Meet the Toaloans, not to be confused with the Talosians. Discuss.
610 thoughts on “Yet another mysterious lost culture Friday open thread”
Comments are closed.
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
In other lost culture news, apparently some in Texas are still fighting a battle lost half a century ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/21/texas-students-long-hair-lawsuit/
Boys with long hair? Oh, the horror! Civilization is ending!
In other lost culture news, apparently some in Texas are still fighting a battle lost half a century ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/21/texas-students-long-hair-lawsuit/
Boys with long hair? Oh, the horror! Civilization is ending!
Washington and Jefferson are clearly not welcome in Texas schools.
Washington and Jefferson are clearly not welcome in Texas schools.
Which may cause the “original intent” folks on the Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional. Or not.
Which may cause the “original intent” folks on the Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional. Or not.
That is what happens when you only have round holes available for all the variously shaped pegs.
That is what happens when you only have round holes available for all the variously shaped pegs.
Or even the Trisolarans
Or even the Trisolarans
Tralfamadorians.
Tralfamadorians.
the Tanstaaflans knew what was up.
the Tanstaaflans knew what was up.
“original intent’s” just another word for nothin’ left to lose
“original intent’s” just another word for nothin’ left to lose
Oops! From the Dallas Morning News:
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has paid his first voter fraud bounty. It went to an unexpected recipient
The only surprise here is that anyone is surprised — Trump, and now his fans, are routinely quick to accuse others of whatever misdeeds they have committed. (And note that there are several more voter fraud cases pending in Pennsylvania. All against Republicans.)
Oops! From the Dallas Morning News:
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has paid his first voter fraud bounty. It went to an unexpected recipient
The only surprise here is that anyone is surprised — Trump, and now his fans, are routinely quick to accuse others of whatever misdeeds they have committed. (And note that there are several more voter fraud cases pending in Pennsylvania. All against Republicans.)
sounds like we need a bunch of needless laws that affect Democrats just a little bit more than they affect Republicans!
sounds like we need a bunch of needless laws that affect Democrats just a little bit more than they affect Republicans!
More where that came from:
https://mynews4.com/news/local/las-vegas-man-charged-with-voting-twice-after-casting-ballot-for-dead-wife
More where that came from:
https://mynews4.com/news/local/las-vegas-man-charged-with-voting-twice-after-casting-ballot-for-dead-wife
Trump told them to. what choice did they have?
Trump told them to. what choice did they have?
This is depressing, but then most political news is.
https://slate.com/business/2021/10/democrats-obamacare-subsidies-expand-stupid.html
This is depressing, but then most political news is.
https://slate.com/business/2021/10/democrats-obamacare-subsidies-expand-stupid.html
Btw, based on the article the progressives who are screwing up. Or to be fair, it is the “ moderates” with their conservative ideology who have created the problem by cutting the level of spending far below what is needed, but since they have clearly won that battle, progressives are unable to face it and according to the piece are trying to fund a lot of things in an inadequate fashion, giving us programs that won’t do much and are likely to be axed in a few years instead of focusing on a few ideas, funding them and probably making them so popular the Republicans won’t dare cut them.
And the Republican advantage is also clearly explained— they are all united in giving corporations and rich people tax cuts and then they play the culture war game. They also have an internal religious conflict over whether Trump is a divine being, with most outwardly convinced that he is.
Btw, based on the article the progressives who are screwing up. Or to be fair, it is the “ moderates” with their conservative ideology who have created the problem by cutting the level of spending far below what is needed, but since they have clearly won that battle, progressives are unable to face it and according to the piece are trying to fund a lot of things in an inadequate fashion, giving us programs that won’t do much and are likely to be axed in a few years instead of focusing on a few ideas, funding them and probably making them so popular the Republicans won’t dare cut them.
And the Republican advantage is also clearly explained— they are all united in giving corporations and rich people tax cuts and then they play the culture war game. They also have an internal religious conflict over whether Trump is a divine being, with most outwardly convinced that he is.
Donald, that article has some good insights, but I really didn’t like this:
Meanwhile, progressive members have refused to prioritize issues, and are instead trying to partially cover as many of their bases as possible. Part of the reason may boil down to magical thinking about their chances of fixing temporary programs down the line.
I’m not sure what the agreement consisted of, but if you have Manchin and Sinema constantly reducing the amount, it really doesn’t make sense to try and toss out some of the bases on the slender hope that those two dipshits will be favorably inclined to the bases you have left…
Donald, that article has some good insights, but I really didn’t like this:
Meanwhile, progressive members have refused to prioritize issues, and are instead trying to partially cover as many of their bases as possible. Part of the reason may boil down to magical thinking about their chances of fixing temporary programs down the line.
I’m not sure what the agreement consisted of, but if you have Manchin and Sinema constantly reducing the amount, it really doesn’t make sense to try and toss out some of the bases on the slender hope that those two dipshits will be favorably inclined to the bases you have left…
Manchin and Sinema are huge problems, but it might make sense to fully fund a few programs that are almost certain to be popular. But either of those two cretins have the power to blow things up. Manchin apparently told Sanders the other day that he could live with no reconciliation bill at all.
Some far left people I normally agree with on most things blame Biden, apparently on the grounds that Biden isn’t acting like LBJ would and really twisting arms, cutting funding for programs in West Virginia or having the DOJ look into Manchin’s sleazy family. I don’t think we live in that world anymore, apart from the fact that I don’t think the DOJ should be used that way— if Manchin and his family are corrupt in illegal ways that should be investigated but not as a political weapon. . Abuse of power aside, would it be politically possible for Biden to play hardball with funding? These days I suspect it would backfire.
Biden has been living in some sort of dreamworld though in being reluctant to dump the filibuster, though he seems to be changing on that point.
Manchin and Sinema are huge problems, but it might make sense to fully fund a few programs that are almost certain to be popular. But either of those two cretins have the power to blow things up. Manchin apparently told Sanders the other day that he could live with no reconciliation bill at all.
Some far left people I normally agree with on most things blame Biden, apparently on the grounds that Biden isn’t acting like LBJ would and really twisting arms, cutting funding for programs in West Virginia or having the DOJ look into Manchin’s sleazy family. I don’t think we live in that world anymore, apart from the fact that I don’t think the DOJ should be used that way— if Manchin and his family are corrupt in illegal ways that should be investigated but not as a political weapon. . Abuse of power aside, would it be politically possible for Biden to play hardball with funding? These days I suspect it would backfire.
Biden has been living in some sort of dreamworld though in being reluctant to dump the filibuster, though he seems to be changing on that point.
…Biden isn’t acting like LBJ would and really twisting arms, cutting funding for programs in West Virginia…
Possibly worth noting, for those who forget, that after abuses by Nixon, Congress took away almost all of the President’s ability to withhold funds.
This is part of the bind that Obama was in. The tax and fee rates determining revenue were set by Congress; he was required to spend every penny Congress appropriated in the ways they appropriated it (with very small exceptions for emergencies); the amount that could be borrowed was set in law in the form of the debt ceiling; and there are statutory limits on the amount of paper currency the Treasury can keep in circulation. It’s why there’s an on-again off-again trillion-dollar platinum coin proposal.
…Biden isn’t acting like LBJ would and really twisting arms, cutting funding for programs in West Virginia…
Possibly worth noting, for those who forget, that after abuses by Nixon, Congress took away almost all of the President’s ability to withhold funds.
This is part of the bind that Obama was in. The tax and fee rates determining revenue were set by Congress; he was required to spend every penny Congress appropriated in the ways they appropriated it (with very small exceptions for emergencies); the amount that could be borrowed was set in law in the form of the debt ceiling; and there are statutory limits on the amount of paper currency the Treasury can keep in circulation. It’s why there’s an on-again off-again trillion-dollar platinum coin proposal.
Manchin and Sinema are huge problems, but it might make sense to fully fund a few programs that are almost certain to be popular.
Gotta go with Donald on this one. A couple of hugely popular programs up and running (smoothly!) would be big political winners. Giving more opportunities going forward. On the other hand, a bunch of programs funded with too little to really get going leave the voters with the impression that you’re doing nothing to help them.
Sure, it would be nice to be able to do everything you want. But that’s not the real world at the moment. So the Democrats’chances of getting anything depend on prioritizing. And refraining from venting their (justified) irritation at Manchin and Sinema until the primaries roll around.
Doesn’t matter that “it’s not fair” or “it’s not right” or even that “it’s bad for the country”. For the moment, you have to play the hand you have.
Manchin and Sinema are huge problems, but it might make sense to fully fund a few programs that are almost certain to be popular.
Gotta go with Donald on this one. A couple of hugely popular programs up and running (smoothly!) would be big political winners. Giving more opportunities going forward. On the other hand, a bunch of programs funded with too little to really get going leave the voters with the impression that you’re doing nothing to help them.
Sure, it would be nice to be able to do everything you want. But that’s not the real world at the moment. So the Democrats’chances of getting anything depend on prioritizing. And refraining from venting their (justified) irritation at Manchin and Sinema until the primaries roll around.
Doesn’t matter that “it’s not fair” or “it’s not right” or even that “it’s bad for the country”. For the moment, you have to play the hand you have.
or having the DOJ look into Manchin’s sleazy family. I don’t think we live in that world anymore, apart from the fact that I don’t think the DOJ should be used that way— if Manchin and his family are corrupt in illegal ways that should be investigated but not as a political weapon
For those enthused about attacking Manchin and his family, consider this. So far, he’s what stands between you and the appointment of executive branch leaders and of judges being totally frozen by McConnell. Also, if you succeed in driving him out of office now, his replacement gets appointed by the Republican Governor of West Virginia. This would improve things how, exactly?
or having the DOJ look into Manchin’s sleazy family. I don’t think we live in that world anymore, apart from the fact that I don’t think the DOJ should be used that way— if Manchin and his family are corrupt in illegal ways that should be investigated but not as a political weapon
For those enthused about attacking Manchin and his family, consider this. So far, he’s what stands between you and the appointment of executive branch leaders and of judges being totally frozen by McConnell. Also, if you succeed in driving him out of office now, his replacement gets appointed by the Republican Governor of West Virginia. This would improve things how, exactly?
I don’t think it is practical or desirable to stop people from venting at Manchin or Sinema. The natural inclination of much of the press ( which is devoted to horse race coverage) would be to fawn over them because they used their power and won— also, they are “ moderates” and therefore by definition good, pragmatic and so forth. The left, thankfully, isn’t rolling over and playing dead when people push that narrative. Unfortunately the left or some parts of it is in denial that we have lost yet again, unless there is some brilliant plan out there I haven read about. We have lost and lost badly and need to focus on the way to salvage some programs that will demonstrably make people’s lives better.
I agree that attempting to eject Manchin right now would backfire.
I don’t think it is practical or desirable to stop people from venting at Manchin or Sinema. The natural inclination of much of the press ( which is devoted to horse race coverage) would be to fawn over them because they used their power and won— also, they are “ moderates” and therefore by definition good, pragmatic and so forth. The left, thankfully, isn’t rolling over and playing dead when people push that narrative. Unfortunately the left or some parts of it is in denial that we have lost yet again, unless there is some brilliant plan out there I haven read about. We have lost and lost badly and need to focus on the way to salvage some programs that will demonstrably make people’s lives better.
I agree that attempting to eject Manchin right now would backfire.
Chiming in briefly to note that LBJ had (D) super-majorities in both houses of Congress.
It ain’t 1964 anymore.
Chiming in briefly to note that LBJ had (D) super-majorities in both houses of Congress.
It ain’t 1964 anymore.
I don’t think it is practical or desirable to stop people from venting at Manchin or Sinema.
Let me be more precise. I think it’s counterproductive for other members of Congress, or members of the administration, to vent at them. After all, they are trying to get to some kind deal.
But beyond that limited population, go for it.
I don’t think it is practical or desirable to stop people from venting at Manchin or Sinema.
Let me be more precise. I think it’s counterproductive for other members of Congress, or members of the administration, to vent at them. After all, they are trying to get to some kind deal.
But beyond that limited population, go for it.
Chiming in briefly to note that LBJ had (D) super-majorities in both houses of Congress.
LBJ also had several years as Majority Leader behind him. That is, a lot of Senators had built up habit patterns of following his lead. Ah, reflexes. Every little bit helps.
Chiming in briefly to note that LBJ had (D) super-majorities in both houses of Congress.
LBJ also had several years as Majority Leader behind him. That is, a lot of Senators had built up habit patterns of following his lead. Ah, reflexes. Every little bit helps.
and there are statutory limits on the amount of paper currency the Treasury can keep in circulation. It’s why there’s an on-again off-again trillion-dollar platinum coin proposal.
as I understand it, the magic coin would not be “in circulation”.
and there are statutory limits on the amount of paper currency the Treasury can keep in circulation. It’s why there’s an on-again off-again trillion-dollar platinum coin proposal.
as I understand it, the magic coin would not be “in circulation”.
Just to be clear, this is not a matter of choosing between getting a few programs now that do good (and preventing McConnell from becoming majority leader) and squandering it all on some half-ass programs from the perspective of those who are not already at retirement age. For a lot of us who are facing retirement in another decade this is another round of kick the can that is going to wreck the whole system, but not until after the current generation behind the wheel is safely dead and immune to the difficulties.
I’m sick of watching my students future get sold for the comfort of a bunch of unimaginative cowards’ comfort.
It’s all going to fall apart unless we make changes now, and the longer we wait, the worse it will be. By all means, kick the can again and damn us all. A decade of relative comfort is totally worth it.
I now await the usual dismissal from the people who will never have to live in the world they are forcing us to build with their inaction.
Enjoy your retirement. At least you get one.
Just to be clear, this is not a matter of choosing between getting a few programs now that do good (and preventing McConnell from becoming majority leader) and squandering it all on some half-ass programs from the perspective of those who are not already at retirement age. For a lot of us who are facing retirement in another decade this is another round of kick the can that is going to wreck the whole system, but not until after the current generation behind the wheel is safely dead and immune to the difficulties.
I’m sick of watching my students future get sold for the comfort of a bunch of unimaginative cowards’ comfort.
It’s all going to fall apart unless we make changes now, and the longer we wait, the worse it will be. By all means, kick the can again and damn us all. A decade of relative comfort is totally worth it.
I now await the usual dismissal from the people who will never have to live in the world they are forcing us to build with their inaction.
Enjoy your retirement. At least you get one.
On the other hand, a bunch of programs funded with too little to really get going leave the voters with the impression that you’re doing nothing to help them.
Makes sense….but: Just about every one of the lefty priorities is in danger of being either stopped in its tracks (climate initiative, negotiated drug prices), or turned into itty bitty means tested kludges (child care tax credit, expanded Medicare coverage for dental, free college, etc.).
So basically it is the same old, same old: Message to the left: shut up, shut up, shut up.
Maybe it is time for the Defense Appropriations Bill to die in a House Committee.
On the other hand, a bunch of programs funded with too little to really get going leave the voters with the impression that you’re doing nothing to help them.
Makes sense….but: Just about every one of the lefty priorities is in danger of being either stopped in its tracks (climate initiative, negotiated drug prices), or turned into itty bitty means tested kludges (child care tax credit, expanded Medicare coverage for dental, free college, etc.).
So basically it is the same old, same old: Message to the left: shut up, shut up, shut up.
Maybe it is time for the Defense Appropriations Bill to die in a House Committee.
It ain’t 1964 anymore.
True that. The New Deal was effectively over by 1938 as the southern Dems aligned with the GOP to block any further expansion of the New Deal. LBJ’s supermajority hinged on getting some “liberal” GOP critters on board. With people watching dogs being unleashed on people just trying to get the right to vote on TV, well, the public pressure was simply too overwhelming. And LBJ, super arm twister? He was humiliated with the Abe Fortas fiasco, giving Nixon two Supreme Court seats and the conservative court that has been eviscerating progressive public policy ever since that time.
It could have been a lot different. Pick up a copy of Supreme Inequality by Adam Cohen.
It ain’t 1964 anymore.
True that. The New Deal was effectively over by 1938 as the southern Dems aligned with the GOP to block any further expansion of the New Deal. LBJ’s supermajority hinged on getting some “liberal” GOP critters on board. With people watching dogs being unleashed on people just trying to get the right to vote on TV, well, the public pressure was simply too overwhelming. And LBJ, super arm twister? He was humiliated with the Abe Fortas fiasco, giving Nixon two Supreme Court seats and the conservative court that has been eviscerating progressive public policy ever since that time.
It could have been a lot different. Pick up a copy of Supreme Inequality by Adam Cohen.
I’m sick of watching my students future get sold for the comfort of a bunch of unimaginative cowards’ comfort.
Well, nous, you simply have to understand that the concept of ‘unintended consequences’ only applies to lefty policy prescriptions.
Word is there is some kind of compromise in the works, but like most compromises, it won’t be pretty.
I’m sick of watching my students future get sold for the comfort of a bunch of unimaginative cowards’ comfort.
Well, nous, you simply have to understand that the concept of ‘unintended consequences’ only applies to lefty policy prescriptions.
Word is there is some kind of compromise in the works, but like most compromises, it won’t be pretty.
So basically it is the same old, same old: Message to the left: shut up, shut up, shut up.
No, it isn’t. At least, not from me. What I’m saying is: Pick a subset of the things that urgently need to get done. Do those first. Then leverage that success to become able to do more.
Sure, there are a lot of things that urgently need to get done. But since it isn’t actually possible to get all of them done right now, pick the ones you feel are most urgent. Either because they will do more good, or because they will do more for the prospects of getting the political position to do more sooner, or for whatever other reason you please.
Just do not, in the interests of getting anything really done, insist that everything is equally important. And that therefore waiting on anything is so totally unacceptable that it is better to go down in flames on all of them.
Personally (as someone who is not on the left being told to shut up), I would start with the Voting Rights legislation. Because without that, I worry that there won’t be the opportunity in the future to do anything else. Beyond that, I’d incline to various items to improve child welfare. Whether medical care or pre-K or whatever would have the biggest impact, I don’t know. But that’s where I would start looking.
So basically it is the same old, same old: Message to the left: shut up, shut up, shut up.
No, it isn’t. At least, not from me. What I’m saying is: Pick a subset of the things that urgently need to get done. Do those first. Then leverage that success to become able to do more.
Sure, there are a lot of things that urgently need to get done. But since it isn’t actually possible to get all of them done right now, pick the ones you feel are most urgent. Either because they will do more good, or because they will do more for the prospects of getting the political position to do more sooner, or for whatever other reason you please.
Just do not, in the interests of getting anything really done, insist that everything is equally important. And that therefore waiting on anything is so totally unacceptable that it is better to go down in flames on all of them.
Personally (as someone who is not on the left being told to shut up), I would start with the Voting Rights legislation. Because without that, I worry that there won’t be the opportunity in the future to do anything else. Beyond that, I’d incline to various items to improve child welfare. Whether medical care or pre-K or whatever would have the biggest impact, I don’t know. But that’s where I would start looking.
And climate change doesn’t even make wj’s list…
And climate change doesn’t even make wj’s list…
And climate change doesn’t even make wj’s list…
It’s on my list of things that need to get done. It merely isn’t on my list of things which need to get done first.
Because I think that some other things require more urgent action. At this point, the climate is going to change; it’s too late to do anything about that. Action is needed to keep the amount of change down, but any impact of such action is going to be decades down the road. That doesn’t make it not urgent, but it does mean that waiting an additional year at this point is not as critical.
Ask yourself this: Suppose you have two options. You can do something about climate change, or you can do something about voting rights. Which do you do first? To me, it seems obvious that you tackle voting rights first. Not least because, if you don’t, whatever you did about climate change is going to get reversed after the next election.
Do you disagree?
And climate change doesn’t even make wj’s list…
It’s on my list of things that need to get done. It merely isn’t on my list of things which need to get done first.
Because I think that some other things require more urgent action. At this point, the climate is going to change; it’s too late to do anything about that. Action is needed to keep the amount of change down, but any impact of such action is going to be decades down the road. That doesn’t make it not urgent, but it does mean that waiting an additional year at this point is not as critical.
Ask yourself this: Suppose you have two options. You can do something about climate change, or you can do something about voting rights. Which do you do first? To me, it seems obvious that you tackle voting rights first. Not least because, if you don’t, whatever you did about climate change is going to get reversed after the next election.
Do you disagree?
Voting rights won’t get taken care of.
Climate change won’t get taken care of.
Those two things are off the table of “small achievements we can get.” Those two things are what we must give up on to get anything else.
Stop pretending that either of those will be achieved by moderation. Those are the things that “moderates” are killing.
Voting rights won’t get taken care of.
Climate change won’t get taken care of.
Those two things are off the table of “small achievements we can get.” Those two things are what we must give up on to get anything else.
Stop pretending that either of those will be achieved by moderation. Those are the things that “moderates” are killing.
Ask yourself this: Suppose you have two options. You can do something about climate change, or you can do something about voting rights. Which do you do first? To me, it seems obvious that you tackle voting rights first. Not least because, if you don’t, whatever you did about climate change is going to get reversed after the next election.
