and commercial are 4th at 12%, and residential is just a part of that. Agriculture us 5th, at 9 percent.
Go for the big producers and let residentual heating systems age out. Offer incentives for people to replace them voluntarily before them, if they wish. Require new construction to minimize or eliminate fossil heating over some reasonable timespan.
Where alternatives don’t exist, fall back to fossil if you have to. But even that can be part of a multi-leg household system.
Do what you can. Right? Rather than complain about “deciders” and do nothing.
If we had started this 40 years ago, oil and gas residential heating would an anomaly now. So, start now.
Regarding the cost of the climate plans (as opposed to the ‘green new deal’, which incorporates a whole load of other stuff), it’s around a trillion a year for the US, of 5% of GDP.
If you want specific detail, have a look at Inslee’s 200 page report, which is available online. Similar to the various European studies, it’s a properly worked out and costed exercise.
As far as cars are concerned, the rich folks will switch to electric first, and likely without much complaint. More difficult is rapidly getting rid of all the existing gas burners on the road quickly.
More difficult again is transition to zero carbon housing.
Stuff like replacing the electric grid is comparatively easy – although it will cost a great deal we pretty well know how to get there. In comparison, changing every home in the US is a gnarly problem.
With a mix of tax, regulation and government funding, it can and will happen, but it has to start with the next administration.
If the US does it, I think the world’s major economies will rapidly follow, if only for reasons of economics (though the will might be there already in China and Europe).
Without the US, it almost certainly won’t happen quickly enough.
Regarding the cost of the climate plans (as opposed to the ‘green new deal’, which incorporates a whole load of other stuff), it’s around a trillion a year for the US, of 5% of GDP.
If you want specific detail, have a look at Inslee’s 200 page report, which is available online. Similar to the various European studies, it’s a properly worked out and costed exercise.
As far as cars are concerned, the rich folks will switch to electric first, and likely without much complaint. More difficult is rapidly getting rid of all the existing gas burners on the road quickly.
More difficult again is transition to zero carbon housing.
Stuff like replacing the electric grid is comparatively easy – although it will cost a great deal we pretty well know how to get there. In comparison, changing every home in the US is a gnarly problem.
With a mix of tax, regulation and government funding, it can and will happen, but it has to start with the next administration.
If the US does it, I think the world’s major economies will rapidly follow, if only for reasons of economics (though the will might be there already in China and Europe).
Without the US, it almost certainly won’t happen quickly enough.
We may have to make some sacrifices, but if we support clean technology and lose fossil fuels, we won’t have to become ascetics.
But the argument (or at least the implication) that we would is a great help to those who object to doing anything. Sometimes for personal economic/financial reasons; sometimes for culture war reasons.
We may have to make some sacrifices, but if we support clean technology and lose fossil fuels, we won’t have to become ascetics.
But the argument (or at least the implication) that we would is a great help to those who object to doing anything. Sometimes for personal economic/financial reasons; sometimes for culture war reasons.
If I was building a house today, I’d probably start with residential geothermal heat / cooling pump and have gas for extra heating in the winter and for cooking.
Maybe solar to cut down what we buy from the power company.
These are all mature technologies. Just freaking do it.
People will need a nudge. The carrot is tax incentives and rebates. The stick is legislated end of life for fossil in new construction, probably with exceptions for areas with particular needs or issues.
If we can get 75-80% of homes and businesses to cut fossil use by 75-80% in 20 years, the 12% cited by the EPA is cut by a little more than half.
Not perfect, just much much better. And nobody freezes.
Just freaking do it.
If I was building a house today, I’d probably start with residential geothermal heat / cooling pump and have gas for extra heating in the winter and for cooking.
Maybe solar to cut down what we buy from the power company.
These are all mature technologies. Just freaking do it.
People will need a nudge. The carrot is tax incentives and rebates. The stick is legislated end of life for fossil in new construction, probably with exceptions for areas with particular needs or issues.
If we can get 75-80% of homes and businesses to cut fossil use by 75-80% in 20 years, the 12% cited by the EPA is cut by a little more than half.
Not perfect, just much much better. And nobody freezes.
Just freaking do it.
someone let me know when a “conservative” has a plan other than “unh uh. nope. you’re so wrong. better not do anything” – for any problem that doesn’t involve dropping bombs.
See my above at 9:47 PM yesterday. It’s really not unique, for all that the reactionaries and libertarians masquerading as “conservatives” do drown us out.
In my lifetime, this country has mobilized to build the interstate highway, put a man on the moon, get people to quit smoking and throwing their trash out the window of their cars, wear seat belts, make drunk driving beating your wife and calling black people “boy” or “girl” socially anathema, and let gay people participate in public life without fear of a beating or losing their jobs.
That is a hell of a lot to get done in 63 years.
…
We used to be can-do people. Or at least we could do a pretty good imitation if we needed to.
No real question but what we could deal with the problem. The technological, and economic, problems are definitely solvable. The real challenge is political. When (if) we find the will, the way will happen.
someone let me know when a “conservative” has a plan other than “unh uh. nope. you’re so wrong. better not do anything” – for any problem that doesn’t involve dropping bombs.
See my above at 9:47 PM yesterday. It’s really not unique, for all that the reactionaries and libertarians masquerading as “conservatives” do drown us out.
In my lifetime, this country has mobilized to build the interstate highway, put a man on the moon, get people to quit smoking and throwing their trash out the window of their cars, wear seat belts, make drunk driving beating your wife and calling black people “boy” or “girl” socially anathema, and let gay people participate in public life without fear of a beating or losing their jobs.
That is a hell of a lot to get done in 63 years.
…
We used to be can-do people. Or at least we could do a pretty good imitation if we needed to.
No real question but what we could deal with the problem. The technological, and economic, problems are definitely solvable. The real challenge is political. When (if) we find the will, the way will happen.
For new housing you don’t need gas heating – just much, much better insulation.
For new housing you don’t need gas heating – just much, much better insulation.
Of course for now, we don’t even have a government, so even organising a large scale piss up in a brewery is beyond our means, so I ought not to be lecturing anyone on anything…
Of course for now, we don’t even have a government, so even organising a large scale piss up in a brewery is beyond our means, so I ought not to be lecturing anyone on anything…
You have our sympathies, Nigel.
NOW THESE F*CKING ASSHOLES ARE DENYING ENTRY TO OUR COUNTRY OF THOSE DESPERATE TO ESCAPE THE BAHAMAS AFTER THE UTTER HURRICANE DEVASTATION.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALL IN ON RACISM AND HATE.
THEY MUST BE UTTERLY DESTROYED.
NO MERCY. NO FORGIVENESS.
You have our sympathies, Nigel.
NOW THESE F*CKING ASSHOLES ARE DENYING ENTRY TO OUR COUNTRY OF THOSE DESPERATE TO ESCAPE THE BAHAMAS AFTER THE UTTER HURRICANE DEVASTATION.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALL IN ON RACISM AND HATE.
THEY MUST BE UTTERLY DESTROYED.
NO MERCY. NO FORGIVENESS.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALL IN ON RACISM AND HATE
Technically, it’s Trump (and Miller, of course) who’s all in on racism and hate. But others, e.g. Senator Rubio and Senator Scott, are calling for letting Bahamian refugees in, papers or no papers. On this, at least, the GOP as a whole falls short of “all in”
I look for Trump tweets denouncing both senators in the near future, of course.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALL IN ON RACISM AND HATE
Technically, it’s Trump (and Miller, of course) who’s all in on racism and hate. But others, e.g. Senator Rubio and Senator Scott, are calling for letting Bahamian refugees in, papers or no papers. On this, at least, the GOP as a whole falls short of “all in”
I look for Trump tweets denouncing both senators in the near future, of course.
echnically, it’s Trump (and Miller, of course) who’s all in on racism and hate
FWIW, Trump’s approval rating among self-identified Republicans is still ~90%.
by now, it’s hard to believe anybody is unaware of Trump’s racial attitudes.
ergo… the Republican party is statistically all-in on racism and hate.
echnically, it’s Trump (and Miller, of course) who’s all in on racism and hate
FWIW, Trump’s approval rating among self-identified Republicans is still ~90%.
by now, it’s hard to believe anybody is unaware of Trump’s racial attitudes.
ergo… the Republican party is statistically all-in on racism and hate.
Trump’s approval rating among self-identified Republicans is still ~90%.
Yup.
Trump’s approval rating among self-identified Republicans is still ~90%.
Yup.
THEY MUST BE UTTERLY DESTROYED.
NO MERCY. NO FORGIVENESS.
So glad JDT arranged for service as usual in his absence!
It will be interesting to see if McKinney ever comes back to us on “what we have to give up”. His drive by shootings – you should (as the old yiddish comics say) forgive the expression – can be frustrating; I’d still like to have a rational answer to the question of why he wouldn’t vote for Warren in a straight Warren v Trump election, given what he has said about both in the past.
THEY MUST BE UTTERLY DESTROYED.
NO MERCY. NO FORGIVENESS.
So glad JDT arranged for service as usual in his absence!
It will be interesting to see if McKinney ever comes back to us on “what we have to give up”. His drive by shootings – you should (as the old yiddish comics say) forgive the expression – can be frustrating; I’d still like to have a rational answer to the question of why he wouldn’t vote for Warren in a straight Warren v Trump election, given what he has said about both in the past.
Perhaps he just looks better under incandescent light ?
https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/environmental-regulation-trump-administration-rollbacks-lightbulbs-cars-tongass.html
Perhaps he just looks better under incandescent light ?
https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/environmental-regulation-trump-administration-rollbacks-lightbulbs-cars-tongass.html
i believe the answer is : Warren is definitely a socialist, maybe a communist, definitely a hard-left monster who hates Freedom™.
i believe the answer is : Warren is definitely a socialist, maybe a communist, definitely a hard-left monster who hates Freedom™.
and in case there’s any doubt about why the GOP has made a “mainstream media”-shaped target dummy and why Trump was so nervous that Fox was flirting with Democrats …
never fear, these study subject will be released back into the comforting embrace of Fox News, where they’ll never have to hear the truth about Trump ever again.
and in case there’s any doubt about why the GOP has made a “mainstream media”-shaped target dummy and why Trump was so nervous that Fox was flirting with Democrats …
never fear, these study subject will be released back into the comforting embrace of Fox News, where they’ll never have to hear the truth about Trump ever again.
You may be right, cleek, but I’d like to hear it from McKinney. After all, we courteously answer his questions, despite our intuition about his motivations for asking them. Also, I’d love to know what Trump would have to do that he hasn’t already done to have a McKinney or a Marty vote for his opponent (any one of the Dem candidates actually, but let’s say Warren).
You may be right, cleek, but I’d like to hear it from McKinney. After all, we courteously answer his questions, despite our intuition about his motivations for asking them. Also, I’d love to know what Trump would have to do that he hasn’t already done to have a McKinney or a Marty vote for his opponent (any one of the Dem candidates actually, but let’s say Warren).
You may be right, cleek, but I’d like to hear it from McKinney. After all, we courteously answer his questions, despite our intuition about his motivations for asking them. Also, I’d love to know what Trump would have to do that he hasn’t already done to have a McKinney or a Marty vote for his opponent (any one of the Dem candidates actually, but let’s say Warren).
I do intend to answer your question in detail about Elizabeth Warren (but not today) and I do intend (hopefully today) to pick up on the GCC discussion, and thanks to those who have tried to answer my question.
GFTNC–you have, several times, intimated that my motives may have some element of something, but I can’t say what, and that something is less than nice or whatever. Feel free to put it out there. I’m pretty thick-skinned. Thanks.
You may be right, cleek, but I’d like to hear it from McKinney. After all, we courteously answer his questions, despite our intuition about his motivations for asking them. Also, I’d love to know what Trump would have to do that he hasn’t already done to have a McKinney or a Marty vote for his opponent (any one of the Dem candidates actually, but let’s say Warren).
I do intend to answer your question in detail about Elizabeth Warren (but not today) and I do intend (hopefully today) to pick up on the GCC discussion, and thanks to those who have tried to answer my question.
GFTNC–you have, several times, intimated that my motives may have some element of something, but I can’t say what, and that something is less than nice or whatever. Feel free to put it out there. I’m pretty thick-skinned. Thanks.
(i may be misremembering, but i do think McTx has already told us what he thinks about Warren – and i just paraphrased. i could be wrong.)
(i may be misremembering, but i do think McTx has already told us what he thinks about Warren – and i just paraphrased. i could be wrong.)
You don’t need a thick skin where I am concerned, McKinney, I don’t suspect you of anything nefarious or reprehensible.
The motivations I suspect you of having are these. I think you are a man marooned with a certain set of beliefs and attitudes, who has seen others who he believed to have them too behaving in a morally bankrupt manner. Your comment in July “these days I don’t have any political allies”, taken together with your criticisms of Trump and his enablers encourages me in this belief. So when you prompt us for our prescriptions or beliefs, I think you are (perhaps subconsciously) hoping we come up with things that are so out in left field (sic) that you can reject them out of hand, reassured that although conservatives have lost their way, the prescriptions of lefties and liberals are still unworthy of consideration, or perhaps (very unlikely, I know, but just as subconsciously) you are hoping for a justification or rationalisation to vote for the kind of people you would never in the (golden) past have considered.
I will very much look forward to your answer about Warren, when you have time to make it. I’m pretty sure you think her much too “progressive”, but I hope that her ideological (or pragmatic) intellectual journey, combined with what I think was recently a reasonably positive assessment of your experience of her character, will mean you have an interesting opinion.
You don’t need a thick skin where I am concerned, McKinney, I don’t suspect you of anything nefarious or reprehensible.
The motivations I suspect you of having are these. I think you are a man marooned with a certain set of beliefs and attitudes, who has seen others who he believed to have them too behaving in a morally bankrupt manner. Your comment in July “these days I don’t have any political allies”, taken together with your criticisms of Trump and his enablers encourages me in this belief. So when you prompt us for our prescriptions or beliefs, I think you are (perhaps subconsciously) hoping we come up with things that are so out in left field (sic) that you can reject them out of hand, reassured that although conservatives have lost their way, the prescriptions of lefties and liberals are still unworthy of consideration, or perhaps (very unlikely, I know, but just as subconsciously) you are hoping for a justification or rationalisation to vote for the kind of people you would never in the (golden) past have considered.
I will very much look forward to your answer about Warren, when you have time to make it. I’m pretty sure you think her much too “progressive”, but I hope that her ideological (or pragmatic) intellectual journey, combined with what I think was recently a reasonably positive assessment of your experience of her character, will mean you have an interesting opinion.
It’s nice that so many people did give so many specifics on how to mitigate AGW. (Not that someone interested in such things couldn’t easily find the same information with a few Google searches.)
The bottom line for me is that I can’t support someone who thinks it’s a hoax/doesn’t give a crap either way/is willing to ignore it to make as much money as possible over then next N years because they’ll be dead or so rich they can insulate themselves from it when it starts getting bad.
At the very least, I know that won’t work – at least not for my kids.
It’s nice that so many people did give so many specifics on how to mitigate AGW. (Not that someone interested in such things couldn’t easily find the same information with a few Google searches.)
The bottom line for me is that I can’t support someone who thinks it’s a hoax/doesn’t give a crap either way/is willing to ignore it to make as much money as possible over then next N years because they’ll be dead or so rich they can insulate themselves from it when it starts getting bad.
At the very least, I know that won’t work – at least not for my kids.
(i may be misremembering, but i do think McTx has already told us what he thinks about Warren – and i just paraphrased. i could be wrong.)
I did, in a pretty general way. That’s true. GFTNC has asked for specifics, which is fair and I plan to give them. I can give a conclusion: she has a pronounced authoritarian bent (as does Trump), but in her case she’s more likely to get away with it, and I’m not down with government by executive fiat, regardless who’s fiating.
I think you are (perhaps subconsciously) hoping we come up with things that are so out in left field (sic) that you can reject them out of hand, reassured that although conservatives have lost their way, the prescriptions of lefties and liberals are still unworthy of consideration, or perhaps (very unlikely, I know, but just as subconsciously) you are hoping for a justification or rationalisation to vote for the kind of people you would never in the (golden) past have considered.
Fair enough and thanks for this. I think I’ve been fairly consistent over the 10 years or so I’ve been hanging out here. What I like is a substantive give and take. I poke my Trump friends with his lunacies, I poke my lefty friends with what I think are inconsistencies and occasional double standards or, in many cases, just a difference in policy perspective. There is nothing wrong with speaking up when something doesn’t seem to fit. We’re all grown ups here. Even Thullen.
(i may be misremembering, but i do think McTx has already told us what he thinks about Warren – and i just paraphrased. i could be wrong.)
I did, in a pretty general way. That’s true. GFTNC has asked for specifics, which is fair and I plan to give them. I can give a conclusion: she has a pronounced authoritarian bent (as does Trump), but in her case she’s more likely to get away with it, and I’m not down with government by executive fiat, regardless who’s fiating.
I think you are (perhaps subconsciously) hoping we come up with things that are so out in left field (sic) that you can reject them out of hand, reassured that although conservatives have lost their way, the prescriptions of lefties and liberals are still unworthy of consideration, or perhaps (very unlikely, I know, but just as subconsciously) you are hoping for a justification or rationalisation to vote for the kind of people you would never in the (golden) past have considered.
Fair enough and thanks for this. I think I’ve been fairly consistent over the 10 years or so I’ve been hanging out here. What I like is a substantive give and take. I poke my Trump friends with his lunacies, I poke my lefty friends with what I think are inconsistencies and occasional double standards or, in many cases, just a difference in policy perspective. There is nothing wrong with speaking up when something doesn’t seem to fit. We’re all grown ups here. Even Thullen.
It’s nice that so many people did give so many specifics on how to mitigate AGW. (Not that someone interested in such things couldn’t easily find the same information with a few Google searches.)
I thought the point of the question was not what could be done. As you say, that information is readily available. Instead I took the question to be “What would you personally be willing to do? What are you doing now?” At least, that ws the question I was addressing.
It’s nice that so many people did give so many specifics on how to mitigate AGW. (Not that someone interested in such things couldn’t easily find the same information with a few Google searches.)
I thought the point of the question was not what could be done. As you say, that information is readily available. Instead I took the question to be “What would you personally be willing to do? What are you doing now?” At least, that ws the question I was addressing.
And now:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-fires-bolton-as-national-security-adviser-saying-he-disagreed-strongly-with-many-of-his-suggestions/2019/09/10/13409e2c-d3b9-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html
With Trump, heaven know what kind of incompetent/nut case he will pick next. (Maybe another college buddy of one of his kids?) But still, getting rid of Bolton has to be a plus. For the nation and for the world.
And now:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-fires-bolton-as-national-security-adviser-saying-he-disagreed-strongly-with-many-of-his-suggestions/2019/09/10/13409e2c-d3b9-11e9-9610-fb56c5522e1c_story.html
With Trump, heaven know what kind of incompetent/nut case he will pick next. (Maybe another college buddy of one of his kids?) But still, getting rid of Bolton has to be a plus. For the nation and for the world.
it pains me to say it, but Trump does have one non-negative trait: he’s somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.
it pains me to say it, but Trump does have one non-negative trait: he’s somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.
Instead I took the question to be “What would you personally be willing to do? What are you doing now?”
Here it is:
If the proponents of radical change aren’t going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won’t vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.
I’m not sure what authority anyone here is expecting people to vote to confer upon them.
And what does it matter what I’m personally willing to do? I’ll probably have some things that cramp my style “forced” on me regardless. I’m willing to give someone who knows more than I do the authority to force those things on me because I fear that less than what a warmer and less-stable planet with rising sea levels will force on me (or, more likely, my children).
Instead I took the question to be “What would you personally be willing to do? What are you doing now?”
Here it is:
If the proponents of radical change aren’t going to tell me what that radical change means, they have no business complaining because people won’t vote to give them the authority they will need to effect that radical change.
I’m not sure what authority anyone here is expecting people to vote to confer upon them.
And what does it matter what I’m personally willing to do? I’ll probably have some things that cramp my style “forced” on me regardless. I’m willing to give someone who knows more than I do the authority to force those things on me because I fear that less than what a warmer and less-stable planet with rising sea levels will force on me (or, more likely, my children).
he’s somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.
As a Putin stooge, he’s not going to push that button in the Ukraine or anywhere else.
Nobody is going to bomb Venezuela in the near future. What for?
China will get its way in the far east because just who is going to stop them? This is bi-partisan.
Nobody wants to get involved with India vs. Pakistan. The definition of a hornet’s nest.
Nobody cares about (black) Africa.
That leaves the Middle East, but Turnip has yet to find the war like policy that meets his narcissistic urges, and even Trump might have figured out that a land war in Iran is a fool’s errand.
So, bottom line….I’d say what we have here is a dearth of easy opportunities. I stress the “easy” part.
he’s somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.
As a Putin stooge, he’s not going to push that button in the Ukraine or anywhere else.
Nobody is going to bomb Venezuela in the near future. What for?
China will get its way in the far east because just who is going to stop them? This is bi-partisan.
Nobody wants to get involved with India vs. Pakistan. The definition of a hornet’s nest.
Nobody cares about (black) Africa.
That leaves the Middle East, but Turnip has yet to find the war like policy that meets his narcissistic urges, and even Trump might have figured out that a land war in Iran is a fool’s errand.
So, bottom line….I’d say what we have here is a dearth of easy opportunities. I stress the “easy” part.
But nice to see Bolton go. Good riddance.
But nice to see Bolton go. Good riddance.
it pains me to say it, but Trump does have one non-negative trait: he’s somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.
He’s okay with it as long as someone else (Assad, MBS, Putin) does the killing.
it pains me to say it, but Trump does have one non-negative trait: he’s somehow not as hawkish as his otherwise belligerent and petty personality would suggest he should be.
He’s okay with it as long as someone else (Assad, MBS, Putin) does the killing.
He’s okay with it as long as someone else (Assad, MBS, Putin) does the killing.
I urge MBS to show Trump his bone-saw collection. The world would be better for it.
He’s okay with it as long as someone else (Assad, MBS, Putin) does the killing.
I urge MBS to show Trump his bone-saw collection. The world would be better for it.
there was certainly a chance he could’ve tried bombing Iran or NK, as Bolton wanted. thankfully, for whatever reason (and i’m sure it’s ridiculous), neither appealed to him.
i’ll take it.
there was certainly a chance he could’ve tried bombing Iran or NK, as Bolton wanted. thankfully, for whatever reason (and i’m sure it’s ridiculous), neither appealed to him.
i’ll take it.
He’s a blind, stopped squirrel-clock.
He’s a blind, stopped squirrel-clock.
it pains me to say it…
For that pain, I prescribe two of these and call me in the morning.
it pains me to say it…
For that pain, I prescribe two of these and call me in the morning.
I like the repeated “Did he just say …?” followed every time by “That was sarcasm” in the comments. It seems I should be glad that I don’t have a history of reading GG now causing me such unnecessary confusion.
I like the repeated “Did he just say …?” followed every time by “That was sarcasm” in the comments. It seems I should be glad that I don’t have a history of reading GG now causing me such unnecessary confusion.
i’ll take it.
Assuming that’s the way it actually is, I’ll take it too.
We should be somewhat careful about how we frame Trump’s reluctance to kill though:
Trump revokes Obama rule on reporting drone strike deaths
Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers
I agree with the folks who think that Bolton’s departure has more to do with losing the Camp David Taliban Peace Talk photo op than any inclination towards pacifism by Trump. So I’ll take a wait and see approach (not that I have a choice).
i’ll take it.
Assuming that’s the way it actually is, I’ll take it too.
We should be somewhat careful about how we frame Trump’s reluctance to kill though:
Trump revokes Obama rule on reporting drone strike deaths
Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers
I agree with the folks who think that Bolton’s departure has more to do with losing the Camp David Taliban Peace Talk photo op than any inclination towards pacifism by Trump. So I’ll take a wait and see approach (not that I have a choice).
heh.
for the record, i’m not saying i think Trump’s a dove. i’m just saying the rest of his personality makes me think he’d be an aggressive, reckless, bomb-first-lie-about-it-later kind of high-explosive negotiations lunatic. the fact that he isn’t just seems a bit strange.
heh.
for the record, i’m not saying i think Trump’s a dove. i’m just saying the rest of his personality makes me think he’d be an aggressive, reckless, bomb-first-lie-about-it-later kind of high-explosive negotiations lunatic. the fact that he isn’t just seems a bit strange.
the fact that he isn’t just seems a bit strange.
Agree.
I’m thinking that Putin probably isn’t a Bolton fan. A good thing!
the fact that he isn’t just seems a bit strange.
Agree.
I’m thinking that Putin probably isn’t a Bolton fan. A good thing!
I’m thinking that Putin probably isn’t a Bolton fan.
Probably because Putin is among the many that Bolton would like to bomb. Admittedly a group that’s about as exclusive as getting wet in a rainstorm.
I’m thinking that Putin probably isn’t a Bolton fan.
Probably because Putin is among the many that Bolton would like to bomb. Admittedly a group that’s about as exclusive as getting wet in a rainstorm.
…the fact that he isn’t just seems a bit strange.
Yup.
Inteventionist types, be they liberal or otherwise, are on an ideological mission. Trump’s ideology appears to revolve solely about what makes him look good.
A quick strike with lots of flash and noise is him. A long grind that makes him look bad is not.
That, and an inordinate amount of indecision. Don’t know about that.
…the fact that he isn’t just seems a bit strange.
Yup.
Inteventionist types, be they liberal or otherwise, are on an ideological mission. Trump’s ideology appears to revolve solely about what makes him look good.
A quick strike with lots of flash and noise is him. A long grind that makes him look bad is not.
That, and an inordinate amount of indecision. Don’t know about that.
To reach way back to the OP – if anyone is curious, the documents you can use in applying for a Real ID in Massachusetts are listed here.
To reach way back to the OP – if anyone is curious, the documents you can use in applying for a Real ID in Massachusetts are listed here.
My apologies for not replying as I said I would. The day got away from me. Tomorrow hopefully.
My apologies for not replying as I said I would. The day got away from me. Tomorrow hopefully.
McK, no worries. At your convenience.
McK, no worries. At your convenience.
she has a pronounced authoritarian bent (as does Trump), but in her case she’s more likely to get away with it
FWIW, I think I actually get McK’s concern here. Warren most definitely is an advocate of a strong central government regulatory hand. I recognize that, and recognize why some people would be uncomfortable with it.
In Warren’s case, it doesn’t make me as uneasy as it appears to make McK – assuming I read his concern correctly, which may or may not be so. And that is mostly because (a) I generally find Warren’s analysis and goals in line with what my own would be, and (b) I think she actually knows what she’s talking about. I find her to be data driven to an unusual degree in a candidate for POTUS.
The area where Warren concerns me is foreign policy. She doesn’t have hands-on experience there, and it’s an important part of the POTUS’ brief.
But, as I’ve said before, a ham sandwich with a (D) after it’s name will get my vote, and Warren is miles beyond ham sandwich.
she has a pronounced authoritarian bent (as does Trump), but in her case she’s more likely to get away with it
FWIW, I think I actually get McK’s concern here. Warren most definitely is an advocate of a strong central government regulatory hand. I recognize that, and recognize why some people would be uncomfortable with it.
In Warren’s case, it doesn’t make me as uneasy as it appears to make McK – assuming I read his concern correctly, which may or may not be so. And that is mostly because (a) I generally find Warren’s analysis and goals in line with what my own would be, and (b) I think she actually knows what she’s talking about. I find her to be data driven to an unusual degree in a candidate for POTUS.
The area where Warren concerns me is foreign policy. She doesn’t have hands-on experience there, and it’s an important part of the POTUS’ brief.
But, as I’ve said before, a ham sandwich with a (D) after it’s name will get my vote, and Warren is miles beyond ham sandwich.
I think we should talk about what a strong central government, in a democratic (and I meant that small d) society means. It means checks and balances (including oversight) by an active legislative branch. It means regulations (by officials appointed by democratically elected representatives), with a meaningful notice and comment period, and adjudicatory authority for overreaching, etc. It means cabinet officials who can hire and manage experts in the fields that are being regulated (people who have spent a long time studying things – like meteorology, for example).
Authoritarianism is a different kind of central government. It means that a sociopath can lie and pilfer money from the treasury, while making random executive decisions to punish disaster victims for being black. It’s quite different.
Not same same.
I think we should talk about what a strong central government, in a democratic (and I meant that small d) society means. It means checks and balances (including oversight) by an active legislative branch. It means regulations (by officials appointed by democratically elected representatives), with a meaningful notice and comment period, and adjudicatory authority for overreaching, etc. It means cabinet officials who can hire and manage experts in the fields that are being regulated (people who have spent a long time studying things – like meteorology, for example).
Authoritarianism is a different kind of central government. It means that a sociopath can lie and pilfer money from the treasury, while making random executive decisions to punish disaster victims for being black. It’s quite different.
Not same same.
russell: Warren most definitely is an advocate of a strong central government regulatory hand.
When it comes to massive banks, huge insurance companies, monopolists, polluters, and dark money, “a strong central government regulatory hand” might appeal even to McKinney. When President Professor Warren takes away McKinney’s plastic straws we can link arms in solidarity and impeach her.
On foreign policy, Warren has two things going for her: 1)she has never, to my knowledge, claimed she knows more than the generals, or diplomats, or career desk officers at State; and 2)she would never hire a John Bolton, because she may be inexperienced but she is not stooopid.
My only worry about a President Warren is that she might repeat Obama’s mistake and “look forward, not back”. I don’t know whether McKinney shares that worry.
–TP
russell: Warren most definitely is an advocate of a strong central government regulatory hand.
When it comes to massive banks, huge insurance companies, monopolists, polluters, and dark money, “a strong central government regulatory hand” might appeal even to McKinney. When President Professor Warren takes away McKinney’s plastic straws we can link arms in solidarity and impeach her.
On foreign policy, Warren has two things going for her: 1)she has never, to my knowledge, claimed she knows more than the generals, or diplomats, or career desk officers at State; and 2)she would never hire a John Bolton, because she may be inexperienced but she is not stooopid.
My only worry about a President Warren is that she might repeat Obama’s mistake and “look forward, not back”. I don’t know whether McKinney shares that worry.
–TP
The area where Warren concerns me is foreign policy. She doesn’t have hands-on experience there, and it’s an important part of the POTUS’ brief.
If memory serves, the last time we had a President with “hands-on foreign policy experience” was Bush I. Of the Presidents in my lifetime (14, I think), perhaps 3 had that kind of experience before taking office (Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush I). What matters is a willingness, and an ability, to learn fast. Some did; some do not.
I’m not a big Warren fan, I admit. But I’d say she meets that test.
The area where Warren concerns me is foreign policy. She doesn’t have hands-on experience there, and it’s an important part of the POTUS’ brief.
If memory serves, the last time we had a President with “hands-on foreign policy experience” was Bush I. Of the Presidents in my lifetime (14, I think), perhaps 3 had that kind of experience before taking office (Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush I). What matters is a willingness, and an ability, to learn fast. Some did; some do not.
I’m not a big Warren fan, I admit. But I’d say she meets that test.
I’m not a big Warren fan, I admit.
Why? I understand that you’re a Republican, wj. But it would be nice to let us know specifically what you dislike about Warren’s “plans”.
Thanks.
I’m not a big Warren fan, I admit.
Why? I understand that you’re a Republican, wj. But it would be nice to let us know specifically what you dislike about Warren’s “plans”.
Thanks.
sapient, I think my biggest reservation is the sense that she’s looking to solve all the world’s, or at least all of America’s, problems. I’d like to see more focus and prioritization. Something like recognition that it isn’t possible to do everything at once.
Pick, say, the top half dozen problems (or even the top dozen — a bunch of Trump-based problems evaporate with the departure of Trump) and concentrate on those. Because if you try to do too many things all at once, you are liable to end up not getting any of them accomplished.
Nothing wrong with having ideas about how to address a lot more. (Whether I agree with the solution, or even think it is a problem best solved at the Federal level, is a seperate question.) But pick the most time-critical and move on those first.
sapient, I think my biggest reservation is the sense that she’s looking to solve all the world’s, or at least all of America’s, problems. I’d like to see more focus and prioritization. Something like recognition that it isn’t possible to do everything at once.
Pick, say, the top half dozen problems (or even the top dozen — a bunch of Trump-based problems evaporate with the departure of Trump) and concentrate on those. Because if you try to do too many things all at once, you are liable to end up not getting any of them accomplished.
Nothing wrong with having ideas about how to address a lot more. (Whether I agree with the solution, or even think it is a problem best solved at the Federal level, is a seperate question.) But pick the most time-critical and move on those first.
Nothing wrong with having ideas about how to address a lot more.
Thanks for answering me!
I think that she can’t really run in an election if she doesn’t have a plan to address the very many issues that confront us, and that she’ll be asked about on the debate stage. Obviously, it’s great to prioritize (and she has a reputation for caring about consumer financial issues, and income inequality) but communicating that she’s for one thing over another will alienate those people with different priorities.
So, generally, I think it’s unrealistic to make that demand of her, especially since some of what she’s offering is dependent on Congress.
Nothing wrong with having ideas about how to address a lot more.
Thanks for answering me!
I think that she can’t really run in an election if she doesn’t have a plan to address the very many issues that confront us, and that she’ll be asked about on the debate stage. Obviously, it’s great to prioritize (and she has a reputation for caring about consumer financial issues, and income inequality) but communicating that she’s for one thing over another will alienate those people with different priorities.
So, generally, I think it’s unrealistic to make that demand of her, especially since some of what she’s offering is dependent on Congress.
So, generally, I think it’s unrealistic to make that demand of her, especially since some of what she’s offering is dependent on Congress.
Actually, I think prioritizing is most critical with the things that require Congressional action. The stuff that can be done by executive action just takes putting competent people in charge to get it done. Or, more often, putting in charge people who will quit sabotaging the quite competent technical people that are already there — just tell ’em what to get done, then get out of the way and let them do it.
But getting Congress to act, even assuming control of both houses**, is going to require massaging egos for each bill you want passed. Too many Congressional egos, and not enough hours in the President’s day, to get too many done in parallel.
** Although even a narrow Republican majority might be worked with, if Moscow Mitch can be removed. One way or another. On balance, I think the GOP Congressmen see fewer misogynists than racists in their base. But I could be wrong on that.
So, generally, I think it’s unrealistic to make that demand of her, especially since some of what she’s offering is dependent on Congress.
Actually, I think prioritizing is most critical with the things that require Congressional action. The stuff that can be done by executive action just takes putting competent people in charge to get it done. Or, more often, putting in charge people who will quit sabotaging the quite competent technical people that are already there — just tell ’em what to get done, then get out of the way and let them do it.
But getting Congress to act, even assuming control of both houses**, is going to require massaging egos for each bill you want passed. Too many Congressional egos, and not enough hours in the President’s day, to get too many done in parallel.
** Although even a narrow Republican majority might be worked with, if Moscow Mitch can be removed. One way or another. On balance, I think the GOP Congressmen see fewer misogynists than racists in their base. But I could be wrong on that.
Actually, I think prioritizing is most critical with the things that require Congressional action.
Fair (although probably not for a campaign).
So, what are your priorities?
Actually, I think prioritizing is most critical with the things that require Congressional action.
Fair (although probably not for a campaign).
So, what are your priorities?
P.S. Thanks for the Moscow Mitch reference!
P.S. Thanks for the Moscow Mitch reference!
But pick the most time-critical and move on those first.
This is a critique of her campaign strategy, not her politics. All those plans may well carry the day with Dem primary voters, of which you are, alas, not one.
There will be a lot of arguing about the specifics of candidate’s “plans” as we enter the primaries, and the focus on “prioritizing” will reveal itself.
I’d say the environment, the onset of a new Gilded Age, and health care are the three big shining objects out there right now. A lot of her (and other’s) plans are related to those larger issues.
But pick the most time-critical and move on those first.
This is a critique of her campaign strategy, not her politics. All those plans may well carry the day with Dem primary voters, of which you are, alas, not one.
There will be a lot of arguing about the specifics of candidate’s “plans” as we enter the primaries, and the focus on “prioritizing” will reveal itself.
I’d say the environment, the onset of a new Gilded Age, and health care are the three big shining objects out there right now. A lot of her (and other’s) plans are related to those larger issues.
And, sorry [looking at you, McKinney], if you’re not actively trying to remove this person, I don’t know what to say:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171631144414208000/photo/1
And, sorry [looking at you, McKinney], if you’re not actively trying to remove this person, I don’t know what to say:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171631144414208000/photo/1
Priorities? Well here’s a first cut. (With the caveat that, at this hour, I, may well miss something that I’d remember if awake.)
— We need a program, on the order of the Apollo Program, to create the technologies to deal with climate change and roll them out. And that absolutely includes technologies which will let economies outside the G-7 develop without going thru the fossil fuel technology stage. Note that this is seperate from whatever gets done to reverse the rollback of environmental regulations generally.
— Our tax system need a major overhaul — both to provide adequate revenue and to better balance the rewards. Reversing the latest tax bill would be a start, but there needs to be a lot more done. Much higher top marginal rates. Tax all income (e.g. capital gains) the same. And I’d really, really like to see a serious estate tax. Nobody needs a $10 million plus reward for picking the right parents.
— Our alliances need to be rebuilt. Unfortunately, that will take years, probably decades, after the damage that has been done to our reputation. But a start needs to be made immediately. Starting with getting agreements like the TPP, JCPA, etc. ratified as treaties, so they won’t be subject to the whims and caprices of a passing administration.