It’s not clear to me that you can get anywhere tackling voting rights with Manchin and Sinema where they are.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/voting-rights-manchin/
America isn’t a democracy right now; it’s a hostage scenario. Manchin is just toying with the Democrats who insist on negotiating with him.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/freedom-to-vote-act-voting-rights-fails-senate/
Ask yourself this: Suppose you have two options. You can do something about climate change, or you can do something about voting rights. Which do you do first? To me, it seems obvious that you tackle voting rights first. Not least because, if you don’t, whatever you did about climate change is going to get reversed after the next election.
It’s not clear to me that you can get anywhere tackling voting rights with Manchin and Sinema where they are.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/voting-rights-manchin/
America isn’t a democracy right now; it’s a hostage scenario. Manchin is just toying with the Democrats who insist on negotiating with him.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/freedom-to-vote-act-voting-rights-fails-senate/
If Manchin and Sinema were to give in on voting rights, they would be signing away their leverage and their personal veto power and be rendered irrelevant in a year. No way they give that up. Their leverage is all they have to secure all that attention and sweet, sweet donor cash.
You can have any two things off of the B list, but nothing from the existential threat list.
If Manchin and Sinema were to give in on voting rights, they would be signing away their leverage and their personal veto power and be rendered irrelevant in a year. No way they give that up. Their leverage is all they have to secure all that attention and sweet, sweet donor cash.
You can have any two things off of the B list, but nothing from the existential threat list.
Not least because, if you don’t, whatever you did about climate change is going to get reversed after the next election.
Not likely. We would still have the mighty weapon of the filibuster to make sure that did not happen. /snark.
Not least because, if you don’t, whatever you did about climate change is going to get reversed after the next election.
Not likely. We would still have the mighty weapon of the filibuster to make sure that did not happen. /snark.
It’s not clear to me that you can get anywhere tackling voting rights with Manchin and Sinema where they are.
I’m a bit more optimistic. Manchin has already been pushing for much of what’s in the Voting Right proposal. Not all of it, but enough to make a real difference. Pushing hard enough that, when he still can’t get any (let alone 10) Republicans to sign on, he might well decide that carving out an exemption from the filibuster is acceptable. However reluctantly.
That leaves Sinema. Since the Big Pharma and ultrarich donors she is all in for don’t especially care about the issue, I suspect that, if she was the lone holdout, she would cave.
Neither is anything like a sure thing. But I’d say it’s far from a lost cause either.
It’s not clear to me that you can get anywhere tackling voting rights with Manchin and Sinema where they are.
I’m a bit more optimistic. Manchin has already been pushing for much of what’s in the Voting Right proposal. Not all of it, but enough to make a real difference. Pushing hard enough that, when he still can’t get any (let alone 10) Republicans to sign on, he might well decide that carving out an exemption from the filibuster is acceptable. However reluctantly.
That leaves Sinema. Since the Big Pharma and ultrarich donors she is all in for don’t especially care about the issue, I suspect that, if she was the lone holdout, she would cave.
Neither is anything like a sure thing. But I’d say it’s far from a lost cause either.
We would still have the mighty weapon of the filibuster to make sure that did not happen.
Totally true. IF it were a matter of repealing it. Unfortunately, merely failing to fund it isn’t amenable to prevention by filibuster.
We would still have the mighty weapon of the filibuster to make sure that did not happen.
Totally true. IF it were a matter of repealing it. Unfortunately, merely failing to fund it isn’t amenable to prevention by filibuster.
You can have any two things off of the B list, but nothing from the existential threat list.
So what do you propose doing? What that a) will do any good in addresing any (never mind all) of the existential threats you see, and b) might actually succeed in getting passed.
Or do you just write off anything useful, and sign on for JDT’s “arm up and kill them all” approach? (Or, to stop short of “all”, just eliminate McConnell, and get his replacement appointed by Kentucky’s Democratic governor.)
You can have any two things off of the B list, but nothing from the existential threat list.
So what do you propose doing? What that a) will do any good in addresing any (never mind all) of the existential threats you see, and b) might actually succeed in getting passed.
Or do you just write off anything useful, and sign on for JDT’s “arm up and kill them all” approach? (Or, to stop short of “all”, just eliminate McConnell, and get his replacement appointed by Kentucky’s Democratic governor.)
So what do you propose doing? What that a) will do any good in addresing any (never mind all) of the existential threats you see, and b) might actually succeed in getting passed.
Take what you can, but do not let up on either of them in public as their colleagues on the hill. Once you get their votes, take them out of their committees. Freeze them out.
They deserve nothing more.
So what do you propose doing? What that a) will do any good in addresing any (never mind all) of the existential threats you see, and b) might actually succeed in getting passed.
Take what you can, but do not let up on either of them in public as their colleagues on the hill. Once you get their votes, take them out of their committees. Freeze them out.
They deserve nothing more.
So what do you propose doing?
Stop calling them moderates. Make sure that everyone knows they reneged on their word.
As the Nation article points out, Manchin is pushing but refuses to do what is necessary to get it thru. He can count, he knows that there has to be a carve out to the filibuster. But he just wants to the the Democratic Susan Collins.
So what do you propose doing?
Stop calling them moderates. Make sure that everyone knows they reneged on their word.
As the Nation article points out, Manchin is pushing but refuses to do what is necessary to get it thru. He can count, he knows that there has to be a carve out to the filibuster. But he just wants to the the Democratic Susan Collins.
he [Manchin] just wants to the the Democratic Susan Collins he just wants to the the Democratic Susan Collins.
That would be the Susan Collins who talked an independent game. But when it came down to it, pretty much voted the straight party line, no? Democrats should be willing to take that.
he [Manchin] just wants to the the Democratic Susan Collins he just wants to the the Democratic Susan Collins.
That would be the Susan Collins who talked an independent game. But when it came down to it, pretty much voted the straight party line, no? Democrats should be willing to take that.
Once you get their votes, take them out of their committees. Freeze them out.
They deserve nothing more.
They may deserve nothing more. But is that kind of revenge worth giving McConnell a majority? Probably better to let them feel like they won. Temporarily.
And then primary Sinema. Assuming she doesn’t just “retire” to whatever overpaid job her donors have been promising her. (As a practical matter, probably better to leave Manchin be. Not just, perhaps, but expedient.)
Once you get their votes, take them out of their committees. Freeze them out.
They deserve nothing more.
They may deserve nothing more. But is that kind of revenge worth giving McConnell a majority? Probably better to let them feel like they won. Temporarily.
And then primary Sinema. Assuming she doesn’t just “retire” to whatever overpaid job her donors have been promising her. (As a practical matter, probably better to leave Manchin be. Not just, perhaps, but expedient.)
That would be the Susan Collins who talked an independent game.
That would be the Susan Collins who wanted to portray herself as a moderate. Which she was not. Same thinking and if Manchin would not be feted as a moderate, he _might_ reconsider. Similar with Collins, if the press would ask why her words didn’t match her actions, it might have made a difference.
That would be the Susan Collins who talked an independent game.
That would be the Susan Collins who wanted to portray herself as a moderate. Which she was not. Same thinking and if Manchin would not be feted as a moderate, he _might_ reconsider. Similar with Collins, if the press would ask why her words didn’t match her actions, it might have made a difference.
FWIW, chiming in briefly again to say that there is probably nothing on the table at the moment that is, remotely, as critical as climate change.
It’s not going to happen at some point, it is happening now. The time to act is not now, it was 40 years ago.
Any benefits to whatever changes we can make now will not be felt for decades or longer, that’s true. The consequences of those changes dwarf, by orders of magnitude, the consequences of anything else under consideration.
FWIW, chiming in briefly again to say that there is probably nothing on the table at the moment that is, remotely, as critical as climate change.
It’s not going to happen at some point, it is happening now. The time to act is not now, it was 40 years ago.
Any benefits to whatever changes we can make now will not be felt for decades or longer, that’s true. The consequences of those changes dwarf, by orders of magnitude, the consequences of anything else under consideration.
It’s not going to happen at some point, it is happening now. The time to act is not now, it was 40 years ago.
Any benefits to whatever changes we can make now will not be felt for decades or longer, that’s true. The consequences of those changes dwarf, by orders of magnitude, the consequences of anything else under consideration.
Completely agree. However. There are somethings which, if not done now, will make doing anything effective about climate change impossible for the foreseeable future. To my mind, that makes them a higher priority. And, since they will also enable additional positive impacts, more consequential.
It’s not going to happen at some point, it is happening now. The time to act is not now, it was 40 years ago.
Any benefits to whatever changes we can make now will not be felt for decades or longer, that’s true. The consequences of those changes dwarf, by orders of magnitude, the consequences of anything else under consideration.
Completely agree. However. There are somethings which, if not done now, will make doing anything effective about climate change impossible for the foreseeable future. To my mind, that makes them a higher priority. And, since they will also enable additional positive impacts, more consequential.
That would be the Susan Collins who talked an independent game. But when it came down to it, pretty much voted the straight party line, no?
the Susan Collins who keeps getting re-elected.
That would be the Susan Collins who talked an independent game. But when it came down to it, pretty much voted the straight party line, no?
the Susan Collins who keeps getting re-elected.
no climate change action will happen.
the GOP is in thrall of people who have decided that they know more than doctors about medicine, and that they know more about climate than climate scientists. and they effectively control the Senate.
no climate change action will happen.
the GOP is in thrall of people who have decided that they know more than doctors about medicine, and that they know more about climate than climate scientists. and they effectively control the Senate.
and they love plastic.
and they love plastic.
cleek, I think one should add ‘or pretend to because they see an advantage in it’.
I think quite some GOP leaders know very well what the facts are but think it unwise to say so (pure cynicism is part of the job description too, see the vaccinated anti-vaxxers). Them being usually quite old too makes it even easier because they will not have to face the most serious consequences and are so selfish that they don’t care in the least about even their own families in the long term.
Of course there are lots of actual walking embodiments of Dunning-Krüger but with the likes of McTurtle stupidity and ignorance are pure camouflage for utter cynicism and will-to-power.
cleek, I think one should add ‘or pretend to because they see an advantage in it’.
I think quite some GOP leaders know very well what the facts are but think it unwise to say so (pure cynicism is part of the job description too, see the vaccinated anti-vaxxers). Them being usually quite old too makes it even easier because they will not have to face the most serious consequences and are so selfish that they don’t care in the least about even their own families in the long term.
Of course there are lots of actual walking embodiments of Dunning-Krüger but with the likes of McTurtle stupidity and ignorance are pure camouflage for utter cynicism and will-to-power.
the GOP is in thrall of people…
Who do things like this.
It’s a small slice of today’s America, but a very disturbing one. The gap I see is the liars and the conned are well organized, highly motivated by ideological priors, and have money. Those who have not fallen for this shit? Not much. It’s time to right that balance. We need a well funded organization that would pour support for the good people in places like this so they have a fighting chance against the lying liars.
The lying liars, and the fascists behind them are turning this into an existential conflict. We need to get a whole lot more serious about it.
the GOP is in thrall of people…
Who do things like this.
It’s a small slice of today’s America, but a very disturbing one. The gap I see is the liars and the conned are well organized, highly motivated by ideological priors, and have money. Those who have not fallen for this shit? Not much. It’s time to right that balance. We need a well funded organization that would pour support for the good people in places like this so they have a fighting chance against the lying liars.
The lying liars, and the fascists behind them are turning this into an existential conflict. We need to get a whole lot more serious about it.
One point on Manchin that progressives here seem to routinely ignore. H/T Matthew Yglesias
Those are all things you like, so why not forgo demonizing and give credit where credit is due? If you want to demonize someone, go after Sinema, who has no progressive virtues that I can see.
One point on Manchin that progressives here seem to routinely ignore. H/T Matthew Yglesias
Those are all things you like, so why not forgo demonizing and give credit where credit is due? If you want to demonize someone, go after Sinema, who has no progressive virtues that I can see.
the Susan Collins who keeps getting re-elected.
Collins ran a smart campaign. Her opponent? Not so much. But in fairness, beating a more or less well liked incumbent is not easy.
the Susan Collins who keeps getting re-elected.
Collins ran a smart campaign. Her opponent? Not so much. But in fairness, beating a more or less well liked incumbent is not easy.
wj, Manchin also originally said that 3.5 T$ were too little. Now it’s allegedly beyond the pale.
I will take his word for the tax increases the moment he actually votes for a passing* bill containing it.
Btw, I also find it a wee bit suspicious that the no-no lists of Sinema and Manchin have very little overlap. If I was Dem leadership, I’d take a close look, whether the two of them have an agreement there in order to kill more parts while seemingly staying ‘moderate’.
* a non-passing bill someone else takes the fall for does not count as far as I am concerned.
wj, Manchin also originally said that 3.5 T$ were too little. Now it’s allegedly beyond the pale.
I will take his word for the tax increases the moment he actually votes for a passing* bill containing it.
Btw, I also find it a wee bit suspicious that the no-no lists of Sinema and Manchin have very little overlap. If I was Dem leadership, I’d take a close look, whether the two of them have an agreement there in order to kill more parts while seemingly staying ‘moderate’.
* a non-passing bill someone else takes the fall for does not count as far as I am concerned.
WJ—
I rarely think that any politician is 100 percent wrong on every single issue. Manchin is on the wrong side on climate change— Sinema is allegedly on the right side. They are both scum.
Hartmut might be right on coordination, though if we go down that speculative route it is also possible that other “ moderates” in corporate pockets are letting Manchin and Sinema be the bad guys. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Where we agree is that unless there is some strategy I haven’t seen, the scum have won the battle and Democrats ( the ones with genuinely good intentions) need to figure out how to get the least bad result from this defeat. I think “ do some things really well so it is clear government programs can make people’s lives better” is the way to go. I don’t know which programs to pick.
And if the power worshippers in the media start glorifying the scum. push back hard.
Also, people should stop thinking. being “ moderate” is inherently good. In politics it should be used to describe political inclinations and not as a term of praise. It sometimes boils down to making fun of liberals and siding with corporations and/ or conservatives and portraying all this as pragmatic.
WJ—
I rarely think that any politician is 100 percent wrong on every single issue. Manchin is on the wrong side on climate change— Sinema is allegedly on the right side. They are both scum.
Hartmut might be right on coordination, though if we go down that speculative route it is also possible that other “ moderates” in corporate pockets are letting Manchin and Sinema be the bad guys. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Where we agree is that unless there is some strategy I haven’t seen, the scum have won the battle and Democrats ( the ones with genuinely good intentions) need to figure out how to get the least bad result from this defeat. I think “ do some things really well so it is clear government programs can make people’s lives better” is the way to go. I don’t know which programs to pick.
And if the power worshippers in the media start glorifying the scum. push back hard.
Also, people should stop thinking. being “ moderate” is inherently good. In politics it should be used to describe political inclinations and not as a term of praise. It sometimes boils down to making fun of liberals and siding with corporations and/ or conservatives and portraying all this as pragmatic.
Btw, I also find it a wee bit suspicious that the no-no lists of Sinema and Manchin have very little overlap. If I was Dem leadership, I’d take a close look, whether the two of them have an agreement there in order to kill more parts
It’s possible. But as with any conspiracy theory, I’d want to see some actual evidence before entertaining it seriously. (Also, even if there is one, I’m not sure what you think the Democratic leadership is likely to find in the way of evidence.)
Manchin is on the wrong side on climate change
Manchin is on the wrong side of coal –hardly a surprise for a West Virginia politician. On the other hand, he seems open to a variety of subsidies for clean energy infrastructure, carbon sequestration, etc. So, in the interest of getting more done on climate change sooner, it might be worth concentrating on those pieces of the project.
Coal will need to go, of course. But it’s already a dying industry, even without any action on climate change. Subsidizing clean energy, to get it moving faster, will speed coal’s existing decline. Take out the demand, rather than trying to force a shutdown of the supply.
Btw, I also find it a wee bit suspicious that the no-no lists of Sinema and Manchin have very little overlap. If I was Dem leadership, I’d take a close look, whether the two of them have an agreement there in order to kill more parts
It’s possible. But as with any conspiracy theory, I’d want to see some actual evidence before entertaining it seriously. (Also, even if there is one, I’m not sure what you think the Democratic leadership is likely to find in the way of evidence.)
Manchin is on the wrong side on climate change
Manchin is on the wrong side of coal –hardly a surprise for a West Virginia politician. On the other hand, he seems open to a variety of subsidies for clean energy infrastructure, carbon sequestration, etc. So, in the interest of getting more done on climate change sooner, it might be worth concentrating on those pieces of the project.
Coal will need to go, of course. But it’s already a dying industry, even without any action on climate change. Subsidizing clean energy, to get it moving faster, will speed coal’s existing decline. Take out the demand, rather than trying to force a shutdown of the supply.
Coal will need to go, of course. But it’s already a dying industry, even without any action on climate change.
The worldwide demand for coal is likely to continue to increase for at least some decades.
At the moment, it’s near a record high price.
Coal will need to go, of course. But it’s already a dying industry, even without any action on climate change.
The worldwide demand for coal is likely to continue to increase for at least some decades.
At the moment, it’s near a record high price.
But that rising demand is outside the US. And transport costs don’t make it economic for us to export it to where the demand is.
So not really an issue for us. Except in so far as improving clean energy capabilities here leads to reduced costs, and so attacks coal’s price advantage elsewhere.
But that rising demand is outside the US. And transport costs don’t make it economic for us to export it to where the demand is.
So not really an issue for us. Except in so far as improving clean energy capabilities here leads to reduced costs, and so attacks coal’s price advantage elsewhere.
wj, I agree that it us unlikely that Manchin and Sinema are doing an actual conspiracy in the classical sense. An unspoken mutual understanding or some ‘hints’ from their donors may be all there is. But I also agree with Donald that there are some other Dems hiding behind the two that also would like to see part of the programs killed (in particular the tax issue). And only one fall guy or girl is needed.
Manchin personally profits from coal and would not from clean energy programs, so his position makes sense from his own selfish POV. Sinema seems to be ‘clean’ on that, so she has no direct reason to openly oppose.
The only bet still open is imo, whether the two of them will shift the goal posts again, when a 50% bill takes actual shape and demand another 50% cut.
wj, I agree that it us unlikely that Manchin and Sinema are doing an actual conspiracy in the classical sense. An unspoken mutual understanding or some ‘hints’ from their donors may be all there is. But I also agree with Donald that there are some other Dems hiding behind the two that also would like to see part of the programs killed (in particular the tax issue). And only one fall guy or girl is needed.
Manchin personally profits from coal and would not from clean energy programs, so his position makes sense from his own selfish POV. Sinema seems to be ‘clean’ on that, so she has no direct reason to openly oppose.
The only bet still open is imo, whether the two of them will shift the goal posts again, when a 50% bill takes actual shape and demand another 50% cut.
But that rising demand is outside the US. And transport costs don’t make it economic for us to export it to where the demand is.
Germany used to import coal from far abroad because that was cheaper than production at home (plus conservative politicians preferred to burn other peoples’ coal first in order to keep the German coal in reserve). If we import coal from South Africa and Australia why can’t the US export economically. I assume that e.g. Australian coal miners are better paid than the US ones, and brutal methods like mountain top removal as practiced in the US reduce the number of necessary workers even more.
But that rising demand is outside the US. And transport costs don’t make it economic for us to export it to where the demand is.
Germany used to import coal from far abroad because that was cheaper than production at home (plus conservative politicians preferred to burn other peoples’ coal first in order to keep the German coal in reserve). If we import coal from South Africa and Australia why can’t the US export economically. I assume that e.g. Australian coal miners are better paid than the US ones, and brutal methods like mountain top removal as practiced in the US reduce the number of necessary workers even more.
Sinema seems to be ‘clean’ on that, so she has no direct reason to openly oppose.
Sinema’s personal benefit comes from donors fighting against letting Medicare negotiate drug prices.
Sinema seems to be ‘clean’ on that, so she has no direct reason to openly oppose.
Sinema’s personal benefit comes from donors fighting against letting Medicare negotiate drug prices.
But that rising demand is outside the US. And transport costs don’t make it economic for us to export it to where the demand is.
WVA recent coal output was about 90million/short ton per year. One third of that was exported. I think (surmise on my part) they also get a good price due to the higher quality of their coal.
But that rising demand is outside the US. And transport costs don’t make it economic for us to export it to where the demand is.
WVA recent coal output was about 90million/short ton per year. One third of that was exported. I think (surmise on my part) they also get a good price due to the higher quality of their coal.
so why not forgo demonizing and give credit where credit is due?
nope. He has flip flopped all over the place on just about every aspect of this whole shit show. The only things he has been consistently adamant about are preserving the filibuster and opposing any policies that would accelerate the decline in coal consumption.
If lefty criticizing, praising, or ignoring him makes not one whit of difference regarding the eventual outcome, then wtf? why not pick door #1: ceaseless withering criticism.
In our entitlement society, he is entitled to nothing less.
so why not forgo demonizing and give credit where credit is due?
nope. He has flip flopped all over the place on just about every aspect of this whole shit show. The only things he has been consistently adamant about are preserving the filibuster and opposing any policies that would accelerate the decline in coal consumption.
If lefty criticizing, praising, or ignoring him makes not one whit of difference regarding the eventual outcome, then wtf? why not pick door #1: ceaseless withering criticism.
In our entitlement society, he is entitled to nothing less.