— A couple of agencies are clear exceptions to my generalization of “mostly competent staff”. They may even need a wholesale purge and restaff — which may require a (limited, one time) Congressional waiver of the civil service laws. ICE for sure, and also possibly the VA, leap to mind.
— The Federal gun control laws need to be massively beefed up. Nobody needs military assault weapons for “self defense.” And requiring some basic safety training doesn’t infringe on anybody’s rights. (Probably need to include parts on the list of things requiring background check checks.)
I may wake up tomorrow going “Aaaagh! How could l have forgotten xxxx?” But those are a few biggies. I understand that those to my left may have other priorities….
Priorities? Well here’s a first cut. (With the caveat that, at this hour, I, may well miss something that I’d remember if awake.)
— We need a program, on the order of the Apollo Program, to create the technologies to deal with climate change and roll them out. And that absolutely includes technologies which will let economies outside the G-7 develop without going thru the fossil fuel technology stage. Note that this is seperate from whatever gets done to reverse the rollback of environmental regulations generally.
— Our tax system need a major overhaul — both to provide adequate revenue and to better balance the rewards. Reversing the latest tax bill would be a start, but there needs to be a lot more done. Much higher top marginal rates. Tax all income (e.g. capital gains) the same. And I’d really, really like to see a serious estate tax. Nobody needs a $10 million plus reward for picking the right parents.
— Our alliances need to be rebuilt. Unfortunately, that will take years, probably decades, after the damage that has been done to our reputation. But a start needs to be made immediately. Starting with getting agreements like the TPP, JCPA, etc. ratified as treaties, so they won’t be subject to the whims and caprices of a passing administration.
— A couple of agencies are clear exceptions to my generalization of “mostly competent staff”. They may even need a wholesale purge and restaff — which may require a (limited, one time) Congressional waiver of the civil service laws. ICE for sure, and also possibly the VA, leap to mind.
— The Federal gun control laws need to be massively beefed up. Nobody needs military assault weapons for “self defense.” And requiring some basic safety training doesn’t infringe on anybody’s rights. (Probably need to include parts on the list of things requiring background check checks.)
I may wake up tomorrow going “Aaaagh! How could l have forgotten xxxx?” But those are a few biggies. I understand that those to my left may have other priorities….
Just to be explicit about it, I don’t think health care makes the top of my list. Yes, stop trying to repeal Obamacare, of course. And it could use some tweaks, to fix problems that got missed initially — which happens with any new program. Mostly stuff that, with a sensible Congress, would have gotten done a couple years after it rolled out.
But beyond that? Maybe top of the second tier. But not top tier, at least in my view. (Just as a point of information, I spent most of a decade, in my late 50s and early 60s, without health insurance. So I’m not totally ignorant of how scary that is.)
Just to be explicit about it, I don’t think health care makes the top of my list. Yes, stop trying to repeal Obamacare, of course. And it could use some tweaks, to fix problems that got missed initially — which happens with any new program. Mostly stuff that, with a sensible Congress, would have gotten done a couple years after it rolled out.
But beyond that? Maybe top of the second tier. But not top tier, at least in my view. (Just as a point of information, I spent most of a decade, in my late 50s and early 60s, without health insurance. So I’m not totally ignorant of how scary that is.)
I come at it from a very different political perspective, but I tend to agree with wj about Warren.
I take sapient’s point about campaigning, and Warren has found a theme – the ‘plan’ for everything – which she’ll have to stick with now if she’s to edge out Saunders as the not-Biden option.
Campaigning, though, has consequences for how you govern, and his your supporters allow you to govern. And if the Democrats don’t take the Senate, the need to make choices will be pressing indeed.
I come at it from a very different political perspective, but I tend to agree with wj about Warren.
I take sapient’s point about campaigning, and Warren has found a theme – the ‘plan’ for everything – which she’ll have to stick with now if she’s to edge out Saunders as the not-Biden option.
Campaigning, though, has consequences for how you govern, and his your supporters allow you to govern. And if the Democrats don’t take the Senate, the need to make choices will be pressing indeed.
Which candidate will be able to personally strangle Mitch barehandedly at his/her first State of the Union speech?
That should be a criterion in selection.
Which candidate will be able to personally strangle Mitch barehandedly at his/her first State of the Union speech?
That should be a criterion in selection.
I understand that those to my left may have other priorities
the only thing i’d change in that list is to swap the agency restructuring one for one about putting hard limits on plastic pollution.
I understand that those to my left may have other priorities
the only thing i’d change in that list is to swap the agency restructuring one for one about putting hard limits on plastic pollution.
Not same same.
Completely and thoroughly agree. Thank you for making the point.
Also, I generally agree with wj’s list. And also agree that Warren’s lack of foreign policy experience is not a show-stopper.
Not same same.
Completely and thoroughly agree. Thank you for making the point.
Also, I generally agree with wj’s list. And also agree that Warren’s lack of foreign policy experience is not a show-stopper.
I like wj’s priority list as well. I also approve of cleek’s amendment.
I would also like to see immigration reform, to allow more room for new immigrants, paths to citizenship, and elimination of the executive fiat system that has allowed the “national emergency” human rights abuses that we’re witnessing.
I like wj’s priority list as well. I also approve of cleek’s amendment.
I would also like to see immigration reform, to allow more room for new immigrants, paths to citizenship, and elimination of the executive fiat system that has allowed the “national emergency” human rights abuses that we’re witnessing.
sapient, I agree that all of those ought to be done. Even done soon. Just not sure they should elbow out the ones I listed in priority.
sapient, I agree that all of those ought to be done. Even done soon. Just not sure they should elbow out the ones I listed in priority.
To unpack slightly (multitasking here),
I think the three on immigrants are lower priority than purging the ICE staff who have demonstrated their hostility, physical hostility even, to immigrants. If Congress wants to push them thru on their own, the President can and should indicate agreement. But not spend time and political capital pushing for them in the first months.
To unpack slightly (multitasking here),
I think the three on immigrants are lower priority than purging the ICE staff who have demonstrated their hostility, physical hostility even, to immigrants. If Congress wants to push them thru on their own, the President can and should indicate agreement. But not spend time and political capital pushing for them in the first months.
Makes you think about the need for a Federal gun control law, doesn’t it?
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/09/11/60-firearms-seized-from-red-bluff-man-under-a-restraining-order/
If things like this can happen, even under California relatively strict laws, the holes due to interstate commerce are clearly too big.
Makes you think about the need for a Federal gun control law, doesn’t it?
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/09/11/60-firearms-seized-from-red-bluff-man-under-a-restraining-order/
If things like this can happen, even under California relatively strict laws, the holes due to interstate commerce are clearly too big.
cleek, as I think about it, I think I’ll accept your friendly amendment. In the sense of adding, not replacing. (That still leaves be below by, admittedly somewhat arbitrary, half dozen threshold.)
cleek, as I think about it, I think I’ll accept your friendly amendment. In the sense of adding, not replacing. (That still leaves be below by, admittedly somewhat arbitrary, half dozen threshold.)
FYI, Lurker had a couple of posts on this thread back on Aug 29 which for no obvious reason ended up in the Spam folder. I have published them. Go back and read if you are interested.
FYI, Lurker had a couple of posts on this thread back on Aug 29 which for no obvious reason ended up in the Spam folder. I have published them. Go back and read if you are interested.
Another country heard from! I went back and read them. Nothing to add, but they were worth the effort.
Going back got me to notice russell’s mention of WRTI as concerns classical music programming. Out of curiosity, were you in Philly when WFLN was still on the air, russell?
Another country heard from! I went back and read them. Nothing to add, but they were worth the effort.
Going back got me to notice russell’s mention of WRTI as concerns classical music programming. Out of curiosity, were you in Philly when WFLN was still on the air, russell?
We need a program, on the order of the Apollo Program, to create the technologies to deal with climate change and roll them out
Which is your priority right there.
It’s interesting to consider, though, that LBJ tried to deliver the Great Society simultaneously with Apollo, and might just have succeeded but for Vietnam.
Which nicely illustrates the scope for ambition, and its limitations.
We need a program, on the order of the Apollo Program, to create the technologies to deal with climate change and roll them out
Which is your priority right there.
It’s interesting to consider, though, that LBJ tried to deliver the Great Society simultaneously with Apollo, and might just have succeeded but for Vietnam.
Which nicely illustrates the scope for ambition, and its limitations.
nothing says ‘respect for voters’ like parliamentary shenanigans to override a veto.
nothing says ‘respect for voters’ like parliamentary shenanigans to override a veto.
That link crashed my browser.
That link crashed my browser.
Worked OK on mine. (Chrome)
Worked OK on mine. (Chrome)
Seems to work OK for in Chrome for me too. But, in Firefox, I got a bright red screen labeled as a severe Firefox error with a long message about someone was trying to steal my banking information with a 1-800 number for Microsoft(?). Then the browser crashed. Perhaps a scam.
Seems to work OK for in Chrome for me too. But, in Firefox, I got a bright red screen labeled as a severe Firefox error with a long message about someone was trying to steal my banking information with a 1-800 number for Microsoft(?). Then the browser crashed. Perhaps a scam.
it’s a link to the website of the Raleigh News & Observer (the local paper).
somehow 55 Republicans knew to be there instead of at the 9/11 memorial service.
it’s a link to the website of the Raleigh News & Observer (the local paper).
somehow 55 Republicans knew to be there instead of at the 9/11 memorial service.
The R’s in NC foreshadow what happens nationally.
I got what you did when I first clicked the link, CharlesWT (in Chrome). I was able to get rid of the message, and things work fine now. I did a quick virus scan, just in case, and nothing was found.
The R’s in NC foreshadow what happens nationally.
I got what you did when I first clicked the link, CharlesWT (in Chrome). I was able to get rid of the message, and things work fine now. I did a quick virus scan, just in case, and nothing was found.
pithy take on the GCC argument:
pithy take on the GCC argument:
McKTex on GCC and other stuff. As a preface, I’ve proofed this several times and am out of gas. If something seems particularly disturbing or stupid, be open to the notion that it’s a syntax or typo error. I’m happy to clarify points.
Ok, here goes:
As background, I’m going to begin with a quote from GFTNC and work from there:
I think you are (perhaps subconsciously) hoping we come up with things that are so out in left field (sic) that you can reject them out of hand, reassured that although conservatives have lost their way, the prescriptions of lefties and liberals are still unworthy of consideration, or perhaps (very unlikely, I know, but just as subconsciously) you are hoping for a justification or rationalisation to vote for the kind of people you would never in the (golden) past have considered. GFTNC 9/10 at 8:28
Let me counter with this: while motive is often important—given what I do for a living, how could I not believe this to be true?—but often enough, when someone says something or makes an inquiry, they can either be coming straight at you, meaning exactly what they say or, in this specific instance, intending to get substantive answers. Hopefully, I am going to try, time permitting, to follow up, but my intent isn’t to score points (usually), but to have a discussion and see how things fall out.
With that background, I’m going to lay out a series of quotes beginning with Cleek on 9/9 at 2:30 p.m.:
it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.
Then we have Russell also on 9/9 at 4:21 p.m.
Basically, when the potential damage for a scenario is catastrophic, even low percentage likelihoods deserve attention and action. We’re well into catastrophic potential damage, and well beyond low percentage likelihoods.
And then Nigel, 9/9 at 6:29 p.m.
It means completely replacing fossil fuels within three decades. For all energy usage.
And then GFTNC 9/9 6:49 p.m.:
we would be giving up: most of the meat we eat and replacing it with grains, legumes and vegetables which will be used to feed us more efficiently than they feed animals (and with a cocommitant reduction in methane emissions by no longer raising ruminant animals in such quantity); fossil-fuel guzzling technology like air conditioning except in life-threateningly hot environments (from which we will probably have to move) and cars, unless a way can be found to run them non pollutingly; much of the air travel we currently take for granted; uninsulated home environments; our current acceptance of completely unnecessary packaging and general wastage of resources. To name but a few.
The ever-subtle BobbyP, 9/9 at 8:33 p.m.
I would say most of the liberal-atti here are enamoured with technological changes, the promise of electric cars (but how will they be manufactured?), nuclear power, a bit of a nip and a tuck there….but no REAL PAIN.
This is entirely understandable.
But it is a recipe for disaster.
I would say most of the liberal-atti here are enamoured with technological changes, the promise of electric cars (but how will they be manufactured?), nuclear power, a bit of a nip and a tuck there….but no REAL PAIN.
This is entirely understandable.
But it is a recipe for disaster.
And back to Nigel, 9/9 at 11:36 p.m.
As far as cars are concerned, the rich folks will switch to electric first, and likely without much complaint. More difficult is rapidly getting rid of all the existing gas burners on the road quickly.
More difficult again is transition to zero carbon housing.
Stuff like replacing the electric grid is comparatively easy – although it will cost a great deal we pretty well know how to get there. In comparison, changing every home in the US is a gnarly problem.
With a mix of tax, regulation and government funding, it can and will happen, but it has to start with the next administration.
If the US does it, I think the world’s major economies will rapidly follow, if only for reasons of economics (though the will might be there already in China and Europe).
Without the US, it almost certainly won’t happen quickly enough.
Today, here and there, in small fits and starts, small steps have been and continue to be taken to address pollution, GCC, whatever you want to call it. Wind farms are popping up everywhere. I had an interesting case involving a huge solar farm out in a part of west Texas I never knew existed—some of the ugliest, most inhospitable land imaginable with several hundred acres of solar panels. So, there is movement. But no pain. In 1978 or thereabouts, President Carter called the need to end our energy dependence on foreign oil “the moral equivalent of war.” Not too long thereafter, some editorial comic showed a jammed freeway in both directions with the caption “President Carter’s declaration of the moral equivalent of war has fallen on the ears of 300,000,000 conscientious objectors.”
My wife and I drove from Houston to Spicewood TX Thursday evening. The highways were packed. Traffic starts in Houston around 6 in the morning and goes until well after 10 p.m. Many of our freeways are 5 lanes a side and they teem with cars. Our suburbs stretch to the horizon. Beef goes on sale every weekend. Outdoor grilling is almost a religion. I have cases all over the state. I fly 2-3 times a month, minimum, on business. It’s a rare flight that isn’t full. I take a bus occasionally to Austin (and then Uber). It’s always full. I spend lots of time in Dallas, San Antonio, Corpus Christi and Austin. It’s the same everywhere. This is a big state and people like to move around. I see this every day.
So let me just start with this observation: people will not agree to fundamentally roll back their lifestyles to the point necessary to achieve the elimination of fossil fuels in 30 years, become functional vegetarians and stay home. That will not happen voluntarily.
BP makes the point, assuming I am understanding him, that the Nigel/Cleek/Russell slice of the left believe the defeat-of-climate-change is achieved with technology, not an unduly heavy governmental hand. Again, mind-reading BP, he thinks the technological fix is wishful thinking. He thinks achieving the needed rectification of society world wide (which is what we are talking about, when you think it through) will require a ‘command economy’. That comes from the barrel of a gun. Good luck with that.
But let’s say that Nigel has it right and that “with a mix of tax, regulation and government funding, it can and will happen.” Does this remain true if we also forgive all student debt, make college free, increase SS payments $200/month, have “Medicare for All”, and so on? So, really, we can have it all this new stuff, plus keep SS and Medicare and all the other stuff and not have to make any sacrifices?
Is that even credible? Who would vote for someone who would make that claim with a straight face?
That’s Reality Check No. 1. I have a couple more.
Going back to “tax, regulation and government funding”, the first thing I’d like to see is the formula that keeps the private sector motivated to be creative in finding this tech fix while paying more than it already is in taxes. Please do not point to Europe. New business start-ups in the EU do not compare at all favorably to the US. We raise far more capital for new enterprises than does Europe. “Tax” is only different from “government funding” if “government funding” means “government borrowing” or “government printing money.” You can’t borrow what isn’t there to be lent. As we are going to find out someday, you can’t borrow forever, and just printing money doesn’t work.
So, it comes down to taxes and a sustainable private sector. Getting down to specifics: how much new money is going to have to be raised to achieve the technology necessary to ward off the effects of GCC? How do we raise that money on a sustainable basis, i.e. get the same amount, or more, every year ad infinitum? Because, for those who haven’t noticed, we are deficit spending our asses off right now and falling farther behind than ever before (yes, I know, tax cuts for the rich, whatever—if we reversed the tax cuts, we’d be marginally better off because we spend our asses off and no one is proposing any spending cuts except for national defense.)
Answer to the foregoing: no one has a clue. But, logically, if we can’t cover our current nut, how in the world are we going to sustainably find the money to save the world with the kind of change everyone here agrees is the minimum necessary to get things done?
Now let’s talk about “regulation.” Since we are saving the planet, if it’s necessary to do so, do we let the regulators determine what kind and how much food we get? How big our houses are? Whether we can have a house at all, or do we need to move into something like apartments? How much water can we consume in a week or a month? How often can we wash our clothes? Only electric cars? What if I can’t afford one? Will the government have enough money left over after finding the tech fix to subsidize my car—and cover my medical bills?
Since we are talking about a global catastrophe, why shouldn’t we be open to limiting family size, travel, work option, etc.? Is there anything that shouldn’t be on the table to stave off this impending disaster?
If we are serious, shouldn’t every service, every task, every activity of daily life be measured by its environmental impact and either encouraged, taxed or proscribed accordingly? What if the people push back? What if people refuse to go along with what they are told to do? Do we allow that?
A separate concern: as background, consider that people who lose their jobs if they make mistakes, people who lose their businesses if they screw up too badly, still manage to screw up. IOW, people with immediate, personal reasons to get it right and keep making a living still manage to not get it right.
Compare this to government employees who have no meaningful consequences for screwing up. Whatever else they might worry about at night, screwing up at the office and getting fired isn’t one of them. They are unaccountable. Yet, from this insulated population of our country, we are hoping to find those who are so wise, so motivated and so prescient that we can trust them to effectively allocate the resources to find the tech fix to save the world? Who will run that job search?
And what if the Search Committee screws it up by hiring the wrong people to manage the resource allocation, and thus screwing up the allocation itself? How many do-overs do they get? What is the citizen’s remedy when, after giving up so much, the technology isn’t there because the regulators were too inept to make it happen?
Put differently, what assurances do we have that the completely unaccountable regulatory arm of our government will acquire that heretofore, not-immediately-apparent level of skill, sophistication, nuance and talent to let it successfully manage “a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change” in how we live our lives?
To summarize:the basic premise that with the individual citizen consenting to significant but bearable government-imposed diminutions in lifestyles, an effective, competent and centralized government will regulate and coordinate a sustainable technological drive that, in the near future, will liberate us from our enslavement to fossil fuels and prevent a global disaster, and when that happens, the rest of the world will voluntarily follow” just seems bit too wishful to me, by about 50 orders of magnitude.