Manchin is on the wrong side of coal –hardly a surprise for a West Virginia politician.
Please do review his voting record on climate issues and get back to us.
PS: The fact that Joe Lieberman voted for the ACA never stopped my criticizing the fucking asshole. He did the right thing there, but only after exacting a terrible public policy price, and I really do not see any reason to speak well of him ever.
Manchin is on the wrong side of coal –hardly a surprise for a West Virginia politician.
Please do review his voting record on climate issues and get back to us.
PS: The fact that Joe Lieberman voted for the ACA never stopped my criticizing the fucking asshole. He did the right thing there, but only after exacting a terrible public policy price, and I really do not see any reason to speak well of him ever.
WVA recent coal output was about 90million/short ton per year. One third of that was exported.
Thanks for the info. Learn something new every day.
WVA recent coal output was about 90million/short ton per year. One third of that was exported.
Thanks for the info. Learn something new every day.
The only things he has been consistently adamant about are preserving the filibuster and opposing any policies that would accelerate the decline in coal consumption.
Although having had his very own version of the Voting Rights Act (far short of what you would like, I acknowledge; short of what I think is needed, too) rejected unanimously may well bring him around on at least another filibuster carveout.** After all, Biden was pretty darn solid for the filibuster, and he has now come around. Change is possible.
** I’m picturing a death of 1000 cuts for the horrible thing. Not as good as just dumping it, but better than nothing.
The only things he has been consistently adamant about are preserving the filibuster and opposing any policies that would accelerate the decline in coal consumption.
Although having had his very own version of the Voting Rights Act (far short of what you would like, I acknowledge; short of what I think is needed, too) rejected unanimously may well bring him around on at least another filibuster carveout.** After all, Biden was pretty darn solid for the filibuster, and he has now come around. Change is possible.
** I’m picturing a death of 1000 cuts for the horrible thing. Not as good as just dumping it, but better than nothing.
I think (surmise on my part) they also get a good price due to the higher quality of their coal.
I believe WV is mostly producing coal for metallurgical purposes, for which there is a reasonable export market.
Manchin is also going to fight for natural gas. WV has become a top-five state in dry gas production.
I think (surmise on my part) they also get a good price due to the higher quality of their coal.
I believe WV is mostly producing coal for metallurgical purposes, for which there is a reasonable export market.
Manchin is also going to fight for natural gas. WV has become a top-five state in dry gas production.
If lefty criticizing, praising, or ignoring him makes not one whit of difference regarding the eventual outcome, then wtf? why not pick door #1: ceaseless withering criticism.
I’m wondering something. What, in your experience, is the most effective way to get someone to change their mind on something? Or, to put it the other way around, what is most successful in getting you to change your mind on something? (Or do you just believe that everybody’s views are set in stone?)
My experience is that, even if I disagree with someone on lots and lots of points, I have more success getting them to change on one of those if I manage to find some point of agreement, acknowledge that, and then work on a single issue where I think I can make progress.** Is it uniformly successful? No. Is it more successful that other approaches? Yes.
I can see a place for unremitting withering criticism. When you are trying to get someone booted out of office and replaced by someone better. But do you honestly see any realistic prospect of someone better out of West Virginia in the foreseeable future? But I can sure see how there could be someone worse.
** Sometimes that requires leaving aside the bigger ideological picture. For example, not talking about “lefty criticism” and just arguing the stand-alone merits of your case. I realize you will find this a big ask. But allow me to suggest that it might be more successful.
If lefty criticizing, praising, or ignoring him makes not one whit of difference regarding the eventual outcome, then wtf? why not pick door #1: ceaseless withering criticism.
I’m wondering something. What, in your experience, is the most effective way to get someone to change their mind on something? Or, to put it the other way around, what is most successful in getting you to change your mind on something? (Or do you just believe that everybody’s views are set in stone?)
My experience is that, even if I disagree with someone on lots and lots of points, I have more success getting them to change on one of those if I manage to find some point of agreement, acknowledge that, and then work on a single issue where I think I can make progress.** Is it uniformly successful? No. Is it more successful that other approaches? Yes.
I can see a place for unremitting withering criticism. When you are trying to get someone booted out of office and replaced by someone better. But do you honestly see any realistic prospect of someone better out of West Virginia in the foreseeable future? But I can sure see how there could be someone worse.
** Sometimes that requires leaving aside the bigger ideological picture. For example, not talking about “lefty criticism” and just arguing the stand-alone merits of your case. I realize you will find this a big ask. But allow me to suggest that it might be more successful.
very good post
i am love you text
https://moteajeb.com
very good post
i am love you text
https://moteajeb.com
no climate change action will happen.
correct.
Or, not “no climate change action”, but at most very limited mostly performative climate action. At least here, and probably other places.
The interests of people 50 or 100 or 500 years from now are dwarfed by the dollar value of the fossil resources that are in the ground, and which cannot be monetized unless they are extracted and burned.
And the scope and scale of social and economic changes that would have to happen in (at this point) a fairly short time would require a concerted public effort that we are no longer capable of, at least in this country.
Briefly, too many people in general don’t give a sh*t, and too many people whose extraordinary fortunes depend on extracting and burning that stuff have the ear of the folks who are in a position to make significant changes happen.
We’re capable of doing what needs to be done. We don’t have the imagination and will to make it happen.
What’s already baked in to the atmosphere is going to create profound changes. And we’re on track to make things a lot worse.
I don’t think people really have a concrete understanding of what it is going to mean.
We’ll mostly all be dead, folks a few generations from now are going to pay the price. That doesn’t seem to be a sufficient motivation for us to change our behavior.
no climate change action will happen.
correct.
Or, not “no climate change action”, but at most very limited mostly performative climate action. At least here, and probably other places.
The interests of people 50 or 100 or 500 years from now are dwarfed by the dollar value of the fossil resources that are in the ground, and which cannot be monetized unless they are extracted and burned.
And the scope and scale of social and economic changes that would have to happen in (at this point) a fairly short time would require a concerted public effort that we are no longer capable of, at least in this country.
Briefly, too many people in general don’t give a sh*t, and too many people whose extraordinary fortunes depend on extracting and burning that stuff have the ear of the folks who are in a position to make significant changes happen.
We’re capable of doing what needs to be done. We don’t have the imagination and will to make it happen.
What’s already baked in to the atmosphere is going to create profound changes. And we’re on track to make things a lot worse.
I don’t think people really have a concrete understanding of what it is going to mean.
We’ll mostly all be dead, folks a few generations from now are going to pay the price. That doesn’t seem to be a sufficient motivation for us to change our behavior.
Sometimes I think about things in terms of what circle of Dante’s hell people would end up in, were he writing now.
He’d need to create some new circles.
Sometimes I think about things in terms of what circle of Dante’s hell people would end up in, were he writing now.
He’d need to create some new circles.
That’s meaningless advice, wj. Lefties aren’t going to say nice things to Manchin. There are millions of us and it is a fantasy to think we are going to be nice to him. Do you imagine all of us getting together and deciding “ Let’s be nice to Joe Manchin, a guy we all loathe. Maybe he will change his mind.”
I think a sizable bribe with a guarantee he wouldn’t be caught taking it would change his mind. Maybe unctuous praise for his obvious wisdom, plus a bribe, would do even better. Or maybe threats, but there are no plausible ones.
It is demoralizing to lefties when they play the game and somehow, almost by magic, the corporate donors still wield more power. I know young people who say they want to burn it all down. Hard to blame them.
Also, regarding “ conspiracy theories”, I take for granted that corporate lobbyists are making phone calls to their pet politicians and maybe sometimes— yes, I know, it’s crazy—they conspire. Some Exxon lobbyist said something to that effect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyist-caught-on-video-talks-about-undermining-bidens-climate-push
That’s meaningless advice, wj. Lefties aren’t going to say nice things to Manchin. There are millions of us and it is a fantasy to think we are going to be nice to him. Do you imagine all of us getting together and deciding “ Let’s be nice to Joe Manchin, a guy we all loathe. Maybe he will change his mind.”
I think a sizable bribe with a guarantee he wouldn’t be caught taking it would change his mind. Maybe unctuous praise for his obvious wisdom, plus a bribe, would do even better. Or maybe threats, but there are no plausible ones.
It is demoralizing to lefties when they play the game and somehow, almost by magic, the corporate donors still wield more power. I know young people who say they want to burn it all down. Hard to blame them.
Also, regarding “ conspiracy theories”, I take for granted that corporate lobbyists are making phone calls to their pet politicians and maybe sometimes— yes, I know, it’s crazy—they conspire. Some Exxon lobbyist said something to that effect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyist-caught-on-video-talks-about-undermining-bidens-climate-push
Personally I think, the calculation would have to be how to deal with someone who is willing without hesitation to renege on any deal, i.e. someone who cannot be trusted. Can he be bribed, coerced, or be put into a position where his love for his position is greater than his ego? Shaming obviously does not work, neither do threats since he is not up for re-election soon and he could retire any day without much or any loss. From his POV he must keep the dead man switch or he is toast (if he loses it, few will still want to have anything to do with him after was is currently happening). So, he has to be kept capable of not going ‘I’ll take you all with me’ while also being made extremly uncomfortable. Difficult needle to thread.
The worst thing to do would be what I think someone above said: giving him the impression that once he voted on the most important agenda items, he’ll be dropped as he deserves because he isn’t needed anymore.
Personally I think, the calculation would have to be how to deal with someone who is willing without hesitation to renege on any deal, i.e. someone who cannot be trusted. Can he be bribed, coerced, or be put into a position where his love for his position is greater than his ego? Shaming obviously does not work, neither do threats since he is not up for re-election soon and he could retire any day without much or any loss. From his POV he must keep the dead man switch or he is toast (if he loses it, few will still want to have anything to do with him after was is currently happening). So, he has to be kept capable of not going ‘I’ll take you all with me’ while also being made extremly uncomfortable. Difficult needle to thread.
The worst thing to do would be what I think someone above said: giving him the impression that once he voted on the most important agenda items, he’ll be dropped as he deserves because he isn’t needed anymore.
That’s meaningless advice, wj. Lefties aren’t going to say nice things to Manchin. There are millions of us and it is a fantasy to think we are going to be nice to him. Do you imagine all of us getting together and deciding “Let’s be nice to Joe Manchin, a guy we all loathe. Maybe he will change his mind.”
OK, Donald, riddle me this. What are you hoping/expecting to accomplish by blasting Manchin?
The only possible benefit I can see is venting to make yourself feel better. Considering that you could, instead, be putting your energy into something constructive, why bother? Get out and register voters in states where there’s a prospect of winning more seats (in Congress, or in the state legislature). Spend time, effort, or money (whichever you prefer) on arranging to get your voters to turn out.
Granted some states are probably a lost cause. But others can be moved. Note that it wasn’t that long ago when Georgia was safe for the other side. For the moment, you’ve got 2 Democrats in the Senate from there. Which suggests that, even with enthusiastic voter suppression, state-wide offices (which can’t be gerrymandered) aren’t out of reach there. And it’s not the only case.
Perhaps you will find this advice will more meaningful.
That’s meaningless advice, wj. Lefties aren’t going to say nice things to Manchin. There are millions of us and it is a fantasy to think we are going to be nice to him. Do you imagine all of us getting together and deciding “Let’s be nice to Joe Manchin, a guy we all loathe. Maybe he will change his mind.”
OK, Donald, riddle me this. What are you hoping/expecting to accomplish by blasting Manchin?
The only possible benefit I can see is venting to make yourself feel better. Considering that you could, instead, be putting your energy into something constructive, why bother? Get out and register voters in states where there’s a prospect of winning more seats (in Congress, or in the state legislature). Spend time, effort, or money (whichever you prefer) on arranging to get your voters to turn out.
Granted some states are probably a lost cause. But others can be moved. Note that it wasn’t that long ago when Georgia was safe for the other side. For the moment, you’ve got 2 Democrats in the Senate from there. Which suggests that, even with enthusiastic voter suppression, state-wide offices (which can’t be gerrymandered) aren’t out of reach there. And it’s not the only case.
Perhaps you will find this advice will more meaningful.
Twenty years ago the radicals on the left were suggesting that perhaps society should do the things that the moderates today are coming around to as a non-radical attempt to “do something” about climate change. Had they been listened to then we would not need more radical action now. But doing it now rather than the more “radical” action that is now necessary is still going to necessitate that radical action in the future – only for less benefit.
On climate change, again and again, “radicals” have been, in hindsight, just moderates from the future who are given the Cassandra treatment.
And in the “moderates'” view, their twenty years of insisting that their way is the pragmatic one lets them continue to insist that everyone else give way to them when it comes to compromise.
Moderates are the common sense approach twenty years too late.
This is what happens when the people most likely to worry about what the world will be like in 20-30 years are kept away from power and talked down to for 20-30 years before anyone starts to listen.
It always reminds me of the inevitable scene in every ’80s teen movie where the teenage protagonist has to tuck in their well-meaning but overworked/drunk/sick parent and go off to parent themselves.
But, as most of us are saying, we are never going to get our shit together to fix things. We are going to screw around and let it all crumble.
Why don’t the youth get more involved? They don’t think anything being done will be around when they finally get their chance. It’ll all have been used up and trashed before they get a turn.
Twenty years ago the radicals on the left were suggesting that perhaps society should do the things that the moderates today are coming around to as a non-radical attempt to “do something” about climate change. Had they been listened to then we would not need more radical action now. But doing it now rather than the more “radical” action that is now necessary is still going to necessitate that radical action in the future – only for less benefit.
On climate change, again and again, “radicals” have been, in hindsight, just moderates from the future who are given the Cassandra treatment.
And in the “moderates'” view, their twenty years of insisting that their way is the pragmatic one lets them continue to insist that everyone else give way to them when it comes to compromise.
Moderates are the common sense approach twenty years too late.
This is what happens when the people most likely to worry about what the world will be like in 20-30 years are kept away from power and talked down to for 20-30 years before anyone starts to listen.
It always reminds me of the inevitable scene in every ’80s teen movie where the teenage protagonist has to tuck in their well-meaning but overworked/drunk/sick parent and go off to parent themselves.
But, as most of us are saying, we are never going to get our shit together to fix things. We are going to screw around and let it all crumble.
Why don’t the youth get more involved? They don’t think anything being done will be around when they finally get their chance. It’ll all have been used up and trashed before they get a turn.
I’m wondering something. What, in your experience, is the most effective way to get someone to change their mind on something?
From what I observe, the most effective way to change somebody’s mind is something that is well beyond my own, or any individual’s, control…in terms of the big picture it is usually via exogenous events (war, depression, famine, you know, the usual good things in life). Blacks switching from the GOP to the Dems after the onset of the Great Depression is a classic example. The aftershock of WWI is another (we still living with them). On a one to one level, it really helps to be part of the same close social group (church, club, job) where there is a personal connection.
I give you our exchanges over the years on this very blog as a counterexample (neither of us has changed our minds about much of anything).
But hope remains. You might still come around.
I’m wondering something. What, in your experience, is the most effective way to get someone to change their mind on something?
From what I observe, the most effective way to change somebody’s mind is something that is well beyond my own, or any individual’s, control…in terms of the big picture it is usually via exogenous events (war, depression, famine, you know, the usual good things in life). Blacks switching from the GOP to the Dems after the onset of the Great Depression is a classic example. The aftershock of WWI is another (we still living with them). On a one to one level, it really helps to be part of the same close social group (church, club, job) where there is a personal connection.
I give you our exchanges over the years on this very blog as a counterexample (neither of us has changed our minds about much of anything).
But hope remains. You might still come around.
I don’t think people really have a concrete understanding of what it is going to mean.
Absolutely. The technical term is “don’t have an ‘effing clue”. But when their property values evaporate, you can be damned sure they will change their minds about something. We can only hope we set them up to make the wise choice.
I don’t think people really have a concrete understanding of what it is going to mean.
Absolutely. The technical term is “don’t have an ‘effing clue”. But when their property values evaporate, you can be damned sure they will change their minds about something. We can only hope we set them up to make the wise choice.
The only way to get past the Prisoners Dilemma is to freeze out the non-solidarity prisoners from one iteration of the dilemma to the next. No broken cycle, no change.
If you cannot win the game ever in the future unless change happens in the metagame, then you have to risk the short term for the long.
Sometimes you have to fight the battle you know you will lose because the winners need to see that you will fight and do them lasting damage rather than give up.
Isn’t this what we’ve always seen as the only way to deal with a bully?
The only way to get past the Prisoners Dilemma is to freeze out the non-solidarity prisoners from one iteration of the dilemma to the next. No broken cycle, no change.
If you cannot win the game ever in the future unless change happens in the metagame, then you have to risk the short term for the long.
Sometimes you have to fight the battle you know you will lose because the winners need to see that you will fight and do them lasting damage rather than give up.
Isn’t this what we’ve always seen as the only way to deal with a bully?
Isn’t this what we’ve always seen as the only way to deal with a bully?
And sometimes, unfortunately, in order to deal effectively with a bully, you have to ally with someone pretty unsavory. See the WW II alliance with Stalin’s Russia. (And Chiang Kai-shek wasn’t a prince of a fellow either.) For the moment, Manchin is in a similar position, is he not?
Isn’t this what we’ve always seen as the only way to deal with a bully?
And sometimes, unfortunately, in order to deal effectively with a bully, you have to ally with someone pretty unsavory. See the WW II alliance with Stalin’s Russia. (And Chiang Kai-shek wasn’t a prince of a fellow either.) For the moment, Manchin is in a similar position, is he not?
wj,
The US and the Soviet Union shared a common overriding goal: The utter defeat of the Axis powers. There does not appear to be any such a commonality of interests with our good Senator Manchin. Finding that overriding commonality (there is a little) is the problem at hand.
So big difference.
wj,
The US and the Soviet Union shared a common overriding goal: The utter defeat of the Axis powers. There does not appear to be any such a commonality of interests with our good Senator Manchin. Finding that overriding commonality (there is a little) is the problem at hand.
So big difference.
Boy, I don’t think any lefty has made the connection between Manchin and Stalin. If you have to go there, that pretty much suggests that you acknowledge nothing is going to get done while he’s there. If that’s the case, (unless you include Stalin is your circle of moderates), maybe stop the paeans to moderation? At least until after Manchin is out?
Boy, I don’t think any lefty has made the connection between Manchin and Stalin. If you have to go there, that pretty much suggests that you acknowledge nothing is going to get done while he’s there. If that’s the case, (unless you include Stalin is your circle of moderates), maybe stop the paeans to moderation? At least until after Manchin is out?
I think one obvious thing is accomplished by blasting Manchin— in the past the “ moderates” are generally praised as the pragmatic types and now, finally, we have two who are correctly described as people who are only in this for themselves. That actually matters, because it might effect who gets support in those other elections you mention. We don’t want any more Manchin types in Congress and we don’t want that sort of moderation given any praise. People need to be motivated to elect Democrats who are concerned about climate change.
Biden, it seems to me, is already the type who was supposed to be able to reach people like Manchin and even Republicans, but the old days when the slightly left of center politicians made deals with slightly right of center politicians are gone. Being nice doesn’t seem to work. The “ nice” Republicans all vote with the Trumpers on most things.
Also, what Nous said. The past few decades show how useless moderate politics is when something truly momentous like climate change is involved.
I think one obvious thing is accomplished by blasting Manchin— in the past the “ moderates” are generally praised as the pragmatic types and now, finally, we have two who are correctly described as people who are only in this for themselves. That actually matters, because it might effect who gets support in those other elections you mention. We don’t want any more Manchin types in Congress and we don’t want that sort of moderation given any praise. People need to be motivated to elect Democrats who are concerned about climate change.
Biden, it seems to me, is already the type who was supposed to be able to reach people like Manchin and even Republicans, but the old days when the slightly left of center politicians made deals with slightly right of center politicians are gone. Being nice doesn’t seem to work. The “ nice” Republicans all vote with the Trumpers on most things.
Also, what Nous said. The past few decades show how useless moderate politics is when something truly momentous like climate change is involved.
maybe stop the paeans to moderation? At least until after Manchin is out?
To the best of my recollection (feel free to correct me), I haven’t called Manchin a “moderate”. I’d say he’s more conservative than most Democrats. And less reactionary than most Republicans. Which could describe a moderate also, but clearly doesn’t have to do so. Unless someone wants to redefine “moderate”.
As for “until Manchin is out” I’m all for increasing the number of Democratic Senators so the Manchin is out of his current position of power. But out of the Senate? Not unless someone finds another Democrat who can win in West Virginia. Even a bad Democrat is, to my mind, better than Trumpy Republican.
maybe stop the paeans to moderation? At least until after Manchin is out?
To the best of my recollection (feel free to correct me), I haven’t called Manchin a “moderate”. I’d say he’s more conservative than most Democrats. And less reactionary than most Republicans. Which could describe a moderate also, but clearly doesn’t have to do so. Unless someone wants to redefine “moderate”.
As for “until Manchin is out” I’m all for increasing the number of Democratic Senators so the Manchin is out of his current position of power. But out of the Senate? Not unless someone finds another Democrat who can win in West Virginia. Even a bad Democrat is, to my mind, better than Trumpy Republican.
We don’t want any more Manchin types in Congress and we don’t want that sort of moderation given any praise. People need to be motivated to elect Democrats who are concerned about climate change.
Agreed about the need to elect people who are concerned about climate change. But help me out here. How does blasting Manchin provide said motivation to voters? Assume I’m just exceptionally dense, and lay it out for me. Thanks.
We don’t want any more Manchin types in Congress and we don’t want that sort of moderation given any praise. People need to be motivated to elect Democrats who are concerned about climate change.
Agreed about the need to elect people who are concerned about climate change. But help me out here. How does blasting Manchin provide said motivation to voters? Assume I’m just exceptionally dense, and lay it out for me. Thanks.
wj – you have to change the lens through which voters view the positions on the issues and then get charismatic candidates to give voice to those new frameworks and show the old one for what it is.
Reagan worked for the OWI during WWII. His message has persisted in large part because it was effective propaganda.
This is all about everyone doing their part for the war effort. Manchin isn’t doing his part.
If we are ever to do a damn thing against environmental self-destruction, we need to frame this as a collective effort like The Good War. It’s the only sort of collective cause that has ever appealed in the US.
Manchin is Benny the Bungler.
Someone talked…
wj – you have to change the lens through which voters view the positions on the issues and then get charismatic candidates to give voice to those new frameworks and show the old one for what it is.
Reagan worked for the OWI during WWII. His message has persisted in large part because it was effective propaganda.
This is all about everyone doing their part for the war effort. Manchin isn’t doing his part.
If we are ever to do a damn thing against environmental self-destruction, we need to frame this as a collective effort like The Good War. It’s the only sort of collective cause that has ever appealed in the US.
Manchin is Benny the Bungler.
Someone talked…
you have to change the lens through which voters view the positions on the issues and then get charismatic candidates to give voice to those new frameworks and show the old one for what it is.
Makes perfect sense to me. What I’m missing is how blasting away at Manchin gets the lens changed.
It seems to me that shifting the voters viewpoint needs to come first. Once you’ve got that, you can give the guy the boot and have some chance of a better replacement. But without doing that view change first, you boot Manchin and likely get a Trump fanboy in his place. NOT a step forward on any front at all.
you have to change the lens through which voters view the positions on the issues and then get charismatic candidates to give voice to those new frameworks and show the old one for what it is.
Makes perfect sense to me. What I’m missing is how blasting away at Manchin gets the lens changed.
It seems to me that shifting the voters viewpoint needs to come first. Once you’ve got that, you can give the guy the boot and have some chance of a better replacement. But without doing that view change first, you boot Manchin and likely get a Trump fanboy in his place. NOT a step forward on any front at all.
What I’m missing is how blasting away at Manchin gets the lens changed.
This presumes that other avenues have not be tried and found wanting. Yelling intemperately about this (I would aver that what Sanders said would strike home to a great many) rallies the troops, stiffens the spine, AND GETS THE MESSAGE OUT THAT WHAT MANCHIN IS IN FAVOR OF IS SIMPLY NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
So, there’s that.
What I’m missing is how blasting away at Manchin gets the lens changed.
This presumes that other avenues have not be tried and found wanting. Yelling intemperately about this (I would aver that what Sanders said would strike home to a great many) rallies the troops, stiffens the spine, AND GETS THE MESSAGE OUT THAT WHAT MANCHIN IS IN FAVOR OF IS SIMPLY NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
So, there’s that.
I am getting tired of talking about this, but Manchin is in the needs constantly as a central figure, so people are either going to see him as a moderate in the good sense holding the line against profligate spending or as a selfish jerk who is standing in the way of progress in climate change when we are out of time to mess around. The second picture is the accurate one and yeah, I think having a villain who actually is a villain might motivate young people in other states to participate and elect Democrats who won’t betray them. Otherwise, without the pushback, the natural tendency of much of the press will be to fall back into horse race coverage and portray Manchin as an important figure who deserve to be taken seriously, as opposed to an asshole who used his power to screw us.
I am getting tired of talking about this, but Manchin is in the needs constantly as a central figure, so people are either going to see him as a moderate in the good sense holding the line against profligate spending or as a selfish jerk who is standing in the way of progress in climate change when we are out of time to mess around. The second picture is the accurate one and yeah, I think having a villain who actually is a villain might motivate young people in other states to participate and elect Democrats who won’t betray them. Otherwise, without the pushback, the natural tendency of much of the press will be to fall back into horse race coverage and portray Manchin as an important figure who deserve to be taken seriously, as opposed to an asshole who used his power to screw us.
In the news constantly, not in the needs.
In the news constantly, not in the needs.
Both have to happen together. Blasting Manchin is part of changing minds. You need both the message and the concrete examples to tie the messages to.
It’s not a personal attack, though. You attack him for what he does and how his lack of participation in the war effort undermine our victory. You make his ties to polluters unpatriotic.
Both have to happen together. Blasting Manchin is part of changing minds. You need both the message and the concrete examples to tie the messages to.
It’s not a personal attack, though. You attack him for what he does and how his lack of participation in the war effort undermine our victory. You make his ties to polluters unpatriotic.
Looks like we need more bold words…
Looks like we need more bold words…
Leaving an open tag was a bold move…
Leaving an open tag was a bold move…
To the best of my recollection (feel free to correct me), I haven’t called Manchin a “moderate”.
No, but every time the topic of Manchin comes up, you bring up arguments about moderation and how ‘we’ (for varying values of that pronoun) need to follow a path of moderation to make things work out. Yet in explaining all this, you put off climate change, you put off voting rights, all in pursuit of a will o’ wisp of ‘moderation’.
I pointed out that Manchin was the mirror image of Collins. It is this constant elevation of moderation as a good in and of itself that leaves them (and you) convinced that being a ‘moderate’ is a good thing. Rather than try and make moderation into something good (similar with your forays in discussing the Republican party), it seems to me that we would be better served by junking the concept, at least in discussions like these.
To the best of my recollection (feel free to correct me), I haven’t called Manchin a “moderate”.
No, but every time the topic of Manchin comes up, you bring up arguments about moderation and how ‘we’ (for varying values of that pronoun) need to follow a path of moderation to make things work out. Yet in explaining all this, you put off climate change, you put off voting rights, all in pursuit of a will o’ wisp of ‘moderation’.
I pointed out that Manchin was the mirror image of Collins. It is this constant elevation of moderation as a good in and of itself that leaves them (and you) convinced that being a ‘moderate’ is a good thing. Rather than try and make moderation into something good (similar with your forays in discussing the Republican party), it seems to me that we would be better served by junking the concept, at least in discussions like these.
wrote a bit too quickly.
Rather than try and make moderation into something good
This suggests I think moderation is ‘bad’. I don’t, but I think, in our current circumstances, we need to put it on the back of the shelf and pull it out when things calm down a bit.
wrote a bit too quickly.
Rather than try and make moderation into something good
This suggests I think moderation is ‘bad’. I don’t, but I think, in our current circumstances, we need to put it on the back of the shelf and pull it out when things calm down a bit.
Leaving an open tag was a bold move…
But the real horror was the unintended consequences.
🙂
Leaving an open tag was a bold move…
But the real horror was the unintended consequences.
🙂
Moderate means different things. In my personal life I want people to be moderate as opposed to being aggressive, loud, hot tempered, etc. I think the word acquires much of its positive glow because of this type of association. People don’t like to be yelled at. Or at least a lot of us don’t. Consciously or subconsciously, people then transfer their preferences about the kind of personality types they want to be around to the political spectrum. A moderate is supposed to be this calm person who listens to all sides and makes a rational decision.
I don’t think that political moderates in practice are as rational as they perceive themselves to be. In extreme cases ( yes, moderates can be extreme) it’s just a form of posturing with no factual basis or rational argument behind it at all. Of course people on all parts of the political spectrum can be irrational, but self described moderates make a fetish of how pragmatic they are. I see this in some of the comments under NYT articles— people who clearly have no clue how the 3.5 trillion compares to either the likely level of military spending or the predicted GDP in that same ten year period. And they assume it is the Sanders AOC types causing the problem. I even see people calling the BBB bill a manifestation of “ woke” extremism. For this type of moderate their moderation is a form of identity politics for affluent ( probably white) normies. It’s about posturing and buzzwords and political cliches.
Moderate means different things. In my personal life I want people to be moderate as opposed to being aggressive, loud, hot tempered, etc. I think the word acquires much of its positive glow because of this type of association. People don’t like to be yelled at. Or at least a lot of us don’t. Consciously or subconsciously, people then transfer their preferences about the kind of personality types they want to be around to the political spectrum. A moderate is supposed to be this calm person who listens to all sides and makes a rational decision.
I don’t think that political moderates in practice are as rational as they perceive themselves to be. In extreme cases ( yes, moderates can be extreme) it’s just a form of posturing with no factual basis or rational argument behind it at all. Of course people on all parts of the political spectrum can be irrational, but self described moderates make a fetish of how pragmatic they are. I see this in some of the comments under NYT articles— people who clearly have no clue how the 3.5 trillion compares to either the likely level of military spending or the predicted GDP in that same ten year period. And they assume it is the Sanders AOC types causing the problem. I even see people calling the BBB bill a manifestation of “ woke” extremism. For this type of moderate their moderation is a form of identity politics for affluent ( probably white) normies. It’s about posturing and buzzwords and political cliches.
I don’t think that political moderates in practice are as rational as they perceive themselves to be.
Perhaps not. On the other hand, I think I’m moderately conservative. (Which, to my mind, is a variant of moderate.) Said moderation is why this life-long Republican hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in a general election since 1996. All the moderates (or as close an approximation as is on offer) are currently on that side of the fence.
The only irrational bit I see on my part is some persistent (albeit declining) optimism, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that it is still possible to haul the GOP back to sanity. But then, I may well be too close the see other irrational stuff clearly.
I don’t think that political moderates in practice are as rational as they perceive themselves to be.
Perhaps not. On the other hand, I think I’m moderately conservative. (Which, to my mind, is a variant of moderate.) Said moderation is why this life-long Republican hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in a general election since 1996. All the moderates (or as close an approximation as is on offer) are currently on that side of the fence.
The only irrational bit I see on my part is some persistent (albeit declining) optimism, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that it is still possible to haul the GOP back to sanity. But then, I may well be too close the see other irrational stuff clearly.
I’m sure no one believes you have a line to Manchin (or, god forbid, Sinema) and I certainly don’t want to bust you. But Donald’s explanation synchs with my general observations. I’ve also found, in the course of dealing with labor issues here in Japan, that people who are personally ‘moderate’ can often be really strongly supportive of essentially radical things (unfortunately, labor unions and such are pretty rad here) So making a clear difference between the personal moderation and the political “moderation” is, in my book, A Good Thing.
I’m sure no one believes you have a line to Manchin (or, god forbid, Sinema) and I certainly don’t want to bust you. But Donald’s explanation synchs with my general observations. I’ve also found, in the course of dealing with labor issues here in Japan, that people who are personally ‘moderate’ can often be really strongly supportive of essentially radical things (unfortunately, labor unions and such are pretty rad here) So making a clear difference between the personal moderation and the political “moderation” is, in my book, A Good Thing.
Manchin is not a moderate – he’s extremely awkward.
Manchin is not a moderate – he’s extremely awkward.
I’m not following the US news cycle, but I would say that:
– Climate change is the single most important issue
– It’s not at all surprising a Senator for West Virginia won’t support measures which would reduce coal use
– It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that no Republican, from whatever state, is willing to support a sensible package of measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
– the second most important issue is fair elections. The Republican strategy is minority rule by them forever. If they achieve that, you can forget about anything good coming our of Washington, ever.
– Manchin should be seen as a fluke 50th vote for D control of the Senate, not a D in any other sense. A scorpion is a scorpion, however much you blame it for it.
I’m not following the US news cycle, but I would say that:
– Climate change is the single most important issue
– It’s not at all surprising a Senator for West Virginia won’t support measures which would reduce coal use
– It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that no Republican, from whatever state, is willing to support a sensible package of measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
– the second most important issue is fair elections. The Republican strategy is minority rule by them forever. If they achieve that, you can forget about anything good coming our of Washington, ever.
– Manchin should be seen as a fluke 50th vote for D control of the Senate, not a D in any other sense. A scorpion is a scorpion, however much you blame it for it.
Manchin should be seen as a fluke 50th vote for D control of the Senate, not a D in any other sense.
Other than that he’s won assorted statewide offices in WV as a Democrat for the last 20 years and has been a pretty reliable vote on policy in the Senate. There are other Dems in the Senate — Hickenlooper and Bennett from here in Colorado come to mind — that favor a much slower pace on climate change. Slower than many of their constituents would like, in fact. And both have said that the filibuster might need changes, but have hedged about how and when.
Manchin should be seen as a fluke 50th vote for D control of the Senate, not a D in any other sense.
Other than that he’s won assorted statewide offices in WV as a Democrat for the last 20 years and has been a pretty reliable vote on policy in the Senate. There are other Dems in the Senate — Hickenlooper and Bennett from here in Colorado come to mind — that favor a much slower pace on climate change. Slower than many of their constituents would like, in fact. And both have said that the filibuster might need changes, but have hedged about how and when.
Hickenlooper and Bennett are a bigpart of the reason I hope the Dems load pressure on the two holdouts (very specific pressure on these two issues) because others are trying to see how much wiggle room they have as well. The answer on these two issues should be, needs to be, “none.”
Hickenlooper and Bennett are a bigpart of the reason I hope the Dems load pressure on the two holdouts (very specific pressure on these two issues) because others are trying to see how much wiggle room they have as well. The answer on these two issues should be, needs to be, “none.”
Among other things, Manchin is a guy who holds some millions of dollars in private shares in a coal brokerage. Which he started, and which is run by his son.
He represents a very rural state whose economy has historically been based on extracting coal from the ground.
He is not going to lead the charge on climate change.
It would be nice if public officials would put their personal interests aside when it comes to matters of public policy, but it should not surprise anyone when they don’t.
The problem is not that Joe Manchin is predictably being Joe Manchin. The problem is that the nation is in a position where Joe Manchin has the ability to stonewall (D) policies.
Congress is not an accurate reflection of America. That’s partly a structural thing – see also the US Senate – partly a result of gerrymandering, partly a result of efforts on the part of the (R) party to prevent people who don’t vote for them from voting at all, partly the fact that Congress is largely made up of lawyers and overwhelmingly of wealthy people.
It also doesn’t help that, as a practical matter, most impediments to very wealthy people and organizations simply buying Congressional votes have been eliminated.
Manchin is just being Manchin. Getting angry with him is understandable, but is of little practical value.
We need to get ourselves out of a world where Joe Manchin gets to decide which policies get to see the light of day and which don’t.
He’s a rich old guy whose wealth is based on coal. He is one of two Senators, and one of five Congresspeople as a whole, of a state with less than 2 million people, in a nation of over 300 million people.
The problem is not Joe Manchin, personally. The problem is that a Joe Manchin is able to have that much power.
Among other things, Manchin is a guy who holds some millions of dollars in private shares in a coal brokerage. Which he started, and which is run by his son.
He represents a very rural state whose economy has historically been based on extracting coal from the ground.
He is not going to lead the charge on climate change.
It would be nice if public officials would put their personal interests aside when it comes to matters of public policy, but it should not surprise anyone when they don’t.
The problem is not that Joe Manchin is predictably being Joe Manchin. The problem is that the nation is in a position where Joe Manchin has the ability to stonewall (D) policies.
Congress is not an accurate reflection of America. That’s partly a structural thing – see also the US Senate – partly a result of gerrymandering, partly a result of efforts on the part of the (R) party to prevent people who don’t vote for them from voting at all, partly the fact that Congress is largely made up of lawyers and overwhelmingly of wealthy people.
It also doesn’t help that, as a practical matter, most impediments to very wealthy people and organizations simply buying Congressional votes have been eliminated.
Manchin is just being Manchin. Getting angry with him is understandable, but is of little practical value.
We need to get ourselves out of a world where Joe Manchin gets to decide which policies get to see the light of day and which don’t.
He’s a rich old guy whose wealth is based on coal. He is one of two Senators, and one of five Congresspeople as a whole, of a state with less than 2 million people, in a nation of over 300 million people.
The problem is not Joe Manchin, personally. The problem is that a Joe Manchin is able to have that much power.
It also doesn’t help that, as a practical matter, most impediments to very wealthy people and organizations simply buying Congressional votes have been eliminated.
Which, in turn, is a result of a decades-long effort to remodel the Federal judiciary.
As a first step towards correcting that, perhaps something like a (written?) qualification test for would-be Federal judges needs to be put in place. I’m not sure what the ABA uses to rate nominees, but that might be a place to start. (I’m not enthused about outsourcing the testing to the ABA.** But their process might jump-start work on what is needed.)
** Nor, tempting as it might be, to making endorsement by the Federalist society a dis-qualification.
It also doesn’t help that, as a practical matter, most impediments to very wealthy people and organizations simply buying Congressional votes have been eliminated.
Which, in turn, is a result of a decades-long effort to remodel the Federal judiciary.
As a first step towards correcting that, perhaps something like a (written?) qualification test for would-be Federal judges needs to be put in place. I’m not sure what the ABA uses to rate nominees, but that might be a place to start. (I’m not enthused about outsourcing the testing to the ABA.** But their process might jump-start work on what is needed.)
** Nor, tempting as it might be, to making endorsement by the Federalist society a dis-qualification.
Unfortunately, hardcore ideologue does not automatically mean incompetent. Many GOP appointed judges would have no problem passing a test of qualification. We’d need a reliable honorability/honesty test which does not exist.
Unfortunately, hardcore ideologue does not automatically mean incompetent. Many GOP appointed judges would have no problem passing a test of qualification. We’d need a reliable honorability/honesty test which does not exist.
– Climate change is the single most important issue
4% of Americans agree!
– Climate change is the single most important issue
4% of Americans agree!
“Most important” creates ambiguity between “most urgent” and “of gravest consequence” and “today” nudges the answer towards the former. Just one reason why I think governance by poll is a mistake.
“Most important” creates ambiguity between “most urgent” and “of gravest consequence” and “today” nudges the answer towards the former. Just one reason why I think governance by poll is a mistake.
Unfortunately, hardcore ideologue does not automatically mean incompetent. Many GOP appointed judges would have no problem passing a test of qualification.
Not a total solution, certainly. But it is in my mind that the previous administration, for the first time in my memory, insisted on appointing a number of judges who the ABA designated “Not qualified.” Since they were, routinely, ideologues, fixing that would be a step forward.
Unfortunately, hardcore ideologue does not automatically mean incompetent. Many GOP appointed judges would have no problem passing a test of qualification.
Not a total solution, certainly. But it is in my mind that the previous administration, for the first time in my memory, insisted on appointing a number of judges who the ABA designated “Not qualified.” Since they were, routinely, ideologues, fixing that would be a step forward.
Beyond that, perhaps the Democrats/progressives need to develop something similar to the Federalist Society, to nurture judges who are not reactionaries.
Beyond that, perhaps the Democrats/progressives need to develop something similar to the Federalist Society, to nurture judges who are not reactionaries.
“ The problem is not Joe Manchin, personally. The problem is that a Joe Manchin is able to have that much power.”
One could say something similar about Trump.
I think people like Manchin deserve anger. How and to what degree it should be expressed can be debated, but I don’t think corrupt people in power should be given a pass. We are for the foreseeable future going to live under a terrible constitution which gives too much power to an unrepresentative body. We can’t fix that. We are going to have rich people in office. Can’t fix that. Lots of things can’t be fixed in the next ten years when we have to get serious about climate change but here is one thing we can do— we can criticize stupid selfish hacks like Joe Manchin, which may not do anything to him, but establishes a principle that Democratic voters don’t want any more pieces of shit like him in either the Senate or the House. Maybe he can pass as a Democrat in Trumplandia, but not elsewhere.
“ The problem is not Joe Manchin, personally. The problem is that a Joe Manchin is able to have that much power.”
One could say something similar about Trump.
I think people like Manchin deserve anger. How and to what degree it should be expressed can be debated, but I don’t think corrupt people in power should be given a pass. We are for the foreseeable future going to live under a terrible constitution which gives too much power to an unrepresentative body. We can’t fix that. We are going to have rich people in office. Can’t fix that. Lots of things can’t be fixed in the next ten years when we have to get serious about climate change but here is one thing we can do— we can criticize stupid selfish hacks like Joe Manchin, which may not do anything to him, but establishes a principle that Democratic voters don’t want any more pieces of shit like him in either the Senate or the House. Maybe he can pass as a Democrat in Trumplandia, but not elsewhere.
Climate change is the single most important issue
4% of Americans agree!
I’m on record, and will continue to be, saying that when people (eg, my granddaughters) in 2050 look back on the first half of the 21st century the big question for them will be, “How could so many of our grandparents have been so wrong about the urgency on climate?”
Climate change is the single most important issue
4% of Americans agree!
I’m on record, and will continue to be, saying that when people (eg, my granddaughters) in 2050 look back on the first half of the 21st century the big question for them will be, “How could so many of our grandparents have been so wrong about the urgency on climate?”