When you look at the people who say they can make all of this happen—Sanders, Warren, et al—none of them have pioneered anything even remotely effective. They are bog-standard pols. Nothing in history, nothing in human experience or human nature suggests that any of these people have even the slightest ability to do what is said to be necessary to fix the GCC problem. Hell, they are falling all over themselves giving away money by the mega-billions on causes that have nothing to do with GCC. Sorry, I cannot take them seriously and no one has made the case that I should.
End of speech and thank you for reading this far, if you have.
BONUS!!!! MCKTEX RESPONDS TO BP AND GFTNC ON UNRELATED TOPICS!!!
From GFTNC:
I wonder if, having seen the horrors of a Trump presidency in (preliminary) action, McKinney is shoring up his existing dislike and disapproval of governmental regulation and interference in order to ensure that in the event of e.g. a Warren v Trump election he can justify to himself not voting for Warren, who after all has shown that she is quite prepared to regulate (gasp) to protect the public from the disproportionate influence and power of private actors whose priorities may not include the common good?
She is certainly willing to regulate. Yes, she is. That said, I have no internal need to justify to myself—or to anyone else—what I do, including who I vote for (or how I select my clothes or what books I like). I make my decisions and form my opinions based on my experience, my sense of history (my undergraduate degree) and my assessment, objective and subjective, of what I see, read and hear and how that jibes with my sense of what is and ought to be. I’m a lot less complicated than perhaps you imagine.
And gain, the ever-subtle BP:
But in return, I expect the next time he trots his ass in here to promote tax cuts for the wealthy that he bring CONCRETE AND SPECIFIC DETAILS.
I would be interested in seeing the last time I argued for tax cuts for the wealthy. I have, several times, made a detailed case for leaving tax rates—earned income and cap gains—at the pre-Trump levels while significantly lowering the corporate tax rates (and doing whatever can be done to mitigate/eliminate the effects of transfer pricing and offsetting profits earned in the US with “losses” incurred elsewhere). I think a max marginal rate of 40% up to 2-3M is about right. I would bring back income-averaging for people who have a one-off year. I’m open to a 50% max rate above 2-3M and I don’t lose sleep worrying about the few who consistently make bazillions. But, generally, those who make more should pay more. Also, generally, the assholes who take my money should spend it responsibly. Are we clear on my tax preferences?
McKTex on GCC and other stuff. As a preface, I’ve proofed this several times and am out of gas. If something seems particularly disturbing or stupid, be open to the notion that it’s a syntax or typo error. I’m happy to clarify points.
Ok, here goes:
As background, I’m going to begin with a quote from GFTNC and work from there:
I think you are (perhaps subconsciously) hoping we come up with things that are so out in left field (sic) that you can reject them out of hand, reassured that although conservatives have lost their way, the prescriptions of lefties and liberals are still unworthy of consideration, or perhaps (very unlikely, I know, but just as subconsciously) you are hoping for a justification or rationalisation to vote for the kind of people you would never in the (golden) past have considered. GFTNC 9/10 at 8:28
Let me counter with this: while motive is often important—given what I do for a living, how could I not believe this to be true?—but often enough, when someone says something or makes an inquiry, they can either be coming straight at you, meaning exactly what they say or, in this specific instance, intending to get substantive answers. Hopefully, I am going to try, time permitting, to follow up, but my intent isn’t to score points (usually), but to have a discussion and see how things fall out.
With that background, I’m going to lay out a series of quotes beginning with Cleek on 9/9 at 2:30 p.m.:
it’s going to take a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change in order to save us.
Then we have Russell also on 9/9 at 4:21 p.m.
Basically, when the potential damage for a scenario is catastrophic, even low percentage likelihoods deserve attention and action. We’re well into catastrophic potential damage, and well beyond low percentage likelihoods.
And then Nigel, 9/9 at 6:29 p.m.
It means completely replacing fossil fuels within three decades. For all energy usage.
And then GFTNC 9/9 6:49 p.m.:
we would be giving up: most of the meat we eat and replacing it with grains, legumes and vegetables which will be used to feed us more efficiently than they feed animals (and with a cocommitant reduction in methane emissions by no longer raising ruminant animals in such quantity); fossil-fuel guzzling technology like air conditioning except in life-threateningly hot environments (from which we will probably have to move) and cars, unless a way can be found to run them non pollutingly; much of the air travel we currently take for granted; uninsulated home environments; our current acceptance of completely unnecessary packaging and general wastage of resources. To name but a few.
The ever-subtle BobbyP, 9/9 at 8:33 p.m.
I would say most of the liberal-atti here are enamoured with technological changes, the promise of electric cars (but how will they be manufactured?), nuclear power, a bit of a nip and a tuck there….but no REAL PAIN.
This is entirely understandable.
But it is a recipe for disaster.
I would say most of the liberal-atti here are enamoured with technological changes, the promise of electric cars (but how will they be manufactured?), nuclear power, a bit of a nip and a tuck there….but no REAL PAIN.
This is entirely understandable.
But it is a recipe for disaster.
And back to Nigel, 9/9 at 11:36 p.m.
As far as cars are concerned, the rich folks will switch to electric first, and likely without much complaint. More difficult is rapidly getting rid of all the existing gas burners on the road quickly.
More difficult again is transition to zero carbon housing.
Stuff like replacing the electric grid is comparatively easy – although it will cost a great deal we pretty well know how to get there. In comparison, changing every home in the US is a gnarly problem.
With a mix of tax, regulation and government funding, it can and will happen, but it has to start with the next administration.
If the US does it, I think the world’s major economies will rapidly follow, if only for reasons of economics (though the will might be there already in China and Europe).
Without the US, it almost certainly won’t happen quickly enough.
Today, here and there, in small fits and starts, small steps have been and continue to be taken to address pollution, GCC, whatever you want to call it. Wind farms are popping up everywhere. I had an interesting case involving a huge solar farm out in a part of west Texas I never knew existed—some of the ugliest, most inhospitable land imaginable with several hundred acres of solar panels. So, there is movement. But no pain. In 1978 or thereabouts, President Carter called the need to end our energy dependence on foreign oil “the moral equivalent of war.” Not too long thereafter, some editorial comic showed a jammed freeway in both directions with the caption “President Carter’s declaration of the moral equivalent of war has fallen on the ears of 300,000,000 conscientious objectors.”
My wife and I drove from Houston to Spicewood TX Thursday evening. The highways were packed. Traffic starts in Houston around 6 in the morning and goes until well after 10 p.m. Many of our freeways are 5 lanes a side and they teem with cars. Our suburbs stretch to the horizon. Beef goes on sale every weekend. Outdoor grilling is almost a religion. I have cases all over the state. I fly 2-3 times a month, minimum, on business. It’s a rare flight that isn’t full. I take a bus occasionally to Austin (and then Uber). It’s always full. I spend lots of time in Dallas, San Antonio, Corpus Christi and Austin. It’s the same everywhere. This is a big state and people like to move around. I see this every day.
So let me just start with this observation: people will not agree to fundamentally roll back their lifestyles to the point necessary to achieve the elimination of fossil fuels in 30 years, become functional vegetarians and stay home. That will not happen voluntarily.
BP makes the point, assuming I am understanding him, that the Nigel/Cleek/Russell slice of the left believe the defeat-of-climate-change is achieved with technology, not an unduly heavy governmental hand. Again, mind-reading BP, he thinks the technological fix is wishful thinking. He thinks achieving the needed rectification of society world wide (which is what we are talking about, when you think it through) will require a ‘command economy’. That comes from the barrel of a gun. Good luck with that.
But let’s say that Nigel has it right and that “with a mix of tax, regulation and government funding, it can and will happen.” Does this remain true if we also forgive all student debt, make college free, increase SS payments $200/month, have “Medicare for All”, and so on? So, really, we can have it all this new stuff, plus keep SS and Medicare and all the other stuff and not have to make any sacrifices?
Is that even credible? Who would vote for someone who would make that claim with a straight face?
That’s Reality Check No. 1. I have a couple more.
Going back to “tax, regulation and government funding”, the first thing I’d like to see is the formula that keeps the private sector motivated to be creative in finding this tech fix while paying more than it already is in taxes. Please do not point to Europe. New business start-ups in the EU do not compare at all favorably to the US. We raise far more capital for new enterprises than does Europe. “Tax” is only different from “government funding” if “government funding” means “government borrowing” or “government printing money.” You can’t borrow what isn’t there to be lent. As we are going to find out someday, you can’t borrow forever, and just printing money doesn’t work.
So, it comes down to taxes and a sustainable private sector. Getting down to specifics: how much new money is going to have to be raised to achieve the technology necessary to ward off the effects of GCC? How do we raise that money on a sustainable basis, i.e. get the same amount, or more, every year ad infinitum? Because, for those who haven’t noticed, we are deficit spending our asses off right now and falling farther behind than ever before (yes, I know, tax cuts for the rich, whatever—if we reversed the tax cuts, we’d be marginally better off because we spend our asses off and no one is proposing any spending cuts except for national defense.)
Answer to the foregoing: no one has a clue. But, logically, if we can’t cover our current nut, how in the world are we going to sustainably find the money to save the world with the kind of change everyone here agrees is the minimum necessary to get things done?
Now let’s talk about “regulation.” Since we are saving the planet, if it’s necessary to do so, do we let the regulators determine what kind and how much food we get? How big our houses are? Whether we can have a house at all, or do we need to move into something like apartments? How much water can we consume in a week or a month? How often can we wash our clothes? Only electric cars? What if I can’t afford one? Will the government have enough money left over after finding the tech fix to subsidize my car—and cover my medical bills?
Since we are talking about a global catastrophe, why shouldn’t we be open to limiting family size, travel, work option, etc.? Is there anything that shouldn’t be on the table to stave off this impending disaster?
If we are serious, shouldn’t every service, every task, every activity of daily life be measured by its environmental impact and either encouraged, taxed or proscribed accordingly? What if the people push back? What if people refuse to go along with what they are told to do? Do we allow that?
A separate concern: as background, consider that people who lose their jobs if they make mistakes, people who lose their businesses if they screw up too badly, still manage to screw up. IOW, people with immediate, personal reasons to get it right and keep making a living still manage to not get it right.
Compare this to government employees who have no meaningful consequences for screwing up. Whatever else they might worry about at night, screwing up at the office and getting fired isn’t one of them. They are unaccountable. Yet, from this insulated population of our country, we are hoping to find those who are so wise, so motivated and so prescient that we can trust them to effectively allocate the resources to find the tech fix to save the world? Who will run that job search?
And what if the Search Committee screws it up by hiring the wrong people to manage the resource allocation, and thus screwing up the allocation itself? How many do-overs do they get? What is the citizen’s remedy when, after giving up so much, the technology isn’t there because the regulators were too inept to make it happen?
Put differently, what assurances do we have that the completely unaccountable regulatory arm of our government will acquire that heretofore, not-immediately-apparent level of skill, sophistication, nuance and talent to let it successfully manage “a truly, fundamentally, all-encompassing, systemic change” in how we live our lives?
To summarize:the basic premise that with the individual citizen consenting to significant but bearable government-imposed diminutions in lifestyles, an effective, competent and centralized government will regulate and coordinate a sustainable technological drive that, in the near future, will liberate us from our enslavement to fossil fuels and prevent a global disaster, and when that happens, the rest of the world will voluntarily follow” just seems bit too wishful to me, by about 50 orders of magnitude.
When you look at the people who say they can make all of this happen—Sanders, Warren, et al—none of them have pioneered anything even remotely effective. They are bog-standard pols. Nothing in history, nothing in human experience or human nature suggests that any of these people have even the slightest ability to do what is said to be necessary to fix the GCC problem. Hell, they are falling all over themselves giving away money by the mega-billions on causes that have nothing to do with GCC. Sorry, I cannot take them seriously and no one has made the case that I should.
End of speech and thank you for reading this far, if you have.
BONUS!!!! MCKTEX RESPONDS TO BP AND GFTNC ON UNRELATED TOPICS!!!
From GFTNC:
I wonder if, having seen the horrors of a Trump presidency in (preliminary) action, McKinney is shoring up his existing dislike and disapproval of governmental regulation and interference in order to ensure that in the event of e.g. a Warren v Trump election he can justify to himself not voting for Warren, who after all has shown that she is quite prepared to regulate (gasp) to protect the public from the disproportionate influence and power of private actors whose priorities may not include the common good?
She is certainly willing to regulate. Yes, she is. That said, I have no internal need to justify to myself—or to anyone else—what I do, including who I vote for (or how I select my clothes or what books I like). I make my decisions and form my opinions based on my experience, my sense of history (my undergraduate degree) and my assessment, objective and subjective, of what I see, read and hear and how that jibes with my sense of what is and ought to be. I’m a lot less complicated than perhaps you imagine.
And gain, the ever-subtle BP:
But in return, I expect the next time he trots his ass in here to promote tax cuts for the wealthy that he bring CONCRETE AND SPECIFIC DETAILS.
I would be interested in seeing the last time I argued for tax cuts for the wealthy. I have, several times, made a detailed case for leaving tax rates—earned income and cap gains—at the pre-Trump levels while significantly lowering the corporate tax rates (and doing whatever can be done to mitigate/eliminate the effects of transfer pricing and offsetting profits earned in the US with “losses” incurred elsewhere). I think a max marginal rate of 40% up to 2-3M is about right. I would bring back income-averaging for people who have a one-off year. I’m open to a 50% max rate above 2-3M and I don’t lose sleep worrying about the few who consistently make bazillions. But, generally, those who make more should pay more. Also, generally, the assholes who take my money should spend it responsibly. Are we clear on my tax preferences?
MkT—
I’m about to go out and probably wouldn’t have a lot to say, but two points—
1. You sound skeptical of GCC. Are you? And are you skeptical because of what it might mean if bobbyp is right? Read what might happen if the temperature goes up 3 or 4 Celsius. Think of this as Nazis having a jet fighter equipped Luftwaffe in 1942. What should people have been willing to sacrifice in that circumstance? The problem with GCC is it still doesn’t seem quite real to us. I read predictions that some parts of the tropics might become literally uninhabitable. People should be terrified, but not paralyzed by it.
2. The protests in France show what happens if you impose taxes and don’t do something for people hurt by them. So some version of a Green New Deal would probably be necessary.
Can we do it all? Maybe not. Then we are screwed.
MkT—
I’m about to go out and probably wouldn’t have a lot to say, but two points—
1. You sound skeptical of GCC. Are you? And are you skeptical because of what it might mean if bobbyp is right? Read what might happen if the temperature goes up 3 or 4 Celsius. Think of this as Nazis having a jet fighter equipped Luftwaffe in 1942. What should people have been willing to sacrifice in that circumstance? The problem with GCC is it still doesn’t seem quite real to us. I read predictions that some parts of the tropics might become literally uninhabitable. People should be terrified, but not paralyzed by it.
2. The protests in France show what happens if you impose taxes and don’t do something for people hurt by them. So some version of a Green New Deal would probably be necessary.
Can we do it all? Maybe not. Then we are screwed.
I’m about to go out
Me too. Have fun.
You sound skeptical of GCC. Are you? And are you skeptical because of what it might mean if bobbyp is right?
It gets warmer every year. I quit playing after nine holes today because I got overheated. It’s mid-September. Things are warming up.
But, if it’s face the Brave New World of climate disaster or live in a command economy, I’ll take my chances with Mother Nature.
I’m very certain that, given human nature and the nature of how governments run, a command economy would produce a much worse outcome than a market economy. Given my lack of confidence in sustained, collective action, we should focus on dealing with the effects, not the cause, of GCC.
Think of this as Nazis having a jet fighter equipped Luftwaffe in 1942.
An intriguing metaphor. Like when the US was sending the Brewster Buffalo up against the Japanese Zero? A death sentence for US Marines because we were too stupid and too trusting that war would never come and yet it did, but we weren’t ready for it. At least we aren’t that way now. No, we recognize the threat of the PRC and we are all moving in lock step to make sure they stay deterred. At least we are united in how we respond to that palpable threat.
OK, that was me being a prick. But, when I look into my crystal ball, I don’t see people migrating out of Africa and the mid-east in thirty years. I see war. In Asia. Lots of it. Maybe in five years, maybe ten. China has had imperial designs on its neighbors for centuries. When that happens, when half the world is in a continual state of war and revolt, GCC will be the last thing on peoples’ minds.
But, even if I’m wrong–that has happened–we lack the competence, particularly with a command economy, to do what people say needs to be done. Is the case being over-stated? I don’t know. It wouldn’t be the first time politically active people have exaggerated something for advantage. But, I just don’t know.
I’m about to go out
Me too. Have fun.
You sound skeptical of GCC. Are you? And are you skeptical because of what it might mean if bobbyp is right?
It gets warmer every year. I quit playing after nine holes today because I got overheated. It’s mid-September. Things are warming up.
But, if it’s face the Brave New World of climate disaster or live in a command economy, I’ll take my chances with Mother Nature.
I’m very certain that, given human nature and the nature of how governments run, a command economy would produce a much worse outcome than a market economy. Given my lack of confidence in sustained, collective action, we should focus on dealing with the effects, not the cause, of GCC.
Think of this as Nazis having a jet fighter equipped Luftwaffe in 1942.
An intriguing metaphor. Like when the US was sending the Brewster Buffalo up against the Japanese Zero? A death sentence for US Marines because we were too stupid and too trusting that war would never come and yet it did, but we weren’t ready for it. At least we aren’t that way now. No, we recognize the threat of the PRC and we are all moving in lock step to make sure they stay deterred. At least we are united in how we respond to that palpable threat.
OK, that was me being a prick. But, when I look into my crystal ball, I don’t see people migrating out of Africa and the mid-east in thirty years. I see war. In Asia. Lots of it. Maybe in five years, maybe ten. China has had imperial designs on its neighbors for centuries. When that happens, when half the world is in a continual state of war and revolt, GCC will be the last thing on peoples’ minds.
But, even if I’m wrong–that has happened–we lack the competence, particularly with a command economy, to do what people say needs to be done. Is the case being over-stated? I don’t know. It wouldn’t be the first time politically active people have exaggerated something for advantage. But, I just don’t know.
I have no internal need to justify to myself—or to anyone else—what I do, including who I vote for (or how I select my clothes or what books I like). I make my decisions and form my opinions based on my experience, my sense of history (my undergraduate degree) and my assessment, objective and subjective, of what I see, read and hear and how that jibes with my sense of what is and ought to be. I’m a lot less complicated than perhaps you imagine.
McKinney, thank you for your thoughtful reply, on the GCC issue in particular. Regarding what I have here excerpted, I think everyone is more complicated than they think, and I imagine you are no exception. I didn’t think you were defensively casting around for justification, but that your sense of what is and ought to be (like that of very many thoughtful people) might have become somewhat dislocated as a result of current political developments. The spectacle of conservatives in the Senate kowtowing to the appalling Trump has I think taken you somewhat aback, and given your opinion of him and them, it wouldn’t be the least surprising if you were questioning your previous policy of only voting for people you positively wanted in office, rather than tactically voting to get people out. But I take your word for it that you are not doing so, and although I myself cannot understand how any intelligent, honest person can decide this, that is obviously a failure of my imagination.