Since it’s an open thread, here’s a question. What will be the big event in the continental US that wakes people up on climate? I’m inclined to guess that it won’t be the “obvious” ones people talk about — like rising water in Miami — because those are gradual. I’m guessing it will be some early summer when we lose the Old River Control Structure on the Mississippi River in a catastrophic failure.
Since it’s an open thread, here’s a question. What will be the big event in the continental US that wakes people up on climate? I’m inclined to guess that it won’t be the “obvious” ones people talk about — like rising water in Miami — because those are gradual. I’m guessing it will be some early summer when we lose the Old River Control Structure on the Mississippi River in a catastrophic failure.
I disagree with this giy frequently. But here, he makes some cogent points.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/liberals-turn-compromise-into-victory/
I disagree with this giy frequently. But here, he makes some cogent points.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/liberals-turn-compromise-into-victory/
I don’t think corrupt people in power should be given a pass.
I’m not sure Manchin is corrupt. I’m not sure a Senator from a state whose major industry, historically, has been coal mining, who then resists or slow-walks climate change policies is corrupt. He may just be representing the interests of his constituents, even if that means visiting a living hell on millions or billions of people 50 or 100 years from now.
I’m not even sure a guy whose personal wealth derives from extracting coal doing the same amounts to corrupt. Self-interested, yes, but I’d find it believable that he thinks he’s doing the right-ish thing, which just happens to coincide with his own interests.
I’m not sure Manchin is a particularly bad guy. He may be simply mediocre. And that may be bad enough.
4% of Americans agree!
Probably a lot of overlap with the set of Americans who are going to be alive 50 years from now.
I don’t think corrupt people in power should be given a pass.
I’m not sure Manchin is corrupt. I’m not sure a Senator from a state whose major industry, historically, has been coal mining, who then resists or slow-walks climate change policies is corrupt. He may just be representing the interests of his constituents, even if that means visiting a living hell on millions or billions of people 50 or 100 years from now.
I’m not even sure a guy whose personal wealth derives from extracting coal doing the same amounts to corrupt. Self-interested, yes, but I’d find it believable that he thinks he’s doing the right-ish thing, which just happens to coincide with his own interests.
I’m not sure Manchin is a particularly bad guy. He may be simply mediocre. And that may be bad enough.
4% of Americans agree!
Probably a lot of overlap with the set of Americans who are going to be alive 50 years from now.
“How could so many of our grandparents have been so wrong about the urgency on climate?”
A corollary big question will be which side was so wrong.
“How could so many of our grandparents have been so wrong about the urgency on climate?”
A corollary big question will be which side was so wrong.
Michael,
Why do you think your granddaughters will skip a generation in their question?
I don’t mean that as a personal question, of course. Just wondering why the generation comprising our children is not already up in arms against the MAGAt-adjacent pols and their supporters who act and vote as if the climate problem isn’t particularly urgent.
–TP
Michael,
Why do you think your granddaughters will skip a generation in their question?
I don’t mean that as a personal question, of course. Just wondering why the generation comprising our children is not already up in arms against the MAGAt-adjacent pols and their supporters who act and vote as if the climate problem isn’t particularly urgent.
–TP
It appear to be untrue that Manchin represents the interests of his constituents, even in a narrow sense, on the issue of climate change.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/wv-voters-support-ces
The canny old grifter represents his own interests.
It appear to be untrue that Manchin represents the interests of his constituents, even in a narrow sense, on the issue of climate change.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/wv-voters-support-ces
The canny old grifter represents his own interests.
And is old and selfish enough not to care much about how the world looks in 2050.
But the Democrats still need his vote. So compromise it will be.
And is old and selfish enough not to care much about how the world looks in 2050.
But the Democrats still need his vote. So compromise it will be.
Charles,
Which “side” do you think stands a better chance of turning out to have been “so wrong”?
On past form, I suspect you imagine that The Free Market, left alone and un-oppressed by The Government, will do a fine job of solving “the problem”. Or maybe there is no “problem” to be solved, in your view. Either way, care to expand on your “corollary big question”?
–TP
Charles,
Which “side” do you think stands a better chance of turning out to have been “so wrong”?
On past form, I suspect you imagine that The Free Market, left alone and un-oppressed by The Government, will do a fine job of solving “the problem”. Or maybe there is no “problem” to be solved, in your view. Either way, care to expand on your “corollary big question”?
–TP
But the Democrats still need his vote. So compromise it will be.
Once the bill is passed and signed, the challenge for progressives, and for Democrats generally, will be to focus on all the things that did get done. Rather than the things that should have been included but weren’t. Because that’s what will be needed to sell a “See, government can work, if we’re in charge!” message to 2022 voters.
Not to say y’all shouldn’t work on getting more stuff in the 2022 reconciliation bill. Just that ya gotta blow your own horn on all the really big stuff that you have managed to accomplish. Sell the “The glass is half full” version, rather than moaning about the glass being half empty.
But the Democrats still need his vote. So compromise it will be.
Once the bill is passed and signed, the challenge for progressives, and for Democrats generally, will be to focus on all the things that did get done. Rather than the things that should have been included but weren’t. Because that’s what will be needed to sell a “See, government can work, if we’re in charge!” message to 2022 voters.
Not to say y’all shouldn’t work on getting more stuff in the 2022 reconciliation bill. Just that ya gotta blow your own horn on all the really big stuff that you have managed to accomplish. Sell the “The glass is half full” version, rather than moaning about the glass being half empty.
What Tony said (6:22).
What Tony said (6:22).
The IPCC has projected that if nothing is done to address climate change, by the end of the century global GDP will be 10 to 15 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be. That is 435 to 440 instead of 450 percent greater than it is today. If nothing is done global GDP will still be over five times greater than it is today. Since the IPCC is the global face in addressing climate change, perhaps your argument is with them, not me.
The IPCC has projected that if nothing is done to address climate change, by the end of the century global GDP will be 10 to 15 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be. That is 435 to 440 instead of 450 percent greater than it is today. If nothing is done global GDP will still be over five times greater than it is today. Since the IPCC is the global face in addressing climate change, perhaps your argument is with them, not me.
Just one reason why I think governance by poll is a mistake.
until we have a steady supply of benevolent dictators, it will have to do.
Just one reason why I think governance by poll is a mistake.
until we have a steady supply of benevolent dictators, it will have to do.
On past form, I suspect you imagine that The Free Market, left alone and un-oppressed by The Government, will do a fine job of solving “the problem”. Or maybe there is no “problem” to be solved, in your view.
In my view, there is a problem but that it is a much smaller problem than is often portrayed. And that the free market will do the least worse job at fixing it.
On past form, I suspect you imagine that The Free Market, left alone and un-oppressed by The Government, will do a fine job of solving “the problem”. Or maybe there is no “problem” to be solved, in your view.
In my view, there is a problem but that it is a much smaller problem than is often portrayed. And that the free market will do the least worse job at fixing it.
the free market will do the least worse job at fixing it.
No doubt there is a Reason article somewhere which speaks to all the great steps that the free market has already taken to fix it. Yeah, right
the free market will do the least worse job at fixing it.
No doubt there is a Reason article somewhere which speaks to all the great steps that the free market has already taken to fix it. Yeah, right
How many people can eat a GDP? Do they float?
If 100000 refugees turn up at your doorstep, how many GDPs will it cost to get them to go next door?
How many GDPs will it take to buy the requisite indulgences to get your soul out of hock?
How many people can eat a GDP? Do they float?
If 100000 refugees turn up at your doorstep, how many GDPs will it cost to get them to go next door?
How many GDPs will it take to buy the requisite indulgences to get your soul out of hock?
if i get 10,000,000 new GDPs, does it matter if 10,000 people lose 100 GDPs each?
not to the Global Average!
hooray for math!
if i get 10,000,000 new GDPs, does it matter if 10,000 people lose 100 GDPs each?
not to the Global Average!
hooray for math!
the missing factor of ten is in the prescription for the glasses i’m not wearing.
the missing factor of ten is in the prescription for the glasses i’m not wearing.
The IPCC has projected that if nothing is done to address climate change, by the end of the century global GDP will be 10 to 15 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be. That is 435 to 440 instead of 450 percent greater than it is today.
That’s not what 10% smaller means.
No citation there, but here‘s the most recent relevant report (from Swiss Re via WEF, not IPPC). It projects a 10% relative loss of GDP by 2050.
That still doesn’t sound like much, but most GDP is in services not much affected by climate change, not in the important stuff poor people need.
The IPCC has projected that if nothing is done to address climate change, by the end of the century global GDP will be 10 to 15 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be. That is 435 to 440 instead of 450 percent greater than it is today.
That’s not what 10% smaller means.
No citation there, but here‘s the most recent relevant report (from Swiss Re via WEF, not IPPC). It projects a 10% relative loss of GDP by 2050.
That still doesn’t sound like much, but most GDP is in services not much affected by climate change, not in the important stuff poor people need.
Here’s a group of Stanford scholars’ visualization of what GDP looks like under climate change using the IPCC’s 2015 report:
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php
They seem to be saying something different than what CharlesWT or his source is saying about the effect of temperature on GDP. They seem to be saying percentage change in per capita GDP, not percentage of reduction in growth of GDP.
Their study, BTW, seems to have been published in Nature. You can chase it if you want.
Here’s a group of Stanford scholars’ visualization of what GDP looks like under climate change using the IPCC’s 2015 report:
https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php
They seem to be saying something different than what CharlesWT or his source is saying about the effect of temperature on GDP. They seem to be saying percentage change in per capita GDP, not percentage of reduction in growth of GDP.
Their study, BTW, seems to have been published in Nature. You can chase it if you want.
I only dabble in this, but even I know that the mainstream economist estimates of the damage caused by climate change are ludicrously low. One model shows a 10 percent drop if the temperature rose 6 degrees Celsius. In other words, an unimaginable cataclysm which would make much of the earth uninhabitable would be lies serious than the Great Depresssion. It reminds me of people like Herman Kahn who talked about winning a nuclear war.
Here is a three year old link but there are a lot more out there.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/8/17437104/climate-change-global-warming-models-risks
I only dabble in this, but even I know that the mainstream economist estimates of the damage caused by climate change are ludicrously low. One model shows a 10 percent drop if the temperature rose 6 degrees Celsius. In other words, an unimaginable cataclysm which would make much of the earth uninhabitable would be lies serious than the Great Depresssion. It reminds me of people like Herman Kahn who talked about winning a nuclear war.
Here is a three year old link but there are a lot more out there.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/8/17437104/climate-change-global-warming-models-risks
the missing factor of ten is in the prescription for the glasses i’m not wearing.
And here I was thinking typo…
Projection, I suppose.
the missing factor of ten is in the prescription for the glasses i’m not wearing.
And here I was thinking typo…
Projection, I suppose.
CharlesWT: The IPCC has projected that if nothing is done to address climate change, by the end of the century global GDP will be 10 to 15 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be.
The IPCC web site is a formidable collection of pages. I confess I have not read through all of them. I have not even been able to search out the projection CharlesWT refers to, my google-fu being not-strong. Perhaps Charles would care to offer a specific link, so anyone who cares to look at the actual source can stand a chance of being persuaded by it. If CharlesWT’s “source” is some Reason article, surely it will contain the link I’m looking for.
No offense to Charles, but people with an axe to grind have been known to misrepresent what their claimed source actually says, so it pays to check.
Meanwhile, it’s hard to argue about the merits or shortcomings of an uncited projection.
–TP
CharlesWT: The IPCC has projected that if nothing is done to address climate change, by the end of the century global GDP will be 10 to 15 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be.
The IPCC web site is a formidable collection of pages. I confess I have not read through all of them. I have not even been able to search out the projection CharlesWT refers to, my google-fu being not-strong. Perhaps Charles would care to offer a specific link, so anyone who cares to look at the actual source can stand a chance of being persuaded by it. If CharlesWT’s “source” is some Reason article, surely it will contain the link I’m looking for.
No offense to Charles, but people with an axe to grind have been known to misrepresent what their claimed source actually says, so it pays to check.
Meanwhile, it’s hard to argue about the merits or shortcomings of an uncited projection.
–TP
Here is a very recent study which argues that people have been greatly underestimating the damage per ton of carbon emissions.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/we-have-gravely-underestimated-the-economic-cost-of-climate-change/
Here is a very recent study which argues that people have been greatly underestimating the damage per ton of carbon emissions.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/we-have-gravely-underestimated-the-economic-cost-of-climate-change/
I have not even been able to search out the projection CharlesWT refers to, my google-fu being not-strong.
I too have trouble finding links to back my assertions.
This may be the source of the numbers I quoted. But is global human welfare the same as global GDP?
“Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today’s welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.”
Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies
I have not even been able to search out the projection CharlesWT refers to, my google-fu being not-strong.
I too have trouble finding links to back my assertions.
This may be the source of the numbers I quoted. But is global human welfare the same as global GDP?
“Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today’s welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.”
Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies
Pretty sure Manchin is corrupt.
https://theintercept.com/2021/10/23/joe-manchin-federal-investigations/
The NYT reports he found something else he doesn’t like— a provision that would put a fee on methane emissions.
Pretty sure Manchin is corrupt.
https://theintercept.com/2021/10/23/joe-manchin-federal-investigations/
The NYT reports he found something else he doesn’t like— a provision that would put a fee on methane emissions.
Charles— Bjorn Lomborg? He is your source?
I try not to do what I am doing now and reject something out of hand because of who wrote it, but in a few cases it is probably a useful heuristic. This is like quoting an intelligent design person as an authority on evolutionary theory.
Charles— Bjorn Lomborg? He is your source?
I try not to do what I am doing now and reject something out of hand because of who wrote it, but in a few cases it is probably a useful heuristic. This is like quoting an intelligent design person as an authority on evolutionary theory.
When Bjørn Lomborg claims in his article that inequality is set to plummet in the 21st C. while defining that drop in inequality as the gap between the richest nation and the poorest, and then treats per capita GDP as a measure of how well off every citizen in those countries is, I begin to suspect that he’s oversimplifying things.
Look at our current problems with logistics worldwide and imagine those continuing, because they will as we continue to have pandemics due to hyperglobalism and environmental stress.
Try to figure the effect of millions of displaced peoples becoming climate refugees. Look at the strain placed on the EU as it struggles to absorb its massive influx of refugees and integrate them.
All smoothed over in Lomborg’s assumptions that GDP becomes individual welfare, and that technological advances will outstrip all the climate related challenges.
I’m skeptical of the skeptic.
When Bjørn Lomborg claims in his article that inequality is set to plummet in the 21st C. while defining that drop in inequality as the gap between the richest nation and the poorest, and then treats per capita GDP as a measure of how well off every citizen in those countries is, I begin to suspect that he’s oversimplifying things.
Look at our current problems with logistics worldwide and imagine those continuing, because they will as we continue to have pandemics due to hyperglobalism and environmental stress.
Try to figure the effect of millions of displaced peoples becoming climate refugees. Look at the strain placed on the EU as it struggles to absorb its massive influx of refugees and integrate them.
All smoothed over in Lomborg’s assumptions that GDP becomes individual welfare, and that technological advances will outstrip all the climate related challenges.
I’m skeptical of the skeptic.
Lomborg likes to self-own…
While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies.
Lomborg likes to self-own…
While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies.
But is global human welfare the same as global GDP?
No.
But is global human welfare the same as global GDP?
No.
The IPCC has projected that if nothing is done to address climate change, by the end of the century global GDP will be 10 to 15 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be
When people consider the risks of climate change, they are mostly talking about stuff other than GDP.
Pretty sure Manchin is corrupt.
This would not surprise me.
The IPCC has projected that if nothing is done to address climate change, by the end of the century global GDP will be 10 to 15 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be
When people consider the risks of climate change, they are mostly talking about stuff other than GDP.
Pretty sure Manchin is corrupt.
This would not surprise me.
Rebuilding expensive waterfront homes contributes to GDP, so we have that going for us. Subsistence farmers can be wiped from the face of the earth with almost no effect on GDP. Sucks for them.
Rebuilding expensive waterfront homes contributes to GDP, so we have that going for us. Subsistence farmers can be wiped from the face of the earth with almost no effect on GDP. Sucks for them.
But that’s what makes the GDP so great here: it hides all those inconvenient details.
Also, since GDP typically only captures the money economy, subsistance farmers not only have minimal impact, they don’t really feature at all. Except for this. Since they are part of the population, if they all starve, the population draps, so the per capita GDP can even go up. And without any awkward genocide accusations, too.
But that’s what makes the GDP so great here: it hides all those inconvenient details.
Also, since GDP typically only captures the money economy, subsistance farmers not only have minimal impact, they don’t really feature at all. Except for this. Since they are part of the population, if they all starve, the population draps, so the per capita GDP can even go up. And without any awkward genocide accusations, too.
OMG!!!
Astronomers find signs of a planet beyond our galaxy with NASA telescope
28 million light years away. For a planet. OK, it’s the size of Saturn, but still.
OMG!!!
Astronomers find signs of a planet beyond our galaxy with NASA telescope
28 million light years away. For a planet. OK, it’s the size of Saturn, but still.
Rebuilding expensive waterfront homes contributes to GDP
Reproducing the Netherlands’ dike system around every coastal US city, same/same. Or, just relocating them.
And not just the US.
There will be work aplenty for all of the refugees.
Rebuilding expensive waterfront homes contributes to GDP
Reproducing the Netherlands’ dike system around every coastal US city, same/same. Or, just relocating them.
And not just the US.
There will be work aplenty for all of the refugees.
WOW!
A planet outside of our galaxy has its very own NASA telescope?
Are they looking back at us?
Maybe Musk’s lookalike mannequin in the lost in space junk Tesla convertible can be re-directed to take a closer look see.
Gadzooks!
If the vaunted private sector, which created the present conditions for global climate change, are the only entity (government scientists can warn for 30 or 40 years… without even a simple thank you from ingrate conservatives and libertarians … but we must cool our overheated heels for 40 years while the fucking private sector, which studied its nails on one hand while thwarting all research, let alone possible action, during the same time period) can be permitted to combat that damage, how come they didn’t sell that planet a cheaper private label telescope.
On what beach did the private sector make landfall on June 6, 1944?
True, private sectors actors John Wayne and Hollywood (Tom Hanks’ … a child molestor in league with Hillary Clinton, according to subhuman conservative republican vermin .. production, was better) copycatted the successful government version.
Who will play James Hansen in the movie version of Operation It Costs Too Much To Save The Human Race?
Some conservative jagoff like Jon Voight?
How ’bout fuckwad dirtmouth James Woods?
Conservative grifter Caitland Jenner could handle the role if she still has the spare parts.
WOW!
A planet outside of our galaxy has its very own NASA telescope?
Are they looking back at us?
Maybe Musk’s lookalike mannequin in the lost in space junk Tesla convertible can be re-directed to take a closer look see.
Gadzooks!
If the vaunted private sector, which created the present conditions for global climate change, are the only entity (government scientists can warn for 30 or 40 years… without even a simple thank you from ingrate conservatives and libertarians … but we must cool our overheated heels for 40 years while the fucking private sector, which studied its nails on one hand while thwarting all research, let alone possible action, during the same time period) can be permitted to combat that damage, how come they didn’t sell that planet a cheaper private label telescope.
On what beach did the private sector make landfall on June 6, 1944?
True, private sectors actors John Wayne and Hollywood (Tom Hanks’ … a child molestor in league with Hillary Clinton, according to subhuman conservative republican vermin .. production, was better) copycatted the successful government version.
Who will play James Hansen in the movie version of Operation It Costs Too Much To Save The Human Race?
Some conservative jagoff like Jon Voight?
How ’bout fuckwad dirtmouth James Woods?
Conservative grifter Caitland Jenner could handle the role if she still has the spare parts.
“Reproducing the Netherlands’ dike system ….”
Hold on there one second, partner.
Dikes are infrastructure, which according to subhuman Ted Cruz and a cast of millions of dumbass racist conservatives on the planet, rhymes with dykes, with a Capital T for trouble, and there’s no way conservative haters will be permitting Gertrude Stein, RuPaul, four-star General Dr. Rachel Devine, and Kate McKinnon (a motley crew, but conservatives hate dykes; they just don’t know what one is, thus the mashup) to construct structures within earshot of our post-fetal offspring on public school grounds to fend off high water.
What’s next, conservative whackjob martyrd parents will demand at PTA meetings, while brandishing semi-automatics as they make late night calls to PTA board members and threaten to kill them, per murderous conservative Don Tucker Carlson’s hit instructions, Auschwitz … and forcing Nazis like themselves to be vaccinated and dewormed against the fascist worms that have crawled up their Trump butts?
“Reproducing the Netherlands’ dike system ….”
Hold on there one second, partner.
Dikes are infrastructure, which according to subhuman Ted Cruz and a cast of millions of dumbass racist conservatives on the planet, rhymes with dykes, with a Capital T for trouble, and there’s no way conservative haters will be permitting Gertrude Stein, RuPaul, four-star General Dr. Rachel Devine, and Kate McKinnon (a motley crew, but conservatives hate dykes; they just don’t know what one is, thus the mashup) to construct structures within earshot of our post-fetal offspring on public school grounds to fend off high water.
What’s next, conservative whackjob martyrd parents will demand at PTA meetings, while brandishing semi-automatics as they make late night calls to PTA board members and threaten to kill them, per murderous conservative Don Tucker Carlson’s hit instructions, Auschwitz … and forcing Nazis like themselves to be vaccinated and dewormed against the fascist worms that have crawled up their Trump butts?
Joe Manchin will go along with the dike provisions, but only if they are constructed of coal mined in his state and brokered by his son’s corporation.
There will be no discounts on the coal on behalf of the common good.
Kyrsten Sinema, when confronted in a bathroom stall about her attitude toward dikes, screamed maniacally something about both sides doing it.
Joe Manchin will go along with the dike provisions, but only if they are constructed of coal mined in his state and brokered by his son’s corporation.
There will be no discounts on the coal on behalf of the common good.
Kyrsten Sinema, when confronted in a bathroom stall about her attitude toward dikes, screamed maniacally something about both sides doing it.
I guess if the accumulation of wealth is the only metric one cares about, reducing the consequences of GCC to its effect on “average” GDP makes sense.
Still, the reductionism is rather astounding. Rather like saying a global thermonuclear war would be a good thing because we might get some urban renewal projects out of it.
I guess if the accumulation of wealth is the only metric one cares about, reducing the consequences of GCC to its effect on “average” GDP makes sense.
Still, the reductionism is rather astounding. Rather like saying a global thermonuclear war would be a good thing because we might get some urban renewal projects out of it.
It’s a working paper, but it is forthcoming in the Economic Journal of the Royal Economic Society, so I believe it is the post-review version as a pre-print.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/a-time-for-action-on-climate-change-and-a-time-for-change-in-economics/
To explain my argument concerning the failures of IAMs in relation to these two questions, I will set out, in broad terms, some of the basic structure and specifications in standard IAMs. There is an underlying one-good growth model where emissions depend on output, accumulated emissions cause temperature increase and climate change, and emissions can be reduced by incurring costs. However, much of this literature, which has dominated so much work on the economics of climate change, has been misleading and biased against strong action, because climate damage specifications are implausibly low and costs of action implausibly high, and subject to diminishing returns. For example, a recent version of the DICE model estimates losses of 8.5% of current GDP at a global temperature rise of 6°C (Nordhaus, 2017). If this were plausible, there would be little cause for concern because 6°C of warming will not be reached, even with bad luck, probably for over 100 years, by which point, with a modest 24 amount of economic growth, losing less than ten percentage points of GDP would be of minor significance in relation to GDP which had more than doubled (at say an underlying growth rate of 1% p.a.). But a 6°C temperature rise would likely be deeply dangerous, indeed existential for hundreds of millions, or billions, of people. It could be a world that could support a far lower population, and we could see deaths on a huge scale, migration of billions of people, and severe conflicts around the world, as large areas, many densely populated currently, became more or less uninhabitable as a result of submersion, desertification, storm surge and extreme events, or because the heat was so intense for extended periods that humans could not survive outdoors. It is profoundly implausible that numbers around 10% of GDP offer a sensible description of the kind of disruption and catastrophe that 6°C of warming could cause. We cannot be sure of the probabilities of different scales of catastrophe, but it would seem deeply unwise, indeed reckless, to assume that catastrophe of immense proportions would not be associated with temperature increases of this magnitude.
This strikes me as addressing the imaginative failures of Lomborg’s models that never focus in enough detail to actually see the human suffering contained in the graphs where all he ever sees is an increase in GDP.
It’s a working paper, but it is forthcoming in the Economic Journal of the Royal Economic Society, so I believe it is the post-review version as a pre-print.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/a-time-for-action-on-climate-change-and-a-time-for-change-in-economics/
To explain my argument concerning the failures of IAMs in relation to these two questions, I will set out, in broad terms, some of the basic structure and specifications in standard IAMs. There is an underlying one-good growth model where emissions depend on output, accumulated emissions cause temperature increase and climate change, and emissions can be reduced by incurring costs. However, much of this literature, which has dominated so much work on the economics of climate change, has been misleading and biased against strong action, because climate damage specifications are implausibly low and costs of action implausibly high, and subject to diminishing returns. For example, a recent version of the DICE model estimates losses of 8.5% of current GDP at a global temperature rise of 6°C (Nordhaus, 2017). If this were plausible, there would be little cause for concern because 6°C of warming will not be reached, even with bad luck, probably for over 100 years, by which point, with a modest 24 amount of economic growth, losing less than ten percentage points of GDP would be of minor significance in relation to GDP which had more than doubled (at say an underlying growth rate of 1% p.a.). But a 6°C temperature rise would likely be deeply dangerous, indeed existential for hundreds of millions, or billions, of people. It could be a world that could support a far lower population, and we could see deaths on a huge scale, migration of billions of people, and severe conflicts around the world, as large areas, many densely populated currently, became more or less uninhabitable as a result of submersion, desertification, storm surge and extreme events, or because the heat was so intense for extended periods that humans could not survive outdoors. It is profoundly implausible that numbers around 10% of GDP offer a sensible description of the kind of disruption and catastrophe that 6°C of warming could cause. We cannot be sure of the probabilities of different scales of catastrophe, but it would seem deeply unwise, indeed reckless, to assume that catastrophe of immense proportions would not be associated with temperature increases of this magnitude.
This strikes me as addressing the imaginative failures of Lomborg’s models that never focus in enough detail to actually see the human suffering contained in the graphs where all he ever sees is an increase in GDP.
It’s like letting your house burn to the ground because you don’t want to incur the cost of the water needed to put the fire out.
It’s like letting your house burn to the ground because you don’t want to incur the cost of the water needed to put the fire out.
fewer people means less demand for resources so prices will necessarily fall for everyone.
why do you love high prices?
fewer people means less demand for resources so prices will necessarily fall for everyone.
why do you love high prices?
It’s like letting your house burn to the ground because you don’t want to incur the cost of the water needed to put the fire out
Rather, it is like burning down your neighbors houses in order to create a firebreak around your own home. The reduction in your water rates, due to decreased demand, is just a bonus.
It’s like letting your house burn to the ground because you don’t want to incur the cost of the water needed to put the fire out
Rather, it is like burning down your neighbors houses in order to create a firebreak around your own home. The reduction in your water rates, due to decreased demand, is just a bonus.
Same way that GDP per capita goes up whenever per capita goes down?
Plague? War? Famine? Just necessary downsizing, err…right-sizing.
Same way that GDP per capita goes up whenever per capita goes down?
Plague? War? Famine? Just necessary downsizing, err…right-sizing.
What nous said.
The climate uncertainties, and the cost in both human and economic concerns are massive. In that context, claiming to model economic growth over the next century is simply absurd.
The costs of limiting CO2 growth now, as a percentage of global GDP, is not massive – and a large proportion of those costs, as investment in renewable energy generation, better insulated homes, zero carbon transport etc, are likely to be economically beneficial in the medium term.
A delay of even five years is potentially very costly indeed:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/world-wasted-chance-build-back-better-covid-un
Char else is proposing a very large gamble with the future of the planet in exchange for a pretty derisory payout.
It’s an attractive gamble only for the old and wealthy. They do, of course, have a disproportionate say in societal decisions.
What nous said.
The climate uncertainties, and the cost in both human and economic concerns are massive. In that context, claiming to model economic growth over the next century is simply absurd.
The costs of limiting CO2 growth now, as a percentage of global GDP, is not massive – and a large proportion of those costs, as investment in renewable energy generation, better insulated homes, zero carbon transport etc, are likely to be economically beneficial in the medium term.
A delay of even five years is potentially very costly indeed:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/world-wasted-chance-build-back-better-covid-un
Char else is proposing a very large gamble with the future of the planet in exchange for a pretty derisory payout.
It’s an attractive gamble only for the old and wealthy. They do, of course, have a disproportionate say in societal decisions.
Char else… Charles.
Apologies (though the typo is almost appropriate).
Char else… Charles.
Apologies (though the typo is almost appropriate).
I read about the Nordhaus 6 degree model last year and it’s so clearly insane you have to wonder what is wrong with any economist who took it seriously. But I probably answered my own question. These are economists we are talking about.
But getting back to the BBB act, I think the Democrats are blowing it, I don’t mean Manchin and Sinema. They are the bad guys here and they are succeeding in what they want to accomplish. It’s the well- intentioned Democrats who are blowing it, by putting together a bunch of half baked means tested temporary programs that won’t be popular, rather than, under the circumstances, trying to do a few things really well. Or anyway, that is my impression from what I have read. Here is another piece claiming this is what is happening and advocating the alternative approach.—
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/build-back-better-democrats.html
So on this point I am with wj, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We could, in theory, focus on passing a few solid programs and also heatedly denounce the kind of centrism that Sinema and Manchin represent.
I read about the Nordhaus 6 degree model last year and it’s so clearly insane you have to wonder what is wrong with any economist who took it seriously. But I probably answered my own question. These are economists we are talking about.
But getting back to the BBB act, I think the Democrats are blowing it, I don’t mean Manchin and Sinema. They are the bad guys here and they are succeeding in what they want to accomplish. It’s the well- intentioned Democrats who are blowing it, by putting together a bunch of half baked means tested temporary programs that won’t be popular, rather than, under the circumstances, trying to do a few things really well. Or anyway, that is my impression from what I have read. Here is another piece claiming this is what is happening and advocating the alternative approach.—
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/build-back-better-democrats.html
So on this point I am with wj, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We could, in theory, focus on passing a few solid programs and also heatedly denounce the kind of centrism that Sinema and Manchin represent.
It’s the well- intentioned Democrats who are blowing it, by putting together a bunch of half baked means tested temporary programs that won’t be popular, rather than, under the circumstances, trying to do a few things really well
the only reason things are half baked is because the two clowns have turned half the bakeries ovens into gun safes.
It’s the well- intentioned Democrats who are blowing it, by putting together a bunch of half baked means tested temporary programs that won’t be popular, rather than, under the circumstances, trying to do a few things really well
the only reason things are half baked is because the two clowns have turned half the bakeries ovens into gun safes.
One maddening thing about carbon dioxide emissions is that burning the world’s limited supplies of fossil fuels as quickly as possible would be madness even if global warming didn’t exist. What does “conservative” mean again?
It’s like using your lifetime supply of water to fill your moat to overflowing, flooding your neighbours’ houses as you do it.
One maddening thing about carbon dioxide emissions is that burning the world’s limited supplies of fossil fuels as quickly as possible would be madness even if global warming didn’t exist. What does “conservative” mean again?
It’s like using your lifetime supply of water to fill your moat to overflowing, flooding your neighbours’ houses as you do it.
…the only reason things are half baked is because the two clowns have turned half the bakeries ovens into gun safes.
Well, not only that but the reconciliation rules in the Senate require that the bills can’t increase the deficit for more than ten years. Eg, Bush’s tax cuts for corporations were permanent, but the cuts for high-income individuals expired after several years in order to meet that requirement. The plan — which played out — was that the Democrats would vote to avoid the very large tax “increase” on all but the very highest income folks.
I spent my highest income years during the 1990s writing letters to my Congress critters that said, “You should increase my marginal income taxes moderately.”
…the only reason things are half baked is because the two clowns have turned half the bakeries ovens into gun safes.
Well, not only that but the reconciliation rules in the Senate require that the bills can’t increase the deficit for more than ten years. Eg, Bush’s tax cuts for corporations were permanent, but the cuts for high-income individuals expired after several years in order to meet that requirement. The plan — which played out — was that the Democrats would vote to avoid the very large tax “increase” on all but the very highest income folks.
I spent my highest income years during the 1990s writing letters to my Congress critters that said, “You should increase my marginal income taxes moderately.”
I spent my highest income years during the 1990s writing letters to my Congress critters that said, “You should increase my marginal income taxes moderately.”
So very against the prevailing winds of the TABOR years.
I spent my highest income years during the 1990s writing letters to my Congress critters that said, “You should increase my marginal income taxes moderately.”
So very against the prevailing winds of the TABOR years.
Unfortunately, the limit is mainly on easily and effectively extractable fossil fuels. That leaves HUGE amounts of really dirty stuff that uses up a third to a half of the energy content up in extraction alone. And the more of the ‘limited’ stuff we burn the more attractive it becomes to go after the bad stuff and the higher the book value of it goes. The owners have actually an interest in the ‘era of cheap oil’ ending as soon as possible, so they can turn the stuff to profit. Shale oil or, even worse, tar sands extraction is imo the moral equivalent of poison gas development and production.
Btw, the surface of the moon looks more inviting than the landscape where tar sands are exploited.
We will sooner boil alive than run out of carbon to be burned.
Unfortunately, the limit is mainly on easily and effectively extractable fossil fuels. That leaves HUGE amounts of really dirty stuff that uses up a third to a half of the energy content up in extraction alone. And the more of the ‘limited’ stuff we burn the more attractive it becomes to go after the bad stuff and the higher the book value of it goes. The owners have actually an interest in the ‘era of cheap oil’ ending as soon as possible, so they can turn the stuff to profit. Shale oil or, even worse, tar sands extraction is imo the moral equivalent of poison gas development and production.
Btw, the surface of the moon looks more inviting than the landscape where tar sands are exploited.
We will sooner boil alive than run out of carbon to be burned.
Britain’s “If we don’t drill it, we won’t need it,” approach isn’t working out too well for them at the moment.
Shale oil and gas drilling has a smaller footprint and environmental impact than traditional oil and gas drilling.
Britain’s “If we don’t drill it, we won’t need it,” approach isn’t working out too well for them at the moment.
Shale oil and gas drilling has a smaller footprint and environmental impact than traditional oil and gas drilling.
Shale oil and gas drilling …
Oh, wait. I was thinking about fracking, not shale mining.
Shale oil and gas drilling …
Oh, wait. I was thinking about fracking, not shale mining.
Fracking is causing huge methane spikes that are more problematic than equivalent spikes of CO2, and most of what they extract goes to use in cheap plastics.
Fracking is causing huge methane spikes that are more problematic than equivalent spikes of CO2, and most of what they extract goes to use in cheap plastics.
Smile for the day. I’m in a (virtual) technical conference this week. In a coffee break room just now, we got off on vaccines. One guy (I think from Eastern Europe) says
“Given the culture here, if the government would say ‘No vaccines’ everybody would be scrambling to get them on the black market!”
I wonder if that would work in some of our red states….
Smile for the day. I’m in a (virtual) technical conference this week. In a coffee break room just now, we got off on vaccines. One guy (I think from Eastern Europe) says
“Given the culture here, if the government would say ‘No vaccines’ everybody would be scrambling to get them on the black market!”
I wonder if that would work in some of our red states….
Shale oil and gas drilling has a smaller footprint and environmental impact than traditional oil and gas drilling.
At least here in Colorado, not true. They leak a whole lot more methane than the traditional drillers. Which, given the locations and wind patterns, means that rural Colorado with fracked wells is contributing a whole lot more to Denver’s ozone violations than they used to with simple vertical wells.
What’s really fascinating, at least to me, is that when this comes up in various fora, the local oil and gas companies are in favor of much heavier regulation, and the companies operating out of Houston or the East Coast want the state regulations to go away.
Shale oil and gas drilling has a smaller footprint and environmental impact than traditional oil and gas drilling.
At least here in Colorado, not true. They leak a whole lot more methane than the traditional drillers. Which, given the locations and wind patterns, means that rural Colorado with fracked wells is contributing a whole lot more to Denver’s ozone violations than they used to with simple vertical wells.
What’s really fascinating, at least to me, is that when this comes up in various fora, the local oil and gas companies are in favor of much heavier regulation, and the companies operating out of Houston or the East Coast want the state regulations to go away.
Shale oil and gas drilling has a smaller footprint and environmental impact than traditional oil and gas drilling.
I call bullshit.
Show your work or stand down.
Shale oil and gas drilling has a smaller footprint and environmental impact than traditional oil and gas drilling.
I call bullshit.
Show your work or stand down.
Oh, wait. I was thinking about fracking
The convenient thing about fracking is that you drill here and the environmental impact happens…. over there.
Among other things, fracking has brought us flammable water taps.
We also have no fucking idea whatsoever about what the companies are pumping into the ground. It’s proprietary knowledge. Even when it gets into the groundwater.
Your argument here is kind of bullshit. With all due respect.
Oh, wait. I was thinking about fracking
The convenient thing about fracking is that you drill here and the environmental impact happens…. over there.
Among other things, fracking has brought us flammable water taps.
We also have no fucking idea whatsoever about what the companies are pumping into the ground. It’s proprietary knowledge. Even when it gets into the groundwater.
Your argument here is kind of bullshit. With all due respect.
Your argument here is
kind ofbullshit. With all due respect.Fixed that for you.
Your argument here is
kind ofbullshit. With all due respect.Fixed that for you.
Really, FFS.
We need to stop pulling coal, oil, and gas out of the ground and burning it. There are other things we could *also* do, but if we don’t stop doing those things, we’re going to fuck up 10,000 years of stable climate even more than we are already on track to do.
There is no way around it.
All of this was brought to our attention 40 years ago, and we’ve ignored it for a generation and a half. And now an inescapable level of significant damage is baked in, although most people reading this won’t have to deal with it in a significant way.
But the plain inescapable fact is that burning stuff that puts CO2 in the air is making the planet hotter. Hotter planet means climate change. Climate change means 10,000 years of settled patterns of habitation shift. And that means disruption at scale. And disruption at scale means all bets are off. Socially, economically, politically, any way you want to slice it.
And that’s just for us humans.
And, pre-emptively, Reason magazine can kiss my @ss.
Really, FFS.
We need to stop pulling coal, oil, and gas out of the ground and burning it. There are other things we could *also* do, but if we don’t stop doing those things, we’re going to fuck up 10,000 years of stable climate even more than we are already on track to do.
There is no way around it.
All of this was brought to our attention 40 years ago, and we’ve ignored it for a generation and a half. And now an inescapable level of significant damage is baked in, although most people reading this won’t have to deal with it in a significant way.
But the plain inescapable fact is that burning stuff that puts CO2 in the air is making the planet hotter. Hotter planet means climate change. Climate change means 10,000 years of settled patterns of habitation shift. And that means disruption at scale. And disruption at scale means all bets are off. Socially, economically, politically, any way you want to slice it.
And that’s just for us humans.
And, pre-emptively, Reason magazine can kiss my @ss.
They leak a whole lot more methane than the traditional drillers.
Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 is 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
They leak a whole lot more methane than the traditional drillers.
Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 is 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
40 years for the effect of CO2 on climate?
That’s an underestimate. The first mention of how increasing CO2 was causing more greenhouse effect was something like 1890, soon after IR absorption measurements were done.
I wonder if there were climate-deniers on Venus.
40 years for the effect of CO2 on climate?
That’s an underestimate. The first mention of how increasing CO2 was causing more greenhouse effect was something like 1890, soon after IR absorption measurements were done.
I wonder if there were climate-deniers on Venus.
The first mention of how increasing CO2 was causing more greenhouse effect was something like 1890
But in the early 1970s (when most baby boomers were coming of age and starting to pay attention), there was a lot of worrying about global cooling. Sometimes it was about “nuclear winter”, but not always. And that may well be part of the reason so many of my fellow boomers can’t wrap their heads around global warming — because they got cooling locked in long ago.
The first mention of how increasing CO2 was causing more greenhouse effect was something like 1890
But in the early 1970s (when most baby boomers were coming of age and starting to pay attention), there was a lot of worrying about global cooling. Sometimes it was about “nuclear winter”, but not always. And that may well be part of the reason so many of my fellow boomers can’t wrap their heads around global warming — because they got cooling locked in long ago.
Seems apropos
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655
Building upon recent work on other major fossil fuel companies, we report new archival research and primary source interviews describing how Total responded to evolving climate science and policy in the last 50 years. We show that Total personnel received warnings of the potential for catastrophic global warming from its products by 1971, became more fully informed of the issue in the 1980s, began promoting doubt regarding the scientific basis for global warming by the late 1980s, and ultimately settled on a position in the late 1990s of publicly accepting climate science while promoting policy delay or policies peripheral to fossil fuel control. Additionally, we find that Exxon, through the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), coordinated an international campaign to dispute climate science and weaken international climate policy, beginning in the 1980s. This represents one of the first longitudinal studies of a major fossil fuel company’s responses to global warming to the present, describing historical stages of awareness, preparation, denial, and delay.
Seems apropos
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655
Building upon recent work on other major fossil fuel companies, we report new archival research and primary source interviews describing how Total responded to evolving climate science and policy in the last 50 years. We show that Total personnel received warnings of the potential for catastrophic global warming from its products by 1971, became more fully informed of the issue in the 1980s, began promoting doubt regarding the scientific basis for global warming by the late 1980s, and ultimately settled on a position in the late 1990s of publicly accepting climate science while promoting policy delay or policies peripheral to fossil fuel control. Additionally, we find that Exxon, through the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), coordinated an international campaign to dispute climate science and weaken international climate policy, beginning in the 1980s. This represents one of the first longitudinal studies of a major fossil fuel company’s responses to global warming to the present, describing historical stages of awareness, preparation, denial, and delay.
But in the early 1970s (when most baby boomers were coming of age and starting to pay attention), there was a lot of worrying about global cooling.
That is simply not the case.
One Newsweek cover does not equal “a lot of worrying.”