On the GCC question, by the way, my list of what I thought was probably necessary did seem somewhat more drastic than that of some of the Americans here; maybe the European consensus is a bit more extreme. Speaking personally, FWIW, I drive a petrol car (my late husband’s) at the moment, but drove a hybrid before and will probably revert to that or an electric one in due course. And although I love meat, and good beef in particular, my meat consumption has dropped rather dramatically in the last 10 years or so from no conscious decision, but a natural shift to more Mediterranean-style (particularly Italian) cooking, from the French stuff I started my adult life cooking. However, to my shame rather, I am still addicted to plastic-bottled sparkling water, of which I drink perhaps 2 litres a day (which is 4 bottles – I recycle them of course, but this is still pretty bad). If this was deemed so unacceptable that its sale was stopped, no doubt I would survive, and probably end up pleased about it. I do intend to give it up, but like St Augustine and chastity, not yet.
I have no internal need to justify to myself—or to anyone else—what I do, including who I vote for (or how I select my clothes or what books I like). I make my decisions and form my opinions based on my experience, my sense of history (my undergraduate degree) and my assessment, objective and subjective, of what I see, read and hear and how that jibes with my sense of what is and ought to be. I’m a lot less complicated than perhaps you imagine.
McKinney, thank you for your thoughtful reply, on the GCC issue in particular. Regarding what I have here excerpted, I think everyone is more complicated than they think, and I imagine you are no exception. I didn’t think you were defensively casting around for justification, but that your sense of what is and ought to be (like that of very many thoughtful people) might have become somewhat dislocated as a result of current political developments. The spectacle of conservatives in the Senate kowtowing to the appalling Trump has I think taken you somewhat aback, and given your opinion of him and them, it wouldn’t be the least surprising if you were questioning your previous policy of only voting for people you positively wanted in office, rather than tactically voting to get people out. But I take your word for it that you are not doing so, and although I myself cannot understand how any intelligent, honest person can decide this, that is obviously a failure of my imagination.
On the GCC question, by the way, my list of what I thought was probably necessary did seem somewhat more drastic than that of some of the Americans here; maybe the European consensus is a bit more extreme. Speaking personally, FWIW, I drive a petrol car (my late husband’s) at the moment, but drove a hybrid before and will probably revert to that or an electric one in due course. And although I love meat, and good beef in particular, my meat consumption has dropped rather dramatically in the last 10 years or so from no conscious decision, but a natural shift to more Mediterranean-style (particularly Italian) cooking, from the French stuff I started my adult life cooking. However, to my shame rather, I am still addicted to plastic-bottled sparkling water, of which I drink perhaps 2 litres a day (which is 4 bottles – I recycle them of course, but this is still pretty bad). If this was deemed so unacceptable that its sale was stopped, no doubt I would survive, and probably end up pleased about it. I do intend to give it up, but like St Augustine and chastity, not yet.
Back, it was a short informal meet the new rector party.
“Like when the US was sending the Brewster Buffalo up against the Japanese Zero? A death sentence for US Marines because we were too stupid and too trusting that war would never come and yet it did, but we weren’t ready for it.”
Don’t think that was the reason. Fighter plane technology seemed to advance pretty fast in that era. The Buffalo came out and was obsolete fairly quickly, then there was the Wildcat which with very good pilots could sort of hold its own with the Zero until the Hellcat and then the Corsair made the Zero obsolete.
If you are imagining a naval war with China, it isn’t so much that we aren’t spending boatloads of money. We are. But aircraft carriers might do about as well against hypersonic missiles as battleships did against torpedo and dive bombers. And anyway, a modern war between great powers might go nuclear, so it would probably be a good idea not to even think of it in WWII terms. But sure, if we have an all out war with China it might speed up the sixth mass extinction we might be causing.
Back, it was a short informal meet the new rector party.
“Like when the US was sending the Brewster Buffalo up against the Japanese Zero? A death sentence for US Marines because we were too stupid and too trusting that war would never come and yet it did, but we weren’t ready for it.”
Don’t think that was the reason. Fighter plane technology seemed to advance pretty fast in that era. The Buffalo came out and was obsolete fairly quickly, then there was the Wildcat which with very good pilots could sort of hold its own with the Zero until the Hellcat and then the Corsair made the Zero obsolete.
If you are imagining a naval war with China, it isn’t so much that we aren’t spending boatloads of money. We are. But aircraft carriers might do about as well against hypersonic missiles as battleships did against torpedo and dive bombers. And anyway, a modern war between great powers might go nuclear, so it would probably be a good idea not to even think of it in WWII terms. But sure, if we have an all out war with China it might speed up the sixth mass extinction we might be causing.
I’m very certain that, given human nature and the nature of how governments run, a command economy would produce a much worse outcome than a market economy.
In my youth, I read Heller’s Catch-22 several times, and loved every word.
We still won the war.
It strikes me that human societies of just about any economic arrangement have a tendency to consume their seed corn upon reaching high levels of (relative) prosperity. Now we have the entire world in a bind.
The bind starts with the carbon economy and the industrial revolution. Couple that with the pernicious (I kid) Enlightenment and its idea of human progress.
Now here we are.
The 3rd World shall not cease its efforts to attain the prosperity of The West. The West, having plundered that world and leaving it in the dust wealth-wise has no political will to share the spoils to slow down and/or halt rising global carbon emissions.
It’s all “you first” and thus we are on a glide path to disaster.
So sit in that Huston traffic and turn on some good music. Enjoy. Your grandchildren will not be so lucky.
I’m very certain that, given human nature and the nature of how governments run, a command economy would produce a much worse outcome than a market economy.
In my youth, I read Heller’s Catch-22 several times, and loved every word.
We still won the war.
It strikes me that human societies of just about any economic arrangement have a tendency to consume their seed corn upon reaching high levels of (relative) prosperity. Now we have the entire world in a bind.
The bind starts with the carbon economy and the industrial revolution. Couple that with the pernicious (I kid) Enlightenment and its idea of human progress.
Now here we are.
The 3rd World shall not cease its efforts to attain the prosperity of The West. The West, having plundered that world and leaving it in the dust wealth-wise has no political will to share the spoils to slow down and/or halt rising global carbon emissions.
It’s all “you first” and thus we are on a glide path to disaster.
So sit in that Huston traffic and turn on some good music. Enjoy. Your grandchildren will not be so lucky.
McTX: Getting down to specifics: how much new money is going to have to be raised to achieve the technology necessary to ward off the effects of GCC?
Exactly as much as money needs to raised as needs to be spent.
Note that neither a hapless government nor a multi-billion conglomerate nor a failing start-up can spend money without buying things or paying people.
So let’s be clear as well as specific. “Money” doesn’t disappear from The Economy when it gets collected in taxes. It re-enters The Economy when government spends it. Of course, the set of people paying the taxes, and the set of people receiving government orders or paychecks, are different (though overlapping) sets.
All of the above is true for “defense”, or “health care”, as well as “clean energy” or whatever we call efforts to mitigate the greenhouse problem.
I invite McKinney to re-frame this particular concern of his in terms of tangible “goods and services” rather than in terms of “money”.
–TP
McTX: Getting down to specifics: how much new money is going to have to be raised to achieve the technology necessary to ward off the effects of GCC?
Exactly as much as money needs to raised as needs to be spent.
Note that neither a hapless government nor a multi-billion conglomerate nor a failing start-up can spend money without buying things or paying people.
So let’s be clear as well as specific. “Money” doesn’t disappear from The Economy when it gets collected in taxes. It re-enters The Economy when government spends it. Of course, the set of people paying the taxes, and the set of people receiving government orders or paychecks, are different (though overlapping) sets.
All of the above is true for “defense”, or “health care”, as well as “clean energy” or whatever we call efforts to mitigate the greenhouse problem.
I invite McKinney to re-frame this particular concern of his in terms of tangible “goods and services” rather than in terms of “money”.
–TP
So let’s be clear as well as specific. “Money” doesn’t disappear from The Economy when it gets collected in taxes. It re-enters The Economy when government spends it. Of course, the set of people paying the taxes, and the set of people receiving government orders or paychecks, are different (though overlapping) sets.
This. It’s economic stimulus, a booming economy, and people thrive.
So let’s be clear as well as specific. “Money” doesn’t disappear from The Economy when it gets collected in taxes. It re-enters The Economy when government spends it. Of course, the set of people paying the taxes, and the set of people receiving government orders or paychecks, are different (though overlapping) sets.
This. It’s economic stimulus, a booming economy, and people thrive.
Going back to “tax, regulation and government funding”, the first thing I’d like to see is the formula that keeps the private sector motivated to be creative in finding this tech fix while paying more than it already is in taxes. Please do not point to Europe. New business start-ups in the EU do not compare at all favorably to the US. We raise far more capital for new enterprises than does Europe.
Allow me to observe that we can pay far more than we do in taxes without reaching European levels. And that we managed high levels of innovation back in the days when we did have notably higher tax rates. Especially higher corporate and capital gains rates. So there’s obviously room thete.
Let me also offer a small insight, as someone who has spent the last decade or two in a high-innovation area (computer software start-ups). There are two pieces here. First, there are the folks creating and developing the innovation. In my obsevation, their motivation is the technology itself. We have no objection to getting rich, but we’re too aware of the odds to put in all the work just for that. Hiking tax rates, even above European rates, won’t really impact that part.
Then there is the financial part. That is basically people who are already rich, and would like to be richer. Mostly, in my observation, they don’t need more money — except for scorekeeping with their peers. So as long as everybody’s paying the same taxes, no impact there. Also, at least at the moment, there’s rather a lot of money looking for an actual viable idea. Yeah, they want to be convinced that your technology will work, and that you’ve spared a bit of thought to how you will actually market it (starting with identifying a market). But if you’ve got that, money is definitely available.
It’s true that other places don’t do as well at innovation implementation as we do. (Although we have nothing resembling a monopoly.) But from what I’ve seen, that is far, far more cultural than financial. Specifically the part that let’s people change jobs a lot, and doesn’t trash your career prospects just because you spent a hand full of years on a start-up that didn’t take off. In short, it’s not that we have more upsides (higher profit potential). It’s that we have lower downsides — lower personal risk.
The “tax and regulation” part of “tax, regulation and government funding” influences where innovation happens. Or rather, which innovations move from available to spread across the landscape. Because the innovations will keep happening, at least in our culture.
Going back to “tax, regulation and government funding”, the first thing I’d like to see is the formula that keeps the private sector motivated to be creative in finding this tech fix while paying more than it already is in taxes. Please do not point to Europe. New business start-ups in the EU do not compare at all favorably to the US. We raise far more capital for new enterprises than does Europe.
Allow me to observe that we can pay far more than we do in taxes without reaching European levels. And that we managed high levels of innovation back in the days when we did have notably higher tax rates. Especially higher corporate and capital gains rates. So there’s obviously room thete.
Let me also offer a small insight, as someone who has spent the last decade or two in a high-innovation area (computer software start-ups). There are two pieces here. First, there are the folks creating and developing the innovation. In my obsevation, their motivation is the technology itself. We have no objection to getting rich, but we’re too aware of the odds to put in all the work just for that. Hiking tax rates, even above European rates, won’t really impact that part.
Then there is the financial part. That is basically people who are already rich, and would like to be richer. Mostly, in my observation, they don’t need more money — except for scorekeeping with their peers. So as long as everybody’s paying the same taxes, no impact there. Also, at least at the moment, there’s rather a lot of money looking for an actual viable idea. Yeah, they want to be convinced that your technology will work, and that you’ve spared a bit of thought to how you will actually market it (starting with identifying a market). But if you’ve got that, money is definitely available.
It’s true that other places don’t do as well at innovation implementation as we do. (Although we have nothing resembling a monopoly.) But from what I’ve seen, that is far, far more cultural than financial. Specifically the part that let’s people change jobs a lot, and doesn’t trash your career prospects just because you spent a hand full of years on a start-up that didn’t take off. In short, it’s not that we have more upsides (higher profit potential). It’s that we have lower downsides — lower personal risk.
The “tax and regulation” part of “tax, regulation and government funding” influences where innovation happens. Or rather, which innovations move from available to spread across the landscape. Because the innovations will keep happening, at least in our culture.
anyway, a modern war between great powers might go nuclear, so it would probably be a good idea not to even think of it in WWII terms.
North Korea might be different, but the people running the great powers aren’t suicidal. That’s why deterrence worked for half a century. So no, a modern war wouldn’t go nuclear. It would be economic/technological. We keep making more and more of our lives dependent on computers. Computers which mostly are connected to the Internet. (There are isolated bits, especially in the military and intelligence areas. But they aren’t what run our economy.)
And we even know it works. Because there have been what you can consider trial runs between small countries. Not to mention hacking, especially ransomware attacks. Nobody, at least no great power, has cut loose. But we all know the other guy could. It would be a disaster . . . but the world would be inhabitable afterwards.
anyway, a modern war between great powers might go nuclear, so it would probably be a good idea not to even think of it in WWII terms.
North Korea might be different, but the people running the great powers aren’t suicidal. That’s why deterrence worked for half a century. So no, a modern war wouldn’t go nuclear. It would be economic/technological. We keep making more and more of our lives dependent on computers. Computers which mostly are connected to the Internet. (There are isolated bits, especially in the military and intelligence areas. But they aren’t what run our economy.)
And we even know it works. Because there have been what you can consider trial runs between small countries. Not to mention hacking, especially ransomware attacks. Nobody, at least no great power, has cut loose. But we all know the other guy could. It would be a disaster . . . but the world would be inhabitable afterwards.
Regarding McT’s crystal ball, I hope he still has the receipt
https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/the-unlikely-new-gateway-for-african-migrants-to-the-americas-ecuador/95376
Regarding McT’s crystal ball, I hope he still has the receipt
https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/the-unlikely-new-gateway-for-african-migrants-to-the-americas-ecuador/95376
people will not agree to fundamentally roll back their lifestyles to the point necessary to achieve the elimination of fossil fuels in 30 years, become functional vegetarians and stay home.
Some will, and do, but overall this point holds. And if that doesn’t change, the effects of climate change will be worse.
We – ObWi commenters – will probably be dead before that really kicks in. Our grandkids and great grandkids will see it, and then their kids, grandkids, etc.
All of human history, civilization, culture, achievement, has taken place in a relatively stable and congenial climate. We have no experience of adapting to significant and relatively rapid change. I’m not sure we are equipped for it.
I really have no idea – none – how it will play out.
Contrary to comments above, I *am not* in the camp that thinks the solution to any of this is technological. I think the solution is cultural. People need to change their thinking and their behavior. If anything, the belief in a technological genie in a bottle is only going to get in the way.
People in the developed world – us – are the ones who benefit most from the things that cause this problem. It behooves us to make the changes needed to mitigate what is already on its way. We don’t actually need to live the way we do, in fact we might be happier in some ways if we didn’t.
A command economy is not needed. What is needed is a change in our sense of what we can’t live without, what we are entitled to, and what our responsibilities are to every other living being, present and future.
I wish it was as simple as a technological fix. That would probably be easier.
I don’t expect very much of what I’ve described as necessary to happen. My guess is that humans, and every other living thing, will spend the next few centuries adapting to climate change. Some will, some won’t.
people will not agree to fundamentally roll back their lifestyles to the point necessary to achieve the elimination of fossil fuels in 30 years, become functional vegetarians and stay home.
Some will, and do, but overall this point holds. And if that doesn’t change, the effects of climate change will be worse.
We – ObWi commenters – will probably be dead before that really kicks in. Our grandkids and great grandkids will see it, and then their kids, grandkids, etc.
All of human history, civilization, culture, achievement, has taken place in a relatively stable and congenial climate. We have no experience of adapting to significant and relatively rapid change. I’m not sure we are equipped for it.
I really have no idea – none – how it will play out.
Contrary to comments above, I *am not* in the camp that thinks the solution to any of this is technological. I think the solution is cultural. People need to change their thinking and their behavior. If anything, the belief in a technological genie in a bottle is only going to get in the way.
People in the developed world – us – are the ones who benefit most from the things that cause this problem. It behooves us to make the changes needed to mitigate what is already on its way. We don’t actually need to live the way we do, in fact we might be happier in some ways if we didn’t.
A command economy is not needed. What is needed is a change in our sense of what we can’t live without, what we are entitled to, and what our responsibilities are to every other living being, present and future.
I wish it was as simple as a technological fix. That would probably be easier.
I don’t expect very much of what I’ve described as necessary to happen. My guess is that humans, and every other living thing, will spend the next few centuries adapting to climate change. Some will, some won’t.
A command economy is not needed. What is needed is a change in our sense of what we can’t live without, what we are entitled to, and what our responsibilities are to every other living being, present and future.
I wish it was as simple as a technological fix. That would probably be easier.
I don’t think that we have the self-discipline to do this all by ourselves without government incentives and/or coercion. Many of us are making an effort now. I eat no red meat, drive a hybrid vehicle (and try to drive less), try to use less plastic (although it’s difficult to eliminate it). Air conditioning is impossible for me to eliminate, although I try to be as conservative as I can.
Part of the self-discipline problem is the sense that doing something painful is not really helping if other people are wildly excessive, which is where government comes in. Some degree of rationing would be useful.
Technology won’t solve everything, but it can solve some things. But government has to incentivize that too. Fossil fuels can be replaced by cleaner energy. I looked at putting solar panels on our house, but simply can’t afford it right now. I would do it if it were subsidized. If everyone had to do it (and got help), they would, and it would save a lot of fossil fuels.
I think we can do this, but it’s not going to each of us individually. There are too many who just don’t care at all, and will mindlessly, or purposely, blow everyone else’s efforts. Most of us care, but need some prodding, and a knowledge that what we’re doing is part of a concerted societal effort. Our current government’s commitment to working at cross purposes is despicable.
A command economy is not needed. What is needed is a change in our sense of what we can’t live without, what we are entitled to, and what our responsibilities are to every other living being, present and future.
I wish it was as simple as a technological fix. That would probably be easier.
I don’t think that we have the self-discipline to do this all by ourselves without government incentives and/or coercion. Many of us are making an effort now. I eat no red meat, drive a hybrid vehicle (and try to drive less), try to use less plastic (although it’s difficult to eliminate it). Air conditioning is impossible for me to eliminate, although I try to be as conservative as I can.
Part of the self-discipline problem is the sense that doing something painful is not really helping if other people are wildly excessive, which is where government comes in. Some degree of rationing would be useful.
Technology won’t solve everything, but it can solve some things. But government has to incentivize that too. Fossil fuels can be replaced by cleaner energy. I looked at putting solar panels on our house, but simply can’t afford it right now. I would do it if it were subsidized. If everyone had to do it (and got help), they would, and it would save a lot of fossil fuels.