Those whose economic interests favored burning more fossil fuels were already marshalling their efforts to mount a propaganda war against global warming.
But in the early 1970s (when most baby boomers were coming of age and starting to pay attention), there was a lot of worrying about global cooling.
That is simply not the case.
One Newsweek cover does not equal “a lot of worrying.”
Those whose economic interests favored burning more fossil fuels were already marshalling their efforts to mount a propaganda war against global warming.
The fuel industry’s MO reminds me of how intelligent-design theorists/creationists argue for “teaching the controversy” – the controversy that only exists because they created it. You don’t have to make a good scientific argument. You just have to create the appearance that a scientific consensus doesn’t exist.
The fuel industry’s MO reminds me of how intelligent-design theorists/creationists argue for “teaching the controversy” – the controversy that only exists because they created it. You don’t have to make a good scientific argument. You just have to create the appearance that a scientific consensus doesn’t exist.
“I wonder if there were climate-deniers on Venus.”
They moved to Texas, not to escape extinction, but for the tax breaks.
“I wonder if there were climate-deniers on Venus.”
They moved to Texas, not to escape extinction, but for the tax breaks.
That is simply not the case.
Bobby, were you around back then? (And past childhood.) I was. And, regardless of what you can Google up today, concerns about global cooling were definitely part of the general culture.
They were wrong. And there was, as the various links here note, plenty of science to the contrary. But the concern was, nevertheless. And we saw similar arguments to those we see today about how real the prospect was.
That is simply not the case.
Bobby, were you around back then? (And past childhood.) I was. And, regardless of what you can Google up today, concerns about global cooling were definitely part of the general culture.
They were wrong. And there was, as the various links here note, plenty of science to the contrary. But the concern was, nevertheless. And we saw similar arguments to those we see today about how real the prospect was.
You just have to create the appearance that a scientific consensus doesn’t exist.
also: scientists are always part of a giant conspiracy to tell you to not do what you want to do.
except those employed by Exxon, and RJR.
You just have to create the appearance that a scientific consensus doesn’t exist.
also: scientists are always part of a giant conspiracy to tell you to not do what you want to do.
except those employed by Exxon, and RJR.
also: scientists are always part of a giant conspiracy to tell you to not do what you want to do.
That’s why you need random people with YouTube channels to tell you the Real Truth.
also: scientists are always part of a giant conspiracy to tell you to not do what you want to do.
That’s why you need random people with YouTube channels to tell you the Real Truth.
A telling point about the oil & gas companies is that around a quarter of methane emissions could be fixed for relative peanuts.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421519303490
And hasn’t been.
A telling point about the oil & gas companies is that around a quarter of methane emissions could be fixed for relative peanuts.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421519303490
And hasn’t been.
Until there are adequate substitutes, the world is stuck with fossil fuels.
When governments restrict and prohibit vaping and e-cigarettes, cigarette consumption goes up. When governments and NGOs apply pressure to limit and divest oil and gas development, the consumption of coal goes up.
Energy is going to be expensive in a lot of places this winter. In some places, it may not be available at any price.
World Energy Crisis
About a third of global electricity is produced and consumed in China. About 80% of that is industrial consumption. The U.S. industrial consumption is about 25%. If China tries to bring its usage profile more in line with western countries, it’s going to be consuming a lot more coal.
Until there are adequate substitutes, the world is stuck with fossil fuels.
When governments restrict and prohibit vaping and e-cigarettes, cigarette consumption goes up. When governments and NGOs apply pressure to limit and divest oil and gas development, the consumption of coal goes up.
Energy is going to be expensive in a lot of places this winter. In some places, it may not be available at any price.
World Energy Crisis
About a third of global electricity is produced and consumed in China. About 80% of that is industrial consumption. The U.S. industrial consumption is about 25%. If China tries to bring its usage profile more in line with western countries, it’s going to be consuming a lot more coal.
I also recall (vaguely) the issue of “global cooling” back in the 70’s, but probably read about it in the pages of Science.
IIRC, the main point was that there could be a quick onset to an ice-age: a couple of summers when the leftover snow doesn’t melt.
NOT “oh noes, the world is freezing!”
What popular media did with it is another thing.
I also recall (vaguely) the issue of “global cooling” back in the 70’s, but probably read about it in the pages of Science.
IIRC, the main point was that there could be a quick onset to an ice-age: a couple of summers when the leftover snow doesn’t melt.
NOT “oh noes, the world is freezing!”
What popular media did with it is another thing.
I also recall (vaguely) the issue of “global cooling” back in the 70’s
After half a century, I expect all of our memories are a bit vague about details. But our overviews are another matter.
It’s like my recalling the details of arguments in the late 1950s about our supposed technological lag and what should be done about it. But that there was great concern (panic, even) post Sputnik? That’s real clear.
I also recall (vaguely) the issue of “global cooling” back in the 70’s
After half a century, I expect all of our memories are a bit vague about details. But our overviews are another matter.
It’s like my recalling the details of arguments in the late 1950s about our supposed technological lag and what should be done about it. But that there was great concern (panic, even) post Sputnik? That’s real clear.
Wiki has a decent overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Wiki has a decent overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
I was a geeky kid in the 70’s and do remember some speculation about both global warming and global cooling. Isaac Asimov mentioned global warming from burning fossil fuels in one of his science essays–this would have been written back in the late 60’s or early 70’s. People also speculated about air pollution blocking sunlight as volcanic ejecta in the stratosphere does and causing cooling–plus there was talk about the Milanovich (sp? too lazy to look it up) cycle bringing back the ice age.
As for nuclear war, nuclear winter as such was discussed in the early 80’s–the TTAPS paper was partly inspired by Alvarez paper on the asteroid impact. But there was speculation about the cooling effects of a nuclear war in the 60’s and 70’s, usually comparing it to the effects of a large voclanic eruption. There was a NAS study, I think, in the mid 70’s about that, and then another one in the 80’s after the nuclear winter papers came out. In the 70’s the doomsday effect from nuclear war was supposed to be the weakening of the ozone layer from the oxides of nitrogen produced in the fireballs.
But on climate change from industrial activity it was clear it was speculative. Nobody back then claimed to know for sure what was going to happen–what I picked up as a kid was that people didn’t know if the cooling effects of soot would be more than outweighed by the warming effects of carbon dioxide.
I was a geeky kid in the 70’s and do remember some speculation about both global warming and global cooling. Isaac Asimov mentioned global warming from burning fossil fuels in one of his science essays–this would have been written back in the late 60’s or early 70’s. People also speculated about air pollution blocking sunlight as volcanic ejecta in the stratosphere does and causing cooling–plus there was talk about the Milanovich (sp? too lazy to look it up) cycle bringing back the ice age.
As for nuclear war, nuclear winter as such was discussed in the early 80’s–the TTAPS paper was partly inspired by Alvarez paper on the asteroid impact. But there was speculation about the cooling effects of a nuclear war in the 60’s and 70’s, usually comparing it to the effects of a large voclanic eruption. There was a NAS study, I think, in the mid 70’s about that, and then another one in the 80’s after the nuclear winter papers came out. In the 70’s the doomsday effect from nuclear war was supposed to be the weakening of the ozone layer from the oxides of nitrogen produced in the fireballs.
But on climate change from industrial activity it was clear it was speculative. Nobody back then claimed to know for sure what was going to happen–what I picked up as a kid was that people didn’t know if the cooling effects of soot would be more than outweighed by the warming effects of carbon dioxide.
My memory of cooling was that it was attached to nuclear arms reduction, popularized by Carl Sagan
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-carl-sagan-warned-world-about-nuclear-winter-180967198/
I don’t think it was related to climate per se, at least in my memory
My memory of cooling was that it was attached to nuclear arms reduction, popularized by Carl Sagan
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-carl-sagan-warned-world-about-nuclear-winter-180967198/
I don’t think it was related to climate per se, at least in my memory
Wrt global cooling, I seem to recall that there was also a concern in the 1970s about “missing solar neutrinos.” One possible explanation was that the rate of fusion in the solar core had decreased and once the effects of that reached the solar surface, there would be a decrease in radiation and a cooling effect on Earth. Eventually they figured out that the neutrinos weren’t actually missing.
In the summers from 1972 through 1974 I worked at an agricultural field lab. One of the big projects was on a federal grant to figure out where the missing CO2 was: based on industrial output, there should have been more CO2 in the atmosphere than was observed, and even more heating. U of Hawaii was also involved, and the eventual conclusion was that the excess CO2 at that time was being absorbed by the oceans.
Wrt global cooling, I seem to recall that there was also a concern in the 1970s about “missing solar neutrinos.” One possible explanation was that the rate of fusion in the solar core had decreased and once the effects of that reached the solar surface, there would be a decrease in radiation and a cooling effect on Earth. Eventually they figured out that the neutrinos weren’t actually missing.
In the summers from 1972 through 1974 I worked at an agricultural field lab. One of the big projects was on a federal grant to figure out where the missing CO2 was: based on industrial output, there should have been more CO2 in the atmosphere than was observed, and even more heating. U of Hawaii was also involved, and the eventual conclusion was that the excess CO2 at that time was being absorbed by the oceans.
That global cooling was a real concern in the 1970’s is a notion that right-wingers have been cultivating for over a decade. This 2009 potholer54 video lays it out pretty well.
Popular panic about Sputnik, whether or not it was cultivated by the Cold Warriors of the 1950s, was at least partly justified by the fact (remember “facts”? they used to be a thing) that the Soviets really had launched an orbiting satellite. Popular panic about Satanic rituals in day-care centers in the 1990s was a thing, too. Probably more widespread than “global cooling”, to boot.
–TP
That global cooling was a real concern in the 1970’s is a notion that right-wingers have been cultivating for over a decade. This 2009 potholer54 video lays it out pretty well.
Popular panic about Sputnik, whether or not it was cultivated by the Cold Warriors of the 1950s, was at least partly justified by the fact (remember “facts”? they used to be a thing) that the Soviets really had launched an orbiting satellite. Popular panic about Satanic rituals in day-care centers in the 1990s was a thing, too. Probably more widespread than “global cooling”, to boot.
–TP
That global cooling was a real concern in the 1970’s is a notion that right-wingers have been cultivating for over a decade.
That there was concern is, quite simply, a fact. It may have been unjustified; in retrospect it was unjustified. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was a concern — and, my original point, that concern may have impacted the ability of those now in their 60s and 70s (and older) to wrap their heads around global warming.
That global cooling was a real concern in the 1970’s is a notion that right-wingers have been cultivating for over a decade.
That there was concern is, quite simply, a fact. It may have been unjustified; in retrospect it was unjustified. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was a concern — and, my original point, that concern may have impacted the ability of those now in their 60s and 70s (and older) to wrap their heads around global warming.
And my point, wj, is that the degree of “concern” among ordinary, disco-dancing Americans in the 70s has been overstated by right-wingers this millennium. And of course the wingnuts just plain lie about what “scientists” had to say back then.
Don’t watch the video I linked to. It might make you think less of George Will.
–TP
And my point, wj, is that the degree of “concern” among ordinary, disco-dancing Americans in the 70s has been overstated by right-wingers this millennium. And of course the wingnuts just plain lie about what “scientists” had to say back then.
Don’t watch the video I linked to. It might make you think less of George Will.
–TP
George Will: really good on baseball. Other stuff? Sometimes….
George Will: really good on baseball. Other stuff? Sometimes….
Global cooling. If our old friend OCSteve is reading, I bet he’d be glad to do a fine rant for us on James Hansen.
And I remember reading about the possibly coming ice age in the Whole Earth magazine (or something related) during the 70s or 80s.
On the other hand, I don’t get the sense that this was a widely-known meme at the time, so I don’t agree with wj that our generation is skeptical of global warming because we were once worried about global cooling. It just wasn’t on the general public’s radar, at least as I remember it.
Global cooling. If our old friend OCSteve is reading, I bet he’d be glad to do a fine rant for us on James Hansen.
And I remember reading about the possibly coming ice age in the Whole Earth magazine (or something related) during the 70s or 80s.
On the other hand, I don’t get the sense that this was a widely-known meme at the time, so I don’t agree with wj that our generation is skeptical of global warming because we were once worried about global cooling. It just wasn’t on the general public’s radar, at least as I remember it.
I’m bemused by the idea that pollution thick enough to block that much sunlight is nothing worry about (except for the possibility that it could cause another ice age).
I’m bemused by the idea that pollution thick enough to block that much sunlight is nothing worry about (except for the possibility that it could cause another ice age).
overstated by right-wingers this millennium
but don’t call them anti-science.
they hate that.
overstated by right-wingers this millennium
but don’t call them anti-science.
they hate that.
Science, in the abstract, still is considered “a good thing.” It’s just when it says something on a particular subject that clashes with ideology that it gets a thumbs down.
Science, in the abstract, still is considered “a good thing.” It’s just when it says something on a particular subject that clashes with ideology that it gets a thumbs down.
LJ–
Yeah, the nuclear winter stuff was a separate issue, except in the sense that throwing dirt or soot or sulfuric acid droplets in the atmosphere can cool things down, whether the stuff is placed there by factories, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, or nuclear wars. Sagan was the final author on the TTAPS paper. That was one of the ones that kicked off interest in nuclear winter, but there were two European scientists (I think) who had written something similar just before. And before all that, back in the 60’s and 70’s, people did talk about possible cooling from nuclear war, usually comparing it to what Krakatoa and especially Tambora did.
All of this both cooling and warming from various causes, was part of the conversation back then if you followed that stuff. I was a pre-teen and then teenager who followed all this by reading popular science articles and some books in the local library. The rightwingers aren’t totally wrong about that. Where they go wrong is in claiming that scientists were certain that we were heading into an Ice Age because of human activity. That’s a wild exaggeration of what the conversation was like. Nobody claimed to be certain about anything. Possibly some popular magazine sensationalized some of the speculation, but that can happen at any time with any subject.
LJ–
Yeah, the nuclear winter stuff was a separate issue, except in the sense that throwing dirt or soot or sulfuric acid droplets in the atmosphere can cool things down, whether the stuff is placed there by factories, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, or nuclear wars. Sagan was the final author on the TTAPS paper. That was one of the ones that kicked off interest in nuclear winter, but there were two European scientists (I think) who had written something similar just before. And before all that, back in the 60’s and 70’s, people did talk about possible cooling from nuclear war, usually comparing it to what Krakatoa and especially Tambora did.
All of this both cooling and warming from various causes, was part of the conversation back then if you followed that stuff. I was a pre-teen and then teenager who followed all this by reading popular science articles and some books in the local library. The rightwingers aren’t totally wrong about that. Where they go wrong is in claiming that scientists were certain that we were heading into an Ice Age because of human activity. That’s a wild exaggeration of what the conversation was like. Nobody claimed to be certain about anything. Possibly some popular magazine sensationalized some of the speculation, but that can happen at any time with any subject.
It has been noted that the last ice age is uncommonly long ago given the usual patterns. World climate rarely stays that stable as it has until we began to meddle with it. So, from a general climatological POV there was indeed reasonable talk that there could be a new ice age in the not too distant future. But this had little to do with observed cooling trends but was a general warning that we should not simply assume that climate would stay as it is indefinitely.
Plus there was some talk about Europe going ice age again earlier, when there were discussions to widen the Panama canal by means of nukes which revived the older* fear that the isthmus as a whole could become unstable and sink leading to the Gulf Stream escaping into the Pacific instead of going towards Europe.
*it was e.g. a topic in SF novels in the 30ies when nukes did not yet exist but were predicted already.
It has been noted that the last ice age is uncommonly long ago given the usual patterns. World climate rarely stays that stable as it has until we began to meddle with it. So, from a general climatological POV there was indeed reasonable talk that there could be a new ice age in the not too distant future. But this had little to do with observed cooling trends but was a general warning that we should not simply assume that climate would stay as it is indefinitely.
Plus there was some talk about Europe going ice age again earlier, when there were discussions to widen the Panama canal by means of nukes which revived the older* fear that the isthmus as a whole could become unstable and sink leading to the Gulf Stream escaping into the Pacific instead of going towards Europe.
*it was e.g. a topic in SF novels in the 30ies when nukes did not yet exist but were predicted already.
+1 Donald
+1 Donald
It just wasn’t on the general public’s radar, at least as I remember it.
Yup. I suffered through the onset of adultitus in the late 60’s, and all that stuff about global cooling was nothing compared to disco, EST, and ‘self-fulfillment’ once we got out of the hippie phase. It was a flash in the pan at most, and the idea that this little kerfluffle has any significant influence on aging boomers’ attitude toward global warming is simply not an assertion that can be taken seriously.
You want to know what agitates old folks about global warming? The size of their 401k, the value of their house, and taxes.
It just wasn’t on the general public’s radar, at least as I remember it.
Yup. I suffered through the onset of adultitus in the late 60’s, and all that stuff about global cooling was nothing compared to disco, EST, and ‘self-fulfillment’ once we got out of the hippie phase. It was a flash in the pan at most, and the idea that this little kerfluffle has any significant influence on aging boomers’ attitude toward global warming is simply not an assertion that can be taken seriously.
You want to know what agitates old folks about global warming? The size of their 401k, the value of their house, and taxes.
Is it worth mentioning that even if Manchin and Sinema get their way, BBB will be the largest investment in/against climate change ever?
Is it worth mentioning that even if Manchin and Sinema get their way, BBB will be the largest investment in/against climate change ever?
Is it worth mentioning that even if Manchin and Sinema get their way, BBB will be the largest investment in/against climate change ever?
Of course not. Because hopes were so high that vast numbers of very important things would get done, the fact that only lots of them happened means loud wailing and moaning and rending of garments.
And casting of blame far and wide. No matter that Biden does more than any 3 presidents before him. He didn’t (somehow, magically) ram thru everything, so he is a total failure.
The only question is whether the disappointed will be motivated to turn out next year, and try to get Biden a better Congress to work with. Or whether they will sit home and sulk. My sense is that it’s an even money bet there.
Is it worth mentioning that even if Manchin and Sinema get their way, BBB will be the largest investment in/against climate change ever?
Of course not. Because hopes were so high that vast numbers of very important things would get done, the fact that only lots of them happened means loud wailing and moaning and rending of garments.
And casting of blame far and wide. No matter that Biden does more than any 3 presidents before him. He didn’t (somehow, magically) ram thru everything, so he is a total failure.
The only question is whether the disappointed will be motivated to turn out next year, and try to get Biden a better Congress to work with. Or whether they will sit home and sulk. My sense is that it’s an even money bet there.
If you have a loan that you are behind on and the bank is going to foreclose in a year, do you celebrate being able to pay slightly more than your monthly and still ending up short?
And if you had the opportunity to pay off the house, but your co-signer insisted on spending the extra cash on a muscle car instead, would you be upset with that decision?
I mean, good that it looks like something may yet get done, but more was absolutely within reach, and people are going to die because two people who could have made a difference stopped short to make a buck.
If you have a loan that you are behind on and the bank is going to foreclose in a year, do you celebrate being able to pay slightly more than your monthly and still ending up short?
And if you had the opportunity to pay off the house, but your co-signer insisted on spending the extra cash on a muscle car instead, would you be upset with that decision?
I mean, good that it looks like something may yet get done, but more was absolutely within reach, and people are going to die because two people who could have made a difference stopped short to make a buck.
Is it worth mentioning that even if Manchin and Sinema get their way, BBB will be the largest investment in/against climate change ever?
After we see what passes the House and the Senate and is signed into law, no. Until then, I’ll reserve judgement. I think when push comes to shove in the Senate, Manchin will say, “No climate change money,” no matter what he may had said during the current negotiations.
Is it worth mentioning that even if Manchin and Sinema get their way, BBB will be the largest investment in/against climate change ever?
After we see what passes the House and the Senate and is signed into law, no. Until then, I’ll reserve judgement. I think when push comes to shove in the Senate, Manchin will say, “No climate change money,” no matter what he may had said during the current negotiations.
If you have a loan that you are behind on and the bank is going to foreclose in a year, do you celebrate being able to pay slightly more than your monthly and still ending up short?
But if you are the bank, with a bunch of such loans, someone who is at least making a start on paying (vs just doing nothing) is going to get credit for making a start. Deservedly so. And you wish his efforts could be echoed elsewhere.
What you don’t do is act like he is just as bad as the guys who refuse to do anything.
If you have a loan that you are behind on and the bank is going to foreclose in a year, do you celebrate being able to pay slightly more than your monthly and still ending up short?
But if you are the bank, with a bunch of such loans, someone who is at least making a start on paying (vs just doing nothing) is going to get credit for making a start. Deservedly so. And you wish his efforts could be echoed elsewhere.
What you don’t do is act like he is just as bad as the guys who refuse to do anything.
We don’t live in the bank, we live in the environment.
We don’t live in the bank, we live in the environment.
Or…Democrats/the Buden Administration can celebrate accomplishing a heavy lift while being opposed from without and within, but oppose any bragging done by either of their holdouts who severely weakened the victory.
Or…Democrats/the Buden Administration can celebrate accomplishing a heavy lift while being opposed from without and within, but oppose any bragging done by either of their holdouts who severely weakened the victory.