I think we can do this, but it’s not going to each of us individually. There are too many who just don’t care at all, and will mindlessly, or purposely, blow everyone else’s efforts. Most of us care, but need some prodding, and a knowledge that what we’re doing is part of a concerted societal effort. Our current government’s commitment to working at cross purposes is despicable.
I’ve noticed something about the reaction to the New Yorker piece by Franzen last week which took the position that we won’t do enough to stop GCC so we might as well focus on adapting on a nongovernmental scale. In a way it is what MkT seems to be saying.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/11/20857956/jonathan-franzen-climate-change-new-yorker
Many lefties and climate scientists hated it. I fell in- between, but more towards the hate side. But in the past week three liberal people I know in real life liked it. I think it appeals to people’s sense that they are too sophisticated to be sucked into optimism. To some extent I agree.
The two fundamental problems with the piece were that it got the science wrong and it used pessimism as an excuse for surrender. On the first point, Franzen seems to have misunderstood the warning that we have to get things right in the next 10- 12 years or things get really bad with the idea that things couldn’t get worse. He thinks that we get it right or we are completely and irrevocably fracked. In reality we don’t know enough about tipping points, but 3 degrees is worse than 2 and 4 degrees is worse than 3. The problem is that political rhetoric doesn’t mesh well with scientific descriptions of varying levels of environmental catastrophes. Things can be bad or they can be worse and ultimately, things could be Permian mass extinction level if we just continue to be moronic.
And he uses this and his justified pessimism about human nature as an excuse to dismiss large scale government action. Here I agree with sapient, as do most people left of center. Franzen wants to surrender right at the point where people are starting to get really serious about the issue and where young people are becoming outraged at the old farts who have given them this problem when we should have been working on it for the past thirty years.
I’ve noticed something about the reaction to the New Yorker piece by Franzen last week which took the position that we won’t do enough to stop GCC so we might as well focus on adapting on a nongovernmental scale. In a way it is what MkT seems to be saying.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/11/20857956/jonathan-franzen-climate-change-new-yorker
Many lefties and climate scientists hated it. I fell in- between, but more towards the hate side. But in the past week three liberal people I know in real life liked it. I think it appeals to people’s sense that they are too sophisticated to be sucked into optimism. To some extent I agree.
The two fundamental problems with the piece were that it got the science wrong and it used pessimism as an excuse for surrender. On the first point, Franzen seems to have misunderstood the warning that we have to get things right in the next 10- 12 years or things get really bad with the idea that things couldn’t get worse. He thinks that we get it right or we are completely and irrevocably fracked. In reality we don’t know enough about tipping points, but 3 degrees is worse than 2 and 4 degrees is worse than 3. The problem is that political rhetoric doesn’t mesh well with scientific descriptions of varying levels of environmental catastrophes. Things can be bad or they can be worse and ultimately, things could be Permian mass extinction level if we just continue to be moronic.
And he uses this and his justified pessimism about human nature as an excuse to dismiss large scale government action. Here I agree with sapient, as do most people left of center. Franzen wants to surrender right at the point where people are starting to get really serious about the issue and where young people are becoming outraged at the old farts who have given them this problem when we should have been working on it for the past thirty years.
seem like there’s always a reason to do nothing.
first it was because the data was wrong. then it was because it was a natural cycle. then it was because other countries won’t do it too. now its because we’re too late.
how convenient.
seem like there’s always a reason to do nothing.
first it was because the data was wrong. then it was because it was a natural cycle. then it was because other countries won’t do it too. now its because we’re too late.
how convenient.
McTX: If we are serious, shouldn’t every service, every task, every activity of daily life be measured by its environmental impact and either encouraged, taxed or proscribed accordingly?
Yes. IF.
I highly recommend (to all my friends, not only McKinney) a book called Washington Goes to War by David Brinkley. If you want an entertaining account of the last time Americans and their government took something “seriously”, Brinkley’s reminiscences are hard to beat. By turns funny, poignant, cynical, and serious, Washington Goes to War provides all sorts of insights into how The Government works, and does not work, that are still relevant today.
A determined doubter of “central planning” and “big government” may offer several objections to comparing World War Two with the greenhouse problem. Let me pre-butt some of them:
The Axis was no more a mortal threat to America than CO2 is. Sure, The American Way of Life would have substantially changed if Hitler had consolidated his dominance of Europe, and Tojo his over the Pacific Rim, but it would not have been the end of the USA. Replace Hitler and Tojo with CO2 from fossil carbon, and I think the analogy works well.
The US government basically taking command of American industry, imposing rationing on the citizenry, and conscripting a generation of young men was certainly a major imposition on many Americans’ personal preferences, but it was only temporary, right? There was a clear goal; once met, The American Way of Life could return to “normal”, right? Well, “zero net CO2 emissions” is also a clear goal. And The American Way of Life returned to a somewhat different “normal” after WW2, by the way: consider income tax withholding, health insurance “benefits”, the GI Bill, and in many ways “civil rights”.
“Where is the money to come from for this extraordinary effort?” Americans could — and according to Brinkley, did — ask that ever-popular question. Answering it is above my pay grade for now. I simply note that a year or two before, the US was still climbing out of the Great Depression, when (most) Americans didn’t have enough “money”.
Anyway, to summarize: if we are “serious” about solving a problem then yes, everythiing has to be on the table.
Sorry for replying to McKinney in bits and pieces; I can only manage to steal an occasional half hour from my granny-nanny duties. More may follow.
–TP
McTX: If we are serious, shouldn’t every service, every task, every activity of daily life be measured by its environmental impact and either encouraged, taxed or proscribed accordingly?
Yes. IF.
I highly recommend (to all my friends, not only McKinney) a book called Washington Goes to War by David Brinkley. If you want an entertaining account of the last time Americans and their government took something “seriously”, Brinkley’s reminiscences are hard to beat. By turns funny, poignant, cynical, and serious, Washington Goes to War provides all sorts of insights into how The Government works, and does not work, that are still relevant today.
A determined doubter of “central planning” and “big government” may offer several objections to comparing World War Two with the greenhouse problem. Let me pre-butt some of them:
The Axis was no more a mortal threat to America than CO2 is. Sure, The American Way of Life would have substantially changed if Hitler had consolidated his dominance of Europe, and Tojo his over the Pacific Rim, but it would not have been the end of the USA. Replace Hitler and Tojo with CO2 from fossil carbon, and I think the analogy works well.
The US government basically taking command of American industry, imposing rationing on the citizenry, and conscripting a generation of young men was certainly a major imposition on many Americans’ personal preferences, but it was only temporary, right? There was a clear goal; once met, The American Way of Life could return to “normal”, right? Well, “zero net CO2 emissions” is also a clear goal. And The American Way of Life returned to a somewhat different “normal” after WW2, by the way: consider income tax withholding, health insurance “benefits”, the GI Bill, and in many ways “civil rights”.
“Where is the money to come from for this extraordinary effort?” Americans could — and according to Brinkley, did — ask that ever-popular question. Answering it is above my pay grade for now. I simply note that a year or two before, the US was still climbing out of the Great Depression, when (most) Americans didn’t have enough “money”.
Anyway, to summarize: if we are “serious” about solving a problem then yes, everythiing has to be on the table.
Sorry for replying to McKinney in bits and pieces; I can only manage to steal an occasional half hour from my granny-nanny duties. More may follow.
–TP
Donald, thanks for the Franzen cite.
In addition to the objections to the piece that you cite, I’ll add another: it’s not an either/or thing. Some degree of climate change is baked in at this point, and we should prepare for that. And, there is a lot we can still do to minimize the overall effects, long and short term, and we should be doing those.
Both. Do both. Lots of people and places are doing both.
I am probably toward the more pessimistic spectrum about this stuff, which I recognize as a kind of luxury – I’m not going to have to live with it, because I won’t be here that much longer. So I can kind of stroke my beard and lament the perversity of human nature.
I recognize that as a form of laziness, and try to counter it. But if I were 20, or 30, or 40, I think my freaking hair would be on fire about this stuff. It might be that people, say, 50 and up are going to have to be shoved out of the way before we make significant progress.
I actually think it is more than possible for Americans, specifically, to change the behaviors that are most responsible for GCC. We have made broad cultural, social, and infrastructure changes of similar scope in the past, see also Tony P’s cite. And not always just at wartime.
What stands in the way of that is positive political leadership – the ability to muster a sense of common purpose, the ability to articulate positive, actionable goals. The ability to build trust and consensus.
That is basically non-existent at the national level right now. And if I am honest, I place the origins of that at Reagan’s famous nine words, IMHO the most toxic bit of political doggerel uttered by an American POTUS in the last 100 years.
We used to be able to do stuff like this. We’ve lost that ability, somehow. The present circumstances demand that we recover it.
We don’t need a “command economy”, as McK envisions it. The things that rank and file Americans might be required to do – to “give up”, as McK styles it – are not actually that horrifying. We most likely do need to restructure a hell of a lot of infrastructure, but we actually do that in the normal course of business anyway.
What we need is leadership, and the ability as a nation to actually receive and respond to it. The first almost certainly exists – people with the intelligence and vision and personal charisma are out there, simply as a matter of statistical reality.
The second part is what is lacking, IMO.
We used to be able to do stuff like this. Nowadays, we don’t. We’re profoundly suspicious of each other and of our own institutions and leadership. When I say “leadership” I’m not even talking about individuals, I’m talking about the office – the function – of leadership. We don’t trust the entities that are responsible for setting national goals and priorities and directing public effort toward them.
So we’re failing at this.
That’s how it all looks to me. I’m looking forward to young people shoving me and lazy, pessimistic old farts like me the hell out of the way and turning this crap around so we can get things done again.
Donald, thanks for the Franzen cite.
In addition to the objections to the piece that you cite, I’ll add another: it’s not an either/or thing. Some degree of climate change is baked in at this point, and we should prepare for that. And, there is a lot we can still do to minimize the overall effects, long and short term, and we should be doing those.
Both. Do both. Lots of people and places are doing both.
I am probably toward the more pessimistic spectrum about this stuff, which I recognize as a kind of luxury – I’m not going to have to live with it, because I won’t be here that much longer. So I can kind of stroke my beard and lament the perversity of human nature.
I recognize that as a form of laziness, and try to counter it. But if I were 20, or 30, or 40, I think my freaking hair would be on fire about this stuff. It might be that people, say, 50 and up are going to have to be shoved out of the way before we make significant progress.
I actually think it is more than possible for Americans, specifically, to change the behaviors that are most responsible for GCC. We have made broad cultural, social, and infrastructure changes of similar scope in the past, see also Tony P’s cite. And not always just at wartime.
What stands in the way of that is positive political leadership – the ability to muster a sense of common purpose, the ability to articulate positive, actionable goals. The ability to build trust and consensus.
That is basically non-existent at the national level right now. And if I am honest, I place the origins of that at Reagan’s famous nine words, IMHO the most toxic bit of political doggerel uttered by an American POTUS in the last 100 years.
We used to be able to do stuff like this. We’ve lost that ability, somehow. The present circumstances demand that we recover it.
We don’t need a “command economy”, as McK envisions it. The things that rank and file Americans might be required to do – to “give up”, as McK styles it – are not actually that horrifying. We most likely do need to restructure a hell of a lot of infrastructure, but we actually do that in the normal course of business anyway.
What we need is leadership, and the ability as a nation to actually receive and respond to it. The first almost certainly exists – people with the intelligence and vision and personal charisma are out there, simply as a matter of statistical reality.
The second part is what is lacking, IMO.
We used to be able to do stuff like this. Nowadays, we don’t. We’re profoundly suspicious of each other and of our own institutions and leadership. When I say “leadership” I’m not even talking about individuals, I’m talking about the office – the function – of leadership. We don’t trust the entities that are responsible for setting national goals and priorities and directing public effort toward them.
So we’re failing at this.
That’s how it all looks to me. I’m looking forward to young people shoving me and lazy, pessimistic old farts like me the hell out of the way and turning this crap around so we can get things done again.
All of human history, civilization, culture, achievement, has taken place in a relatively stable and congenial climate. We have no experience of adapting to significant and relatively rapid change. I’m not sure we are equipped for it.
We don’t have experience with global change. On the other hand, we have a couple examples of regional change to give us a clue. The past few decades, the Sahel in Africa has been moving southward, and the Sahara itself right behind. The movement of populations as a result is quite apparent. As is what the reduced economic circumstances have contributed to the rise of violent Muslim fundamentalist groups there.
Or, for a 1st world example, look no further than the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. It wasn’t, strictly speaking, a result of a change in the climate. But the movement of people as a result was pretty noticable.
Note that, in both cases, there was somewhere relatively accessable to move TO. Somewhere with room to put you — even if lacking economic opportunities for you. (If you’re Bengladesh, or an island country, things are rather more difficult.) And it was still a mess.
All of human history, civilization, culture, achievement, has taken place in a relatively stable and congenial climate. We have no experience of adapting to significant and relatively rapid change. I’m not sure we are equipped for it.
We don’t have experience with global change. On the other hand, we have a couple examples of regional change to give us a clue. The past few decades, the Sahel in Africa has been moving southward, and the Sahara itself right behind. The movement of populations as a result is quite apparent. As is what the reduced economic circumstances have contributed to the rise of violent Muslim fundamentalist groups there.
Or, for a 1st world example, look no further than the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. It wasn’t, strictly speaking, a result of a change in the climate. But the movement of people as a result was pretty noticable.
Note that, in both cases, there was somewhere relatively accessable to move TO. Somewhere with room to put you — even if lacking economic opportunities for you. (If you’re Bengladesh, or an island country, things are rather more difficult.) And it was still a mess.
We don’t need a “command economy”, as McK envisions it. The things that rank and file Americans might be required to do – to “give up”, as McK styles it – are not actually that horrifying.
Come off it, russell! There are those for whom having to give up their muscle cars and monster trucks, even if for something equally large but electric, IS horrifying.
In significant part, I suspect, the big issue for many is the lack of noise. How can you flaunt your masculinity quietly??? Just not possible.
We don’t need a “command economy”, as McK envisions it. The things that rank and file Americans might be required to do – to “give up”, as McK styles it – are not actually that horrifying.
Come off it, russell! There are those for whom having to give up their muscle cars and monster trucks, even if for something equally large but electric, IS horrifying.
In significant part, I suspect, the big issue for many is the lack of noise. How can you flaunt your masculinity quietly??? Just not possible.
russell: All of human history, civilization, culture, achievement, has taken place in a relatively stable and congenial climate. We have no experience of adapting to significant and relatively rapid change. I’m not sure we are equipped for it.
wj: We don’t have experience with global change. On the other hand, we have a couple examples of regional change to give us a clue.
Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” lists a lot more than a “couple examples” of regional change that has toppled societies. I read it a long time ago, but I believe he also gives some examples of societies that have caught themselves in time and survived.
russell: All of human history, civilization, culture, achievement, has taken place in a relatively stable and congenial climate. We have no experience of adapting to significant and relatively rapid change. I’m not sure we are equipped for it.
wj: We don’t have experience with global change. On the other hand, we have a couple examples of regional change to give us a clue.
Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” lists a lot more than a “couple examples” of regional change that has toppled societies. I read it a long time ago, but I believe he also gives some examples of societies that have caught themselves in time and survived.
On the other hand, we have a couple examples of regional change to give us a clue.
Sadly, not encouraging.
How can you flaunt your masculinity quietly???
OK, bicycles with megaphones. 🙂
On the other hand, we have a couple examples of regional change to give us a clue.
Sadly, not encouraging.
How can you flaunt your masculinity quietly???
OK, bicycles with megaphones. 🙂
OK, bicycles with megaphones. 🙂
In my last few years of hanging out in the Boston area, cyclists supplanted “Boston drivers” as the number one assholes on the road. Sanctimonious to the hilt, demanding concessions while not obeying traffic laws, treating both drivers and pedestrians like lesser beings….
“Some of my best friends” (as the saying goes) rode bikes to work… but they acknowledged the phenomenon I’m talking about. When the Longfellow Bridge re-opened to two-way traffic after three years of construction, the cyclists were bitching because even though they had a much wider lane than before, and IIRC guard barriers between the bikes and the cars, they thought there wasn’t enough room for the Tour de France wannabes to pass the regular mortals safely.
And now that you mention it, every cyclist I ever saw acting like an asshole was a guy.
So this is just to attest that it doesn’t require a megaphone to act like a macho idiot on a bike. 😉
OK, bicycles with megaphones. 🙂
In my last few years of hanging out in the Boston area, cyclists supplanted “Boston drivers” as the number one assholes on the road. Sanctimonious to the hilt, demanding concessions while not obeying traffic laws, treating both drivers and pedestrians like lesser beings….
“Some of my best friends” (as the saying goes) rode bikes to work… but they acknowledged the phenomenon I’m talking about. When the Longfellow Bridge re-opened to two-way traffic after three years of construction, the cyclists were bitching because even though they had a much wider lane than before, and IIRC guard barriers between the bikes and the cars, they thought there wasn’t enough room for the Tour de France wannabes to pass the regular mortals safely.
And now that you mention it, every cyclist I ever saw acting like an asshole was a guy.
So this is just to attest that it doesn’t require a megaphone to act like a macho idiot on a bike. 😉
Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” lists a lot more than a “couple examples” of regional change that has toppled societies.
I was going for two that I figured everybody here would be acquainted with. Without having to go out and learn something new. We definitely would need to study Diamond’s examples and more when working out how to deal with the climate changes that are no longer avoidable. But to dramatize what kinds of impacts we are talking about, a couple well-known examples are, in my experience, useful.
Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” lists a lot more than a “couple examples” of regional change that has toppled societies.
I was going for two that I figured everybody here would be acquainted with. Without having to go out and learn something new. We definitely would need to study Diamond’s examples and more when working out how to deal with the climate changes that are no longer avoidable. But to dramatize what kinds of impacts we are talking about, a couple well-known examples are, in my experience, useful.
Sometimes I think we should just embrace the outsourcing model.
Hire the Dutch to plan out and manage measures to address sea level rise. They have the know how.
Hire the French to stand up and operate a system of nuclear power generation plants. They’re really good at it. Probably take, what, ten to twenty years to roll out, and would give us fifty to seventy years to get renewables up to scale.
We could give France a side deal for intercity rail, too. And either France or the Netherlands would be good go-to sources for sustainable agriculture.
Hire the best and get out of their way. It’s a classic management strategy. Tell me why it’s a bad idea.
Sometimes I think we should just embrace the outsourcing model.
Hire the Dutch to plan out and manage measures to address sea level rise. They have the know how.
Hire the French to stand up and operate a system of nuclear power generation plants. They’re really good at it. Probably take, what, ten to twenty years to roll out, and would give us fifty to seventy years to get renewables up to scale.
We could give France a side deal for intercity rail, too. And either France or the Netherlands would be good go-to sources for sustainable agriculture.
Hire the best and get out of their way. It’s a classic management strategy. Tell me why it’s a bad idea.
Hire the best and get out of their way. It’s a classic management strategy. Tell me why it’s a bad idea.
russell, what is the matter with you? They’re furriners, thus by definition they can’t be better at anything than MAGA-landers.
Hire the best and get out of their way. It’s a classic management strategy. Tell me why it’s a bad idea.
russell, what is the matter with you? They’re furriners, thus by definition they can’t be better at anything than MAGA-landers.
Oh, I forgot, they’re also SOCIALISTS. QED.
Oh, I forgot, they’re also SOCIALISTS. QED.
Plus, if we were smart enough to recognize their expertise, we might actually be smart enough to find and encourage our own home-grown talent to do the job. It’s not like we’re not a country of 330,000,000 million people, some of us/them highly educated in some of the world’s most respected institutions of higher learning. (Cough cough.)
IOW, I don’t think it’s technical expertise we’re lacking, although we can always learn from people who’ve accomplished difficult things. It’s political will we’re lacking….
But you knew that, so I’ll pipe down now.
Plus, if we were smart enough to recognize their expertise, we might actually be smart enough to find and encourage our own home-grown talent to do the job. It’s not like we’re not a country of 330,000,000 million people, some of us/them highly educated in some of the world’s most respected institutions of higher learning. (Cough cough.)
IOW, I don’t think it’s technical expertise we’re lacking, although we can always learn from people who’ve accomplished difficult things. It’s political will we’re lacking….
But you knew that, so I’ll pipe down now.
The French are not ‘really good at it’, as anyone who has followed their recent attempts to construct new nuclear power stations will be aware.
And the rate of innovation in nuclear is glacial compared to renewables, with possibly promising stuff (thorium; molten salt reactors) sitting on the drawing board for years.
Nuclear might be part of the solution, but it will be a relatively minor part.
Renewables are the only realistic alternative for completely re-engineering our power systems.
As for ‘hire the best and get out of their way’, that is entirely sensible. And to some extent the market is already seeing to that – utility scale solar/wind/storage auctions are frequent occurrences; Tesla and the Chinese CATL are claiming their newest batteries will last for up to 1m kilometres of driving, etc.
The only missing ingredient is determined political leadership. It won’t be a ‘command economy’, but it will mean some very strong nudges, together with significant government spending.
The French are not ‘really good at it’, as anyone who has followed their recent attempts to construct new nuclear power stations will be aware.
And the rate of innovation in nuclear is glacial compared to renewables, with possibly promising stuff (thorium; molten salt reactors) sitting on the drawing board for years.
Nuclear might be part of the solution, but it will be a relatively minor part.
Renewables are the only realistic alternative for completely re-engineering our power systems.
As for ‘hire the best and get out of their way’, that is entirely sensible. And to some extent the market is already seeing to that – utility scale solar/wind/storage auctions are frequent occurrences; Tesla and the Chinese CATL are claiming their newest batteries will last for up to 1m kilometres of driving, etc.
The only missing ingredient is determined political leadership. It won’t be a ‘command economy’, but it will mean some very strong nudges, together with significant government spending.
It won’t be a ‘command economy’, but it will mean some very strong nudges, together with significant government spending.
Yes, government spending that, ideally, will rev up new businesses. There’s absolutely nothing about this that we shouldn’t be doing right now.
It won’t be a ‘command economy’, but it will mean some very strong nudges, together with significant government spending.
Yes, government spending that, ideally, will rev up new businesses. There’s absolutely nothing about this that we shouldn’t be doing right now.
As for ‘hire the best and get out of their way’, that is entirely sensible. And to some extent the market is already seeing to that – utility scale solar/wind/storage auctions are frequent occurrences
You will notice, however, that we are only doing that in areas where we don’t have already-entrenched providers. Thus no combination of regulatory capture and planning permissions mazes to keep newcomers at bay.
Pity all the “get government out of the way” types appear to be one the other side for this one. It’s enough to make someone of a cynical turn of mind harbor the suspicion that their pronouncements on the subject might be less than totally sincere….
As for ‘hire the best and get out of their way’, that is entirely sensible. And to some extent the market is already seeing to that – utility scale solar/wind/storage auctions are frequent occurrences
You will notice, however, that we are only doing that in areas where we don’t have already-entrenched providers. Thus no combination of regulatory capture and planning permissions mazes to keep newcomers at bay.
Pity all the “get government out of the way” types appear to be one the other side for this one. It’s enough to make someone of a cynical turn of mind harbor the suspicion that their pronouncements on the subject might be less than totally sincere….
Little bits of it are being done, in various parts of the world; it just needs SCALE.
Little bits of it are being done, in various parts of the world; it just needs SCALE.
McKTex: Wind farms are popping up everywhere.
Which will mean diminishing returns. The larger the wind farm, lower the production of each turbine since they cannibalize each other. Also lower return on resources invested in secondary locations after the best locations are developed.
McKTex: So let me just start with this observation: people will not agree to fundamentally roll back their lifestyles to the point necessary to achieve the elimination of fossil fuels in 30 years, become functional vegetarians and stay home. That will not happen voluntarily.
This also raises the question of “How many millions of people should be told to go away somewhere and die.” There’s no foreseeable way to reduce energy from fossil fuels to zero in 30 years without a great many people dying from heat, cold, starvation, disease and all of the other human maladies held at bay by cheap energy.
McKTex: It gets warmer every year. I quit playing after nine holes today because I got overheated. It’s mid-September. Things are warming up.
In the Dallas area, the temperatures have been hovering around average all Summer with somewhat below average overall. Only in the last week or so have temperatures been well above average with heights approaching and hitting record highs.
McKTex: But, if it’s face the Brave New World of climate disaster or live in a command economy, I’ll take my chances with Mother Nature.
Me too. Our best bet may be to try to outrun adverse climate changes by growing the world economy as quickly possible. So people will have greater abilities to adapt to adverse local changes. And not all changes will be adverse. Food crops are moving into areas where they were previously not viable.
McKTex: Given my lack of confidence in sustained, collective action, we should focus on dealing with the effects, not the cause, of GCC.
That appears to be Bjorn Lomborg‘s approach.
wj: And that we managed high levels of innovation back in the days when we did have notably higher tax rates.
And there were so many loopholes, people openly bragged about the ones they were using. Very few people actually paid higher rates.
TP: I simply note that a year or two before, the US was still climbing out of the Great Depression, when (most) Americans didn’t have enough “money”.
Individual Americans didn’t have the printing press the government had. The government printed a lot of money and then outbid everyone else for the resources it wanted for the war effort.
russell: We used to be able to do stuff like this. Nowadays, we don’t.
Like high-speed rail in China? For one, China has thousands of square miles of population density that only occurs in a few disparate locations in the US. Plus the Chinese don’t have to deal with inconveniences like property rights, human rights, environmental lawsuits, NIMBY lawsuits, labor strikes, on and on. California has spent billions of dollars on high-speed rail, in name only, that currently begins and ends in nowhere. And it may never be operational. If the federal government started to build the Interstate Highway System today, it would be tied up in the courts for decades.
McKTex: Wind farms are popping up everywhere.
Which will mean diminishing returns. The larger the wind farm, lower the production of each turbine since they cannibalize each other. Also lower return on resources invested in secondary locations after the best locations are developed.
McKTex: So let me just start with this observation: people will not agree to fundamentally roll back their lifestyles to the point necessary to achieve the elimination of fossil fuels in 30 years, become functional vegetarians and stay home. That will not happen voluntarily.
This also raises the question of “How many millions of people should be told to go away somewhere and die.” There’s no foreseeable way to reduce energy from fossil fuels to zero in 30 years without a great many people dying from heat, cold, starvation, disease and all of the other human maladies held at bay by cheap energy.
McKTex: It gets warmer every year. I quit playing after nine holes today because I got overheated. It’s mid-September. Things are warming up.
In the Dallas area, the temperatures have been hovering around average all Summer with somewhat below average overall. Only in the last week or so have temperatures been well above average with heights approaching and hitting record highs.
McKTex: But, if it’s face the Brave New World of climate disaster or live in a command economy, I’ll take my chances with Mother Nature.
Me too. Our best bet may be to try to outrun adverse climate changes by growing the world economy as quickly possible. So people will have greater abilities to adapt to adverse local changes. And not all changes will be adverse. Food crops are moving into areas where they were previously not viable.
McKTex: Given my lack of confidence in sustained, collective action, we should focus on dealing with the effects, not the cause, of GCC.
That appears to be Bjorn Lomborg‘s approach.
wj: And that we managed high levels of innovation back in the days when we did have notably higher tax rates.
And there were so many loopholes, people openly bragged about the ones they were using. Very few people actually paid higher rates.
TP: I simply note that a year or two before, the US was still climbing out of the Great Depression, when (most) Americans didn’t have enough “money”.
Individual Americans didn’t have the printing press the government had. The government printed a lot of money and then outbid everyone else for the resources it wanted for the war effort.
russell: We used to be able to do stuff like this. Nowadays, we don’t.
Like high-speed rail in China? For one, China has thousands of square miles of population density that only occurs in a few disparate locations in the US. Plus the Chinese don’t have to deal with inconveniences like property rights, human rights, environmental lawsuits, NIMBY lawsuits, labor strikes, on and on. California has spent billions of dollars on high-speed rail, in name only, that currently begins and ends in nowhere. And it may never be operational. If the federal government started to build the Interstate Highway System today, it would be tied up in the courts for decades.
And there were so many loopholes, people openly bragged about the ones they were using. Very few people actually paid higher rates.
What do you think happens today? All those tax advisors are getting paid for something. In reality, there are still lots of loopholes — even if you or I don’t make enough to make exploiting most them worth the effort.
It’s just that, for those who do, the baseline is lots lower. Heck, even I can play games to take my top rate down about by about a third, without much effort. Convince me that, with today’s lower rates, the rich aren’t exploiting as many loopholes as ever, and to similar effect. Go ahead . . . or drop the line about “nobody paid those high rates.”
And there were so many loopholes, people openly bragged about the ones they were using. Very few people actually paid higher rates.
What do you think happens today? All those tax advisors are getting paid for something. In reality, there are still lots of loopholes — even if you or I don’t make enough to make exploiting most them worth the effort.
It’s just that, for those who do, the baseline is lots lower. Heck, even I can play games to take my top rate down about by about a third, without much effort. Convince me that, with today’s lower rates, the rich aren’t exploiting as many loopholes as ever, and to similar effect. Go ahead . . . or drop the line about “nobody paid those high rates.”
When the rate was 70%, millionaires were, on average, paying about 41%. High rates don’t necessarily bring in all that much additional revenue.
When the rate was 70%, millionaires were, on average, paying about 41%. High rates don’t necessarily bring in all that much additional revenue.
There’s no foreseeable way to reduce energy from fossil fuels to zero in 30 years without a great many people dying from heat, cold, starvation, disease and all of the other human maladies held at bay by cheap energy.
This is simply wrong.
You may challenge the cost or the technical detail (though if your comments on wind power are any guide, you need to do some research), but there are several major studies which set out roadmaps for exactly that.
And if you want to grow the world economy as fast as possible, then a big push for renewables is a very good way to start.
There’s no foreseeable way to reduce energy from fossil fuels to zero in 30 years without a great many people dying from heat, cold, starvation, disease and all of the other human maladies held at bay by cheap energy.
This is simply wrong.
You may challenge the cost or the technical detail (though if your comments on wind power are any guide, you need to do some research), but there are several major studies which set out roadmaps for exactly that.
And if you want to grow the world economy as fast as possible, then a big push for renewables is a very good way to start.
When the rate was 70%, millionaires were, on average, paying about 41%.
And now, with a top rate of 37%, what do you think the average millionaire pays? Well the 400 individuals with the highest reported income run about 20%, so you can bet that the average millionaire isn’t paying a whole lot more. (If you only make a couple of hundred thousand, of course, it may be a different story.)
When the rate was 70%, millionaires were, on average, paying about 41%.
And now, with a top rate of 37%, what do you think the average millionaire pays? Well the 400 individuals with the highest reported income run about 20%, so you can bet that the average millionaire isn’t paying a whole lot more. (If you only make a couple of hundred thousand, of course, it may be a different story.)
Depending on how you squint at the numbers, the cost of renewable energy may be close to or better than the cost of other sources. But what do you think will happen to those costs if an effort is made to scale up renewable capacity to anywhere near to current energy usage? There will be a bidding war for resources and costs will skyrocket.
Depending on how you squint at the numbers, the cost of renewable energy may be close to or better than the cost of other sources. But what do you think will happen to those costs if an effort is made to scale up renewable capacity to anywhere near to current energy usage? There will be a bidding war for resources and costs will skyrocket.
Funny how our conservative/glibertarian commetariat have NEVER said an ‘effing word about our outrageous “picking winners and losers” “command economy” “socialist” “where can we ever find the money?” “how can we possibly pay for this?” outright subsidies and/or costs of market failure for fossil fuels?
But wind turbines kill birds. As if you really cared.
Funny how our conservative/glibertarian commetariat have NEVER said an ‘effing word about our outrageous “picking winners and losers” “command economy” “socialist” “where can we ever find the money?” “how can we possibly pay for this?” outright subsidies and/or costs of market failure for fossil fuels?
But wind turbines kill birds. As if you really cared.
Subsidies defined so broadly as to be almost meaningless. This “glibertarian” is against subsidies no matter who gets them.
Subsidies defined so broadly as to be almost meaningless. This “glibertarian” is against subsidies no matter who gets them.
When the rate was 70%, millionaires were, on average, paying about 41%. High rates don’t necessarily bring in all that much additional revenue.
That’s not the point.
Addendum: If current gazillionaires are only paying 20% effective gross income rates and we raise the marginal rate to, say, 98% on “income” over $10m and only get an effective collection rate od 45% on that marginal income then …..what, charles, is your point?
None, right? Thanks.
When the rate was 70%, millionaires were, on average, paying about 41%. High rates don’t necessarily bring in all that much additional revenue.
That’s not the point.
Addendum: If current gazillionaires are only paying 20% effective gross income rates and we raise the marginal rate to, say, 98% on “income” over $10m and only get an effective collection rate od 45% on that marginal income then …..what, charles, is your point?
None, right? Thanks.
CharlesWT: The government printed a lot of money and then outbid everyone else for the resources it wanted for the war effort.
The successful war effort. Keep that in mind.
And why couldn’t The Government have done the same thing to cure the Great Depression by mobilizing all sorts of idle “resources”? Because monetarism and goldbuggery, not to mention “conservatism”, were widespread mental disorders back then just like they are now.
“Money” is a renewable resource, Charles. Unlike fossil fuels. Unlike the atmosphere’s dumping capacity for CO2 from fossil fuels.
–TP
CharlesWT: The government printed a lot of money and then outbid everyone else for the resources it wanted for the war effort.
The successful war effort. Keep that in mind.
And why couldn’t The Government have done the same thing to cure the Great Depression by mobilizing all sorts of idle “resources”? Because monetarism and goldbuggery, not to mention “conservatism”, were widespread mental disorders back then just like they are now.
“Money” is a renewable resource, Charles. Unlike fossil fuels. Unlike the atmosphere’s dumping capacity for CO2 from fossil fuels.
–TP
Folks will, I hope, forgive me, but the “lifestyle” argument and the “I’ll take my chances” arguments are just bone-headed.
Unless I’m mistaken about folks’ ages, neither McK nor CharlesWT – nor most folks reading this – will have to “take your chances”. You’ll be dead before “your chances” will be an issue.
People who live long enough, or are not yet born, will have their “lifestyle” choices made for them.
This isn’t busybody nanny state crap, it’s physics. It’s not a lifestyle choice. There is no “virtue” to signal about. There is no “opt out” scenario.
More greenhouse gases means more greenhouse effect. More greenhouse effect means more energy into the system. More energy into the system means things change as the system seeks equilibrium under the new conditions.
The physical systems that manifest as climate and weather don’t care about your lifestyle preferences. They don’t care about where you feel like placing your bets.
*It’s not about you, or what you want*.
We all live subject to the physical laws that run the planet. We all live under the iron law of cause and effect. Those laws don’t care about your preferences, your comfort, or your survival. At all.
All we are doing by dicking around with this stuff is increasing the risk level for the next couple hundred generations.
That should motivate us to do something.
It’s true, some places will benefit. And people, in their millions, will try to go there. How is that gonna work? Are there people in those places now? Will they welcome newcomers with open arms?
We don’t have a good history of adapting gracefully to broad, relatively rapid changes in environmental conditions.
Folks will, I hope, forgive me, but the “lifestyle” argument and the “I’ll take my chances” arguments are just bone-headed.
Unless I’m mistaken about folks’ ages, neither McK nor CharlesWT – nor most folks reading this – will have to “take your chances”. You’ll be dead before “your chances” will be an issue.
People who live long enough, or are not yet born, will have their “lifestyle” choices made for them.
This isn’t busybody nanny state crap, it’s physics. It’s not a lifestyle choice. There is no “virtue” to signal about. There is no “opt out” scenario.
More greenhouse gases means more greenhouse effect. More greenhouse effect means more energy into the system. More energy into the system means things change as the system seeks equilibrium under the new conditions.
The physical systems that manifest as climate and weather don’t care about your lifestyle preferences. They don’t care about where you feel like placing your bets.
*It’s not about you, or what you want*.
We all live subject to the physical laws that run the planet. We all live under the iron law of cause and effect. Those laws don’t care about your preferences, your comfort, or your survival. At all.
All we are doing by dicking around with this stuff is increasing the risk level for the next couple hundred generations.
That should motivate us to do something.
It’s true, some places will benefit. And people, in their millions, will try to go there. How is that gonna work? Are there people in those places now? Will they welcome newcomers with open arms?
We don’t have a good history of adapting gracefully to broad, relatively rapid changes in environmental conditions.
Subsidies defined so broadly as to be almost meaningless. This “glibertarian” is against subsidies no matter who gets them.
Which is to entirely miss the point that the above was just another illustration of how much money we spend maintaining the planetary fossil fuel infrastructure.
Let’s repurpose those broadly defined subsidies towards renewables.
It will mean spending a great deal more money than we spend now, but the difference between mobilising the economy for war, and now, is that we will be investing in productive assets, from which entirely new industries will arise.
And we are talking about perhaps 3-5% of GDP.
At the end of WW2, that was 40%.
Subsidies defined so broadly as to be almost meaningless. This “glibertarian” is against subsidies no matter who gets them.
Which is to entirely miss the point that the above was just another illustration of how much money we spend maintaining the planetary fossil fuel infrastructure.
Let’s repurpose those broadly defined subsidies towards renewables.
It will mean spending a great deal more money than we spend now, but the difference between mobilising the economy for war, and now, is that we will be investing in productive assets, from which entirely new industries will arise.
And we are talking about perhaps 3-5% of GDP.
At the end of WW2, that was 40%.
The scientists are now publicly scared:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49689018
The scientists are now publicly scared:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49689018
Are there people in those places now? Will they welcome newcomers with open arms?
Consider how the US and Europe are reacting even now to immigrants. Especially impoverished refugee type immigrants. Makes the safe bet obvious.
So either you are in one of the places where conditions get worse, which means you’re hurting. And desperate to get out.
Or you’re in one of the places which get better, or at least stay roughly the same. In which case, everybody in those other places wil be trying to come there. Many of them disinclined to take No for an answer, and willing to get emphatic to make that point.
Are there people in those places now? Will they welcome newcomers with open arms?
Consider how the US and Europe are reacting even now to immigrants. Especially impoverished refugee type immigrants. Makes the safe bet obvious.
So either you are in one of the places where conditions get worse, which means you’re hurting. And desperate to get out.
Or you’re in one of the places which get better, or at least stay roughly the same. In which case, everybody in those other places wil be trying to come there. Many of them disinclined to take No for an answer, and willing to get emphatic to make that point.
wj, but there are (elected) politicians already in place that by now openly advocate for ‘drastic’ measures to deter those migrants.
To take just one example: Berlusconi in Italy publicly asked whether one should not just machine gun some refugee boats in the Mediterranean in front of TV cameras and have the images broadcast widely, so others may think twice trying to come to Europe by boat.
Despite some outrage it did not cost him anything politically. And now we have a guy like Salvini (much worse than Berlusconi) who would become head of government, if there were elections now (any may still become once the ragtag coalition between 5 Stars and the left disintegrates.
Forces with similar ideas get stronger in many European countries.
To be cynical, there is quite an opportunity in the US for a public private partnership on murdering unwanted refugees at the Southern border. It will not fail for scarcity of volunteers. At the moment bleeding heart libs may make a fuss about a few mistreated children in government custody but when it becomes starving hordes (cf. how successful the scare about the ‘caravan’ was for the Right), ‘the public’ will learn to look elsewhere when the ‘dirty* but necessary’ work gets done.
*I wanted to type ‘unpleasant’ first but for many of the volunteers it would unfortunately be the opposite
wj, but there are (elected) politicians already in place that by now openly advocate for ‘drastic’ measures to deter those migrants.
To take just one example: Berlusconi in Italy publicly asked whether one should not just machine gun some refugee boats in the Mediterranean in front of TV cameras and have the images broadcast widely, so others may think twice trying to come to Europe by boat.
Despite some outrage it did not cost him anything politically. And now we have a guy like Salvini (much worse than Berlusconi) who would become head of government, if there were elections now (any may still become once the ragtag coalition between 5 Stars and the left disintegrates.
Forces with similar ideas get stronger in many European countries.
To be cynical, there is quite an opportunity in the US for a public private partnership on murdering unwanted refugees at the Southern border. It will not fail for scarcity of volunteers. At the moment bleeding heart libs may make a fuss about a few mistreated children in government custody but when it becomes starving hordes (cf. how successful the scare about the ‘caravan’ was for the Right), ‘the public’ will learn to look elsewhere when the ‘dirty* but necessary’ work gets done.
*I wanted to type ‘unpleasant’ first but for many of the volunteers it would unfortunately be the opposite
Food crops are moving into areas where they were previously not viable.
and other food crops are dying. and pests and damaging species are also moving.
thing about plants: heat isn’t the sole determiner of their growth cycle – sunlight duration plays a role, too. and that isn’t changing. and rainfall will also change – some places will get more and some will get less, but some plants are pretty picky about how much they get.
so there are going to be a lot of plants and animals which simply have no place to live anymore, and some are going to find new places to live. and that’s all you can say about it. net/net, it will be different. we don’t know how yet.
can we adapt? maybe.
will it lead to loss of species? most certainly.
nobody cares.
because: glib.
Food crops are moving into areas where they were previously not viable.
and other food crops are dying. and pests and damaging species are also moving.
thing about plants: heat isn’t the sole determiner of their growth cycle – sunlight duration plays a role, too. and that isn’t changing. and rainfall will also change – some places will get more and some will get less, but some plants are pretty picky about how much they get.
so there are going to be a lot of plants and animals which simply have no place to live anymore, and some are going to find new places to live. and that’s all you can say about it. net/net, it will be different. we don’t know how yet.
can we adapt? maybe.
will it lead to loss of species? most certainly.
nobody cares.
because: glib.
wj, but there are (elected) politicians already in place that by now openly advocate for ‘drastic’ measures to deter those migrants.
True, Hartmut. But with the size of the (attempted) migrations we are talking about, the change in scale radically alters the problem.
At the moment, most immigrants (including most illegal immigrants) arrive legally, mostly by plane. They just don’t depart again as scheduled/expected. Whereas for the situation we are looking towards, I’d expect the bulk of would-be migrants** to be arriving overland. And the phrase “human wave attacks” might be apropos. Dealing with that is going to take massed machine guns on essentially continuous fire. Now that’s a real drastic measure.
** Figure they would be looking for new country, not for A new country. That is, doing for real what those politicians claim (inaccurately) immigrants are doing now.
wj, but there are (elected) politicians already in place that by now openly advocate for ‘drastic’ measures to deter those migrants.
True, Hartmut. But with the size of the (attempted) migrations we are talking about, the change in scale radically alters the problem.
At the moment, most immigrants (including most illegal immigrants) arrive legally, mostly by plane. They just don’t depart again as scheduled/expected. Whereas for the situation we are looking towards, I’d expect the bulk of would-be migrants** to be arriving overland. And the phrase “human wave attacks” might be apropos. Dealing with that is going to take massed machine guns on essentially continuous fire. Now that’s a real drastic measure.
** Figure they would be looking for new country, not for A new country. That is, doing for real what those politicians claim (inaccurately) immigrants are doing now.
Some more detail for McKinney:
What would it take for renewably powered electrosynthesis to displace petrochemical processes?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6438/eaav3506
This is, overall, the toughest part of re-engineering away from fossil fuels, and likely economically practicable only when the marginal cost of renewable electricity has come down significantly (but well within predicted progress) from its current level, and when there is sufficient excess capacity.
If we really put the pedal to the metal, we’re probably a good decade away from that point, and I think it reasonably likely that we will have the technologies necessary for industrial production by then.
As a small example, we’ve just discovered a catalyst which looks remarkably suitable for industrial scale CO production from high temperature CO2 electrolysis:
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-route-carbon-neutral-fuels-carbon-dioxide.html
Some more detail for McKinney:
What would it take for renewably powered electrosynthesis to displace petrochemical processes?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6438/eaav3506
This is, overall, the toughest part of re-engineering away from fossil fuels, and likely economically practicable only when the marginal cost of renewable electricity has come down significantly (but well within predicted progress) from its current level, and when there is sufficient excess capacity.
If we really put the pedal to the metal, we’re probably a good decade away from that point, and I think it reasonably likely that we will have the technologies necessary for industrial production by then.
As a small example, we’ve just discovered a catalyst which looks remarkably suitable for industrial scale CO production from high temperature CO2 electrolysis:
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-route-carbon-neutral-fuels-carbon-dioxide.html
Dealing with that is going to take massed machine guns on essentially continuous fire. Now that’s a real drastic measure.
Yeah, in combination with barbed wire, minefields and, possibly, a large dead and deliberately poisoned zone in front of the actual killing zone. And these days most of it can be automated, so ‘human weakness’ is less of an issue. The US have it relatively comfortable there with ‘defensible’ borders, parts of them rather inhospitable and thus less suitable for massive waves of attackers.
It will likely be sold with the lifeboat scenario and its necessity to kill those not in it but trying to get in risking its capsizing.
Btw, existing (no joke) plans for a zombie apocalypse can be easily adapted to living ‘hordes’.
The problem starts when parts of the own population get as desperate as those trying to get in from the outside. Massacres inside the fortress are a lot more messy politically.
Yes, my opinion of human potential for murderous depravity is not a positive one, in particular concerning the ‘our way of life is non-negotiable’ crowd. ‘Decreasing the surplus population’ always looks for an opportunity to raise its ugly head again.
Dealing with that is going to take massed machine guns on essentially continuous fire. Now that’s a real drastic measure.
Yeah, in combination with barbed wire, minefields and, possibly, a large dead and deliberately poisoned zone in front of the actual killing zone. And these days most of it can be automated, so ‘human weakness’ is less of an issue. The US have it relatively comfortable there with ‘defensible’ borders, parts of them rather inhospitable and thus less suitable for massive waves of attackers.
It will likely be sold with the lifeboat scenario and its necessity to kill those not in it but trying to get in risking its capsizing.
Btw, existing (no joke) plans for a zombie apocalypse can be easily adapted to living ‘hordes’.
The problem starts when parts of the own population get as desperate as those trying to get in from the outside. Massacres inside the fortress are a lot more messy politically.
Yes, my opinion of human potential for murderous depravity is not a positive one, in particular concerning the ‘our way of life is non-negotiable’ crowd. ‘Decreasing the surplus population’ always looks for an opportunity to raise its ugly head again.
If McKinney happens to drop by again any time soon, and since he was good enough to go into some detail about his views, I wonder whether he would be prepared to perform just one thought experiment in order to answer a question I am very interested in.
Is there anything at all, within the bounds of the possible (murder carried out by his own hand is disallowed, because he would never do it himself, but I’m thinking in the areas of proven fraud, embezzlement etc or other kinds of behaviour which are perfectly conceivable given his behaviour so far), that Trump could do before the election, which would make you decide to forsake your normal policy and vote for Warren in a Trump v Warren contest? In other words, anything he could do which would make getting rid of him a higher priority than having a POTUS you would actually choose.
If McKinney happens to drop by again any time soon, and since he was good enough to go into some detail about his views, I wonder whether he would be prepared to perform just one thought experiment in order to answer a question I am very interested in.
Is there anything at all, within the bounds of the possible (murder carried out by his own hand is disallowed, because he would never do it himself, but I’m thinking in the areas of proven fraud, embezzlement etc or other kinds of behaviour which are perfectly conceivable given his behaviour so far), that Trump could do before the election, which would make you decide to forsake your normal policy and vote for Warren in a Trump v Warren contest? In other words, anything he could do which would make getting rid of him a higher priority than having a POTUS you would actually choose.
If McKinney happens to drop by again any time soon, and since he was good enough to go into some detail about his views, I wonder whether he would be prepared to perform just one thought experiment in order to answer a question I am very interested in.
Is there anything at all, within the bounds of the possible (murder carried out by his own hand is disallowed, because he would never do it himself, but I’m thinking in the areas of proven fraud, embezzlement etc or other kinds of behaviour which are perfectly conceivable given his behaviour so far), that Trump could do before the election, which would make you decide to forsake your normal policy and vote for Warren in a Trump v Warren contest? In other words, anything he could do which would make getting rid of him a higher priority than having a POTUS you would actually choose.
If McKinney happens to drop by again any time soon, and since he was good enough to go into some detail about his views, I wonder whether he would be prepared to perform just one thought experiment in order to answer a question I am very interested in.
Is there anything at all, within the bounds of the possible (murder carried out by his own hand is disallowed, because he would never do it himself, but I’m thinking in the areas of proven fraud, embezzlement etc or other kinds of behaviour which are perfectly conceivable given his behaviour so far), that Trump could do before the election, which would make you decide to forsake your normal policy and vote for Warren in a Trump v Warren contest? In other words, anything he could do which would make getting rid of him a higher priority than having a POTUS you would actually choose.
Why change horsemen in the middle of the Apocolypse?…
Why change horsemen in the middle of the Apocolypse?…
‘Decreasing the surplus population’ always looks for an opportunity to raise its ugly head again.
I confess to including the “our way of life is nonnegotiable” crowd in my definition of “surplus population.” Which will no doubt surprise them.
‘Decreasing the surplus population’ always looks for an opportunity to raise its ugly head again.
I confess to including the “our way of life is nonnegotiable” crowd in my definition of “surplus population.” Which will no doubt surprise them.
The field of CO2 electrolysis for chemical feedstock production is an extremely active one.
There is stuff like this every month in Nature Energy (which didn’t even exist until fairly recently)…
Continuous production of pure liquid fuel solutions via electrocatalytic CO2 reduction using solid-electrolyte devices
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0451-x
The chemical and synthetic fuel industries will be based in the regions with the cheapest available electricity all the year round – so the Middle East will likely remain an important part of the world’s energy infrastructure.
Some promising sites in the US, of course.
And possibly Patagonia as best provided with big amounts of relatively easily exploitable wind power…
The field of CO2 electrolysis for chemical feedstock production is an extremely active one.
There is stuff like this every month in Nature Energy (which didn’t even exist until fairly recently)…
Continuous production of pure liquid fuel solutions via electrocatalytic CO2 reduction using solid-electrolyte devices
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0451-x
The chemical and synthetic fuel industries will be based in the regions with the cheapest available electricity all the year round – so the Middle East will likely remain an important part of the world’s energy infrastructure.
Some promising sites in the US, of course.
And possibly Patagonia as best provided with big amounts of relatively easily exploitable wind power…
Just WTF ?
Who does this even benefit ?
EPA to announce California waiver withdrawal on Wednesday
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/epa-california-obama-waiver-1500336
Just WTF ?
Who does this even benefit ?
EPA to announce California waiver withdrawal on Wednesday
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/epa-california-obama-waiver-1500336
Who does this even benefit ?
People who want America to be a sh^th*le country and, who at the same time, don’t care about the planet.
Who does this even benefit ?
People who want America to be a sh^th*le country and, who at the same time, don’t care about the planet.
it makes the left mad. and that is all the reward “conservatives” need.
it makes the left mad. and that is all the reward “conservatives” need.
Who does this even benefit ?
It benefits Trump’s fanaticism to oppose anything and everything that Obama ever did. Nothing (not even keeping his tax returns secret, I suspect), absolutely nothing, is more important than that.
Who does this even benefit ?
It benefits Trump’s fanaticism to oppose anything and everything that Obama ever did. Nothing (not even keeping his tax returns secret, I suspect), absolutely nothing, is more important than that.
state’s rights, y’all.
state’s rights, y’all.
and just like that, CA loses another GOP Rep:
tee hee
and just like that, CA loses another GOP Rep:
tee hee
just like that, CA loses another GOP Rep
If it wasn’t so important to gut Federal regulation of all kinds, there would be a case for invoking the Endangered Species Act. Gotta be careful what you wish for, I guess….
just like that, CA loses another GOP Rep
If it wasn’t so important to gut Federal regulation of all kinds, there would be a case for invoking the Endangered Species Act. Gotta be careful what you wish for, I guess….
Who does this even benefit ?
For one, the large manufacturers are relieved of the added expense of complying with the California standards while their smaller competitors could undercut them by ignoring the California market.
Who does this even benefit ?
For one, the large manufacturers are relieved of the added expense of complying with the California standards while their smaller competitors could undercut them by ignoring the California market.
relieved of the added expense of complying with the California standards
GCC appreciates the support
relieved of the added expense of complying with the California standards
GCC appreciates the support
the large manufacturers are relieved of the added expense of complying with the California standards
I’m pretty sure that CA is not going to fall for this. 1) The state will fight it in court; 2) the “large manufacturers” will still find the CA market unwilling to buy their trashy new pollutants.
Their attempt to “own the libs” won’t work with the left coast. (I’m an East Coaster, as you probably know, but I’m sending my love!)
the large manufacturers are relieved of the added expense of complying with the California standards
I’m pretty sure that CA is not going to fall for this. 1) The state will fight it in court; 2) the “large manufacturers” will still find the CA market unwilling to buy their trashy new pollutants.
Their attempt to “own the libs” won’t work with the left coast. (I’m an East Coaster, as you probably know, but I’m sending my love!)
Are there any automobile manufacturers who (a) are working at smaller volumes, (b) have a business model based on beating larger manufacturers on price, (c) don’t already comply with CA emissions standards, and (d) would be willing to ignore the CA market?
It doesn’t seem like a formula for success, but I’m not a business guy.
Tata, maybe? There are lower cost Euro brands, but other than maybe diesel models they probably already comply with CA standards, because gas is expensive there, so what extra cost would they avoid?
Just looking for an example. Even just one.
Are there any automobile manufacturers who (a) are working at smaller volumes, (b) have a business model based on beating larger manufacturers on price, (c) don’t already comply with CA emissions standards, and (d) would be willing to ignore the CA market?
It doesn’t seem like a formula for success, but I’m not a business guy.
Tata, maybe? There are lower cost Euro brands, but other than maybe diesel models they probably already comply with CA standards, because gas is expensive there, so what extra cost would they avoid?
Just looking for an example. Even just one.
But it would be unpatriotic to buy these foreign cars even if made 100% in the US of A. And there must be some way to put tariffs on them just for being foreign even if not technically imported (SCOTUS will easily find a way to justify it 5-4).
But it would be unpatriotic to buy these foreign cars even if made 100% in the US of A. And there must be some way to put tariffs on them just for being foreign even if not technically imported (SCOTUS will easily find a way to justify it 5-4).
My understanding was that four of the larger auto makers were OK with the CA standards, and signed a deal with the state. Good for PR. Would block cheapo mfrs. unwilling to toe the line from one of the largest auto markets in the world (oligopoly, y’all).
So for them…no biggie.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions/california-four-automakers-defy-trump-agree-to-tighten-emissions-rules-idUSKCN1UK1OD
My understanding was that four of the larger auto makers were OK with the CA standards, and signed a deal with the state. Good for PR. Would block cheapo mfrs. unwilling to toe the line from one of the largest auto markets in the world (oligopoly, y’all).
So for them…no biggie.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions/california-four-automakers-defy-trump-agree-to-tighten-emissions-rules-idUSKCN1UK1OD
And their reward was to have Trump’s “Justice” Department launch an antitrust action against them. Because the DoJ is his lawyers (not the country’s), and it’s just a natural expansion of his historic approach: “Sue them until they cave. Doesn’t matter if you have a winning case, as long as you can make it too painful to fight.”
And their reward was to have Trump’s “Justice” Department launch an antitrust action against them. Because the DoJ is his lawyers (not the country’s), and it’s just a natural expansion of his historic approach: “Sue them until they cave. Doesn’t matter if you have a winning case, as long as you can make it too painful to fight.”
Just looking for an example. Even just one.
Bajaj?
Just looking for an example. Even just one.
Bajaj?
oligopoly, y’all
so… you don’t want the govt to help enforce pollution standards?
oligopoly, y’all
so… you don’t want the govt to help enforce pollution standards?
so… you don’t want the govt to help enforce pollution standards?
ummmm, absolutely NOT.
so… you don’t want the govt to help enforce pollution standards?
ummmm, absolutely NOT.
i’m so confused
i’m so confused