“ with. Or whether they will sit home and sulk. ”
It is easy to be snide and condescending if you don’t need paid family leave or Medicaid expansion.
Yes, people should suck it up and vote for the Democrats, but it is just barely possible that the reason people are upset about the cuts is because they really think they matter.
“ with. Or whether they will sit home and sulk. ”
It is easy to be snide and condescending if you don’t need paid family leave or Medicaid expansion.
Yes, people should suck it up and vote for the Democrats, but it is just barely possible that the reason people are upset about the cuts is because they really think they matter.
People who are upset are upset because we really bought into this idea that Biden was going to be the new FDR. I am not blaming him— it’s Manchin and Sinema and possibly a few others willing to let them take the heat, but it is extremely demoralizing watching those two assholes pretty much getting to dictate what will be in the bill. All of this matters and for some it matters in a life or death way.
I very much do blame Biden on Yemen and his inability to restart the Iranian nuclear deal and other things, but US foreign policy is just an ongoing shitshow. One rarely expects anything good to happen. The BBB was a genuinely exciting development. We probably shouldn’t have expected it to pass but for a few months it seemed like it would.
People who are upset are upset because we really bought into this idea that Biden was going to be the new FDR. I am not blaming him— it’s Manchin and Sinema and possibly a few others willing to let them take the heat, but it is extremely demoralizing watching those two assholes pretty much getting to dictate what will be in the bill. All of this matters and for some it matters in a life or death way.
I very much do blame Biden on Yemen and his inability to restart the Iranian nuclear deal and other things, but US foreign policy is just an ongoing shitshow. One rarely expects anything good to happen. The BBB was a genuinely exciting development. We probably shouldn’t have expected it to pass but for a few months it seemed like it would.
We don’t live in the bank, we live in the environment.
‘S true. But then, we didn’t take out a loan to buy the environment either.
If you start with an analogy, can’t really complain if the response is a slightly different one.
We don’t live in the bank, we live in the environment.
‘S true. But then, we didn’t take out a loan to buy the environment either.
If you start with an analogy, can’t really complain if the response is a slightly different one.
I find myself in agreement with Donald. This wouldn’t be happening if Manchin and Sinema had not reneged on the bargain made. And I suspect that they reneged, in part, because of the fetishization of ‘moderation’. Like I said before, this is not to dump on you, wj, but I think it is important to identify the initial problem. None of this would have happened had Manchinaand Sinema followed what was agreed to. I honestly don’t know how you can work with people who can’t be trusted.
I find myself in agreement with Donald. This wouldn’t be happening if Manchin and Sinema had not reneged on the bargain made. And I suspect that they reneged, in part, because of the fetishization of ‘moderation’. Like I said before, this is not to dump on you, wj, but I think it is important to identify the initial problem. None of this would have happened had Manchinaand Sinema followed what was agreed to. I honestly don’t know how you can work with people who can’t be trusted.
If you start with an analogy, can’t really complain if the response is a slightly different one.
If your response to the analogy makes no sense (because we aren’t the bank, the ecosystem is) then I see no reason to stick with it.
If you start with an analogy, can’t really complain if the response is a slightly different one.
If your response to the analogy makes no sense (because we aren’t the bank, the ecosystem is) then I see no reason to stick with it.
I honestly don’t know how you can work with people who can’t be trusted.
Once you’ve established that about them, you try hard to avoid situations where they ae critical to your plans. (Which, sadly, they currently are.) And if you find yourself stuck, you put in extra effort, from the beginning, to arranging the deal so them reneging will cost them more than performing as promised. Not clear if that’s an option this time.
Long term, of course, you work on changing the environment to the point that you don’t need them (for Manchin), or boot them out in the next primary (for Sinema).
I honestly don’t know how you can work with people who can’t be trusted.
Once you’ve established that about them, you try hard to avoid situations where they ae critical to your plans. (Which, sadly, they currently are.) And if you find yourself stuck, you put in extra effort, from the beginning, to arranging the deal so them reneging will cost them more than performing as promised. Not clear if that’s an option this time.
Long term, of course, you work on changing the environment to the point that you don’t need them (for Manchin), or boot them out in the next primary (for Sinema).
Long term, of course, you work on changing the environment to the point that you don’t need them…
The problem with your take, wj, is that if progressives cave on this then they may never get to that point. So do you go down fighting, holding to your principles, or do you cave, reinforcing the view that Democrats are a feckless bunch of losers?
Because absent some kind of BBB the infrastructure bill is, over its ten year time horizon, pretty small beer. With a demoralized left, you enhance the power of the authoritarians, and actually reinforce their message that Washington simply “doesn’t work.”
This is the big unintended consequence of the bleatings of the so-called moderates. They may win this skirmish, but they will reap the whirlwind.
Certainly the struggle for better public policy shall go on, but hanging your base out to dry is simply terrible politics.
Cross your fingers.
Long term, of course, you work on changing the environment to the point that you don’t need them…
The problem with your take, wj, is that if progressives cave on this then they may never get to that point. So do you go down fighting, holding to your principles, or do you cave, reinforcing the view that Democrats are a feckless bunch of losers?
Because absent some kind of BBB the infrastructure bill is, over its ten year time horizon, pretty small beer. With a demoralized left, you enhance the power of the authoritarians, and actually reinforce their message that Washington simply “doesn’t work.”
This is the big unintended consequence of the bleatings of the so-called moderates. They may win this skirmish, but they will reap the whirlwind.
Certainly the struggle for better public policy shall go on, but hanging your base out to dry is simply terrible politics.
Cross your fingers.
i thought not.
i thought not.
but hanging your base out to dry is simply terrible politics.
the only person doing that in this situation is Sinema. she’s the only Senator going against the will of the bulk of the people who elected her. even Manchin isn’t doing that.
and… “base” means those who stick with the party. it doesn’t mean those who are always ready to bad mouth it.
but hanging your base out to dry is simply terrible politics.
the only person doing that in this situation is Sinema. she’s the only Senator going against the will of the bulk of the people who elected her. even Manchin isn’t doing that.
and… “base” means those who stick with the party. it doesn’t mean those who are always ready to bad mouth it.
I’ve never understood party loyalty unless the party genuinely stands for the values you support. In this case Biden proposed a bunch of things— they are moderate compared to what Sanders wanted, but they are all good ideas, so most lefties are cheering for the bulk of the party and correctly demonizing Sinema and Manchin. It’s an easy choice. And Republicans, including the supposed moderates, are uniformly bad. So on Election Day that is also an easy choice.
On foreign policy Democrats are less bad than Republicans, but issues should always come before party loyalty, so if a President is terrible on some issue you criticize them no matter what the party.
I’ve never understood party loyalty unless the party genuinely stands for the values you support. In this case Biden proposed a bunch of things— they are moderate compared to what Sanders wanted, but they are all good ideas, so most lefties are cheering for the bulk of the party and correctly demonizing Sinema and Manchin. It’s an easy choice. And Republicans, including the supposed moderates, are uniformly bad. So on Election Day that is also an easy choice.
On foreign policy Democrats are less bad than Republicans, but issues should always come before party loyalty, so if a President is terrible on some issue you criticize them no matter what the party.
Ilhan Omar summarizing what is happening.
https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1453552780971548681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1453552780971548681%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2021%2F10%2Flinks-10-28-2021.html
Ilhan Omar summarizing what is happening.
https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1453552780971548681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1453552780971548681%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2021%2F10%2Flinks-10-28-2021.html
I’ve never understood party loyalty unless the party genuinely stands for the values you support.
exactly right.
but also… democracy means you don’t always get 100% of what you want, but if you try sometimes, you’ll get what you need. aw yeah.
but issues should always come before party loyalty,
that’s not how the US government works. we don’t vote for one issue. there are no single-issue parties and representatives don’t serve for the duration of the discussion on one issue. and representatives aren’t going to agree with you on every issue. plus, hundreds of other representatives get a say, even within the party. compromise is part of the system at every level.
so if a President is terrible on some issue you criticize them no matter what the party.
to a degree, yes.
i like to look at things from a wide angle – what does criticism on something mean for the long term chances of success for all the other things the party could do?
this BBB thing… the GOP sat out the discussions, first because they don’t govern, and also they left all of the arguing to Dems. and the media immediately jumped to their Dems In Disarray narrative. and now everybody hates the Dems. they hate the Dems because the Dems are doing the haggling that democracy requires. they hate the Dems because the Dems are probably going to deliver an immense, wide-ranging, desperately-need bunch of things, even though some things won’t be included. the GOP successfully made the Dems the enemy of the Dems. and that’s going to kill the Dems in the next election.
so hey, maybe we shouldn’t do McConnell’s work for him?
maybe the stuff that bill is going to deliver is actually good stuff? maybe we should try being satisfied with a bunch of good stuff now and try for more good stuff later, instead of pouting and pissing and groaning and giving Congress to the GOP who is going to give nobody anything even close to good?
nah.
purity.
I’ve never understood party loyalty unless the party genuinely stands for the values you support.
exactly right.
but also… democracy means you don’t always get 100% of what you want, but if you try sometimes, you’ll get what you need. aw yeah.
but issues should always come before party loyalty,
that’s not how the US government works. we don’t vote for one issue. there are no single-issue parties and representatives don’t serve for the duration of the discussion on one issue. and representatives aren’t going to agree with you on every issue. plus, hundreds of other representatives get a say, even within the party. compromise is part of the system at every level.
so if a President is terrible on some issue you criticize them no matter what the party.
to a degree, yes.
i like to look at things from a wide angle – what does criticism on something mean for the long term chances of success for all the other things the party could do?
this BBB thing… the GOP sat out the discussions, first because they don’t govern, and also they left all of the arguing to Dems. and the media immediately jumped to their Dems In Disarray narrative. and now everybody hates the Dems. they hate the Dems because the Dems are doing the haggling that democracy requires. they hate the Dems because the Dems are probably going to deliver an immense, wide-ranging, desperately-need bunch of things, even though some things won’t be included. the GOP successfully made the Dems the enemy of the Dems. and that’s going to kill the Dems in the next election.
so hey, maybe we shouldn’t do McConnell’s work for him?
maybe the stuff that bill is going to deliver is actually good stuff? maybe we should try being satisfied with a bunch of good stuff now and try for more good stuff later, instead of pouting and pissing and groaning and giving Congress to the GOP who is going to give nobody anything even close to good?
nah.
purity.
I’ve never understood party loyalty unless the party genuinely stands for the values you support.
In a first-past-the-post system, you pretty much have to go with “least bad” on election day. That should not stop you from advocating for better policy. There are 364 other days in the year that need your attention. Even dim bulb Dem ‘moderates’ might realize this is one of them. Keep up the good work.
I’ve never understood party loyalty unless the party genuinely stands for the values you support.
In a first-past-the-post system, you pretty much have to go with “least bad” on election day. That should not stop you from advocating for better policy. There are 364 other days in the year that need your attention. Even dim bulb Dem ‘moderates’ might realize this is one of them. Keep up the good work.
and… “base” means those who stick with the party.
The base voted for Joe Biden and the Dem platform. Who is currently savaging it? It’s not a bunch of tree huggers, DSA’ers, and Naderites.
and… “base” means those who stick with the party.
The base voted for Joe Biden and the Dem platform. Who is currently savaging it? It’s not a bunch of tree huggers, DSA’ers, and Naderites.
(rant aimed off into the word, not to Donald)
(rant aimed off into the word, not to Donald)
word/world.
Who is currently savaging it?
primarily it’s a woman who is abandoning her base for reasons nobody quite understands and a man whose base isn’t aligned with the national Dem base.
word/world.
Who is currently savaging it?
primarily it’s a woman who is abandoning her base for reasons nobody quite understands and a man whose base isn’t aligned with the national Dem base.
This wouldn’t be happening if Manchin and Sinema had not reneged on the bargain made.
To be picky, I point out that budget resolutions are never binding and merely establish caps. They often include much more proposed spending than actually gets approved. Manchin and Sinema never said they would support a $3.5T reconciliation bill. As I recall, Manchin explicitly said he wouldn’t support the spending for climate change that was in the resolution.
This wouldn’t be happening if Manchin and Sinema had not reneged on the bargain made.
To be picky, I point out that budget resolutions are never binding and merely establish caps. They often include much more proposed spending than actually gets approved. Manchin and Sinema never said they would support a $3.5T reconciliation bill. As I recall, Manchin explicitly said he wouldn’t support the spending for climate change that was in the resolution.
a woman who is abandoning her base for reasons nobody quite understands…
Not nobody ?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/27/kyrsten-sinema-ambition-loyalty-517224
a woman who is abandoning her base for reasons nobody quite understands…
Not nobody ?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/27/kyrsten-sinema-ambition-loyalty-517224
For me it’s not about party loyalty or purity, it’s about solidarity. It’s not too different from being in a union. If you have been running a strong bargaining campaign and rallying new members to come out and be involved, and it’s worked, you don’t want one of the bargainers from a small local torpedoing the contract everyone has been working for and threatening to cross the picket line if the union doesn’t cut out a crucial benefit the bargainer never really liked. And in this case the bargainers are opposing things the members in their own local want.
That’s not “ you don’t win them all,” that’s betrayal.
For me it’s not about party loyalty or purity, it’s about solidarity. It’s not too different from being in a union. If you have been running a strong bargaining campaign and rallying new members to come out and be involved, and it’s worked, you don’t want one of the bargainers from a small local torpedoing the contract everyone has been working for and threatening to cross the picket line if the union doesn’t cut out a crucial benefit the bargainer never really liked. And in this case the bargainers are opposing things the members in their own local want.
That’s not “ you don’t win them all,” that’s betrayal.
So do you go down fighting, holding to your principles, or do you cave, reinforcing the view that Democrats are a feckless bunch of losers?
If you carefully frame the issue that way, of course the answer is obvious.
But a more realistic framing would be:
I appreciate the frustration, when the need is both great and obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. But the view that, by not deliverng everything, the Democrats are showing themselves to be a feckless bunch of losers is nonsense. It only happens if progressives insist on framing it that way for voters.
So do you go down fighting, holding to your principles, or do you cave, reinforcing the view that Democrats are a feckless bunch of losers?
If you carefully frame the issue that way, of course the answer is obvious.
But a more realistic framing would be:
I appreciate the frustration, when the need is both great and obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. But the view that, by not deliverng everything, the Democrats are showing themselves to be a feckless bunch of losers is nonsense. It only happens if progressives insist on framing it that way for voters.
wj – you keep framing this as a PR campaign for voters and keep treating progressives *as if they are not voters.* It’s like you think of the parties as channels and the voters as subscribers and politics is a ratings battle.
I see politics as collective action. Progressive voters *are* the party just as much as moderate voters are. Elected representatives cannot represent if their members are not holding them responsible for the collective agenda.
wj – you keep framing this as a PR campaign for voters and keep treating progressives *as if they are not voters.* It’s like you think of the parties as channels and the voters as subscribers and politics is a ratings battle.
I see politics as collective action. Progressive voters *are* the party just as much as moderate voters are. Elected representatives cannot represent if their members are not holding them responsible for the collective agenda.
What cleek said (9:16)
Bobby, nobody is suggesting you shouldn’t advocate for what you want. What we are saying is that you shouldn’t insist, and demand that others behave accordingly, that doing absolutely nothing is better than doing something less than perfect. Especially when doing so will pretty much guarantee that going forward power will be safely in the hands of those who will do nothing. Or, probably more accurately, do things which actively make the situation worse.
What cleek said (9:16)
Bobby, nobody is suggesting you shouldn’t advocate for what you want. What we are saying is that you shouldn’t insist, and demand that others behave accordingly, that doing absolutely nothing is better than doing something less than perfect. Especially when doing so will pretty much guarantee that going forward power will be safely in the hands of those who will do nothing. Or, probably more accurately, do things which actively make the situation worse.
Some of the proposals might pass if presented as single bills. The paid family leave proposal would likely get some Republican support.
Looks like Congress is headed towards passing a single bill each session with everything stuffed into it.
Some of the proposals might pass if presented as single bills. The paid family leave proposal would likely get some Republican support.
Looks like Congress is headed towards passing a single bill each session with everything stuffed into it.
nous, I don’t see this as a PR campaign. But I do see that, once you do something, you need to advertise its strong points, rather than trashing it because it wasn’t perfect.
Hold accountable those who blocked something better? Sure . . . IF you can replace them withh someone better. Thus, primary Sinema at the first opportunity. But Manchin? Until and unless you can elect someone better to that seat, there’s more downside than upside to taking him out. (Well, unless you’ve got a solid margin in the Senate without him.)
Frustrating as hell that he’ll skate. But I see it as a matter of the alternatives being even worse.
nous, I don’t see this as a PR campaign. But I do see that, once you do something, you need to advertise its strong points, rather than trashing it because it wasn’t perfect.
Hold accountable those who blocked something better? Sure . . . IF you can replace them withh someone better. Thus, primary Sinema at the first opportunity. But Manchin? Until and unless you can elect someone better to that seat, there’s more downside than upside to taking him out. (Well, unless you’ve got a solid margin in the Senate without him.)
Frustrating as hell that he’ll skate. But I see it as a matter of the alternatives being even worse.
Some of the proposals might pass if presented as single bills. The paid family leave proposal would likely get some Republican support.
Would that it were so. But the evidence to date suggests that McConnell can successfully block anything that isn’t in a (non-filibusterable) reconciliation bill. Of which, under current rules, only two are allowed per year.
Some of the proposals might pass if presented as single bills. The paid family leave proposal would likely get some Republican support.
Would that it were so. But the evidence to date suggests that McConnell can successfully block anything that isn’t in a (non-filibusterable) reconciliation bill. Of which, under current rules, only two are allowed per year.
That’s not “ you don’t win them all,” that’s betrayal.
it’s not betrayal. it’s a coalition comping to a decision.
ever order food with a big group of people?
not getting everything you want on the pizza isn’t betrayal. it’s compromise.
That’s not “ you don’t win them all,” that’s betrayal.
it’s not betrayal. it’s a coalition comping to a decision.
ever order food with a big group of people?
not getting everything you want on the pizza isn’t betrayal. it’s compromise.
Some of the proposals might pass if presented as single bills. The paid family leave proposal would likely get some Republican support.
this is fantasy.
the reason everything gets done in one big bill these days is because of the filibuster.
everyone involved knows the GOP isn’t going to vote for anything of any substance if doing otherwise denies the Dems a victory. that’s been the GOP’s explicit policy for at least a decade now. and that means the only way Dems can pass anything is with reconciliation. so everything that can has to go into reconciliation so it can pass with a majority.
the only point of doing anything outside of the reconciliation process is to try to make the GOP look bad, because again, everyone knows the GOP will use the effortlessly-applied and radically un-democratic filibuster to kill it.
want a functioning government, get rid of the filibuster.
want politicians to do what they said they’d do? get rid of the filibuster?
want to get people to pay attention to politics because they’ll have to make sure politicians stay in line? get rid of the filibuster.
Some of the proposals might pass if presented as single bills. The paid family leave proposal would likely get some Republican support.
this is fantasy.
the reason everything gets done in one big bill these days is because of the filibuster.
everyone involved knows the GOP isn’t going to vote for anything of any substance if doing otherwise denies the Dems a victory. that’s been the GOP’s explicit policy for at least a decade now. and that means the only way Dems can pass anything is with reconciliation. so everything that can has to go into reconciliation so it can pass with a majority.
the only point of doing anything outside of the reconciliation process is to try to make the GOP look bad, because again, everyone knows the GOP will use the effortlessly-applied and radically un-democratic filibuster to kill it.
want a functioning government, get rid of the filibuster.
want politicians to do what they said they’d do? get rid of the filibuster?
want to get people to pay attention to politics because they’ll have to make sure politicians stay in line? get rid of the filibuster.
“Betrayal” is promising something that you can possibly deliver and then not doing it.
Proposing/demanding something, and then not succeeding in spite of your best efforts, is not betrayal. Promising something that you do not have the power to deliver is not betrayal either. Foolish, perhaps, but not betrayal — unless maybe you claimed to have the power to do it when you do not.
“Betrayal” is promising something that you can possibly deliver and then not doing it.
Proposing/demanding something, and then not succeeding in spite of your best efforts, is not betrayal. Promising something that you do not have the power to deliver is not betrayal either. Foolish, perhaps, but not betrayal — unless maybe you claimed to have the power to do it when you do not.
The paid family leave proposal would likely get some Republican support.
Can you point to recent examples of bills or proposals introduced by (D)’s that got “some Republican support”?
The paid family leave proposal would likely get some Republican support.
Can you point to recent examples of bills or proposals introduced by (D)’s that got “some Republican support”?
Proposing/demanding something, and then not succeeding in spite of your best efforts, is not betrayal.
There’s some serious slippage in this formulation. Whose best efforts?
Two people betrayed the efforts of 48 colleagues. 48 colleagues put in their best effort. Two colleagues could have delivered on those goals for the other 48, but chose to withhold their support.
The 48 can claim best effort and celebrate what they were allowed to accomplish from their much more ambitious goals, but there is no way to claim this as a collective victory for all 50, and you don’t smile and act like everything is good with the two who sabotaged the goals that were supported by the vast majority of even their supporters.
That’s insane.
Proposing/demanding something, and then not succeeding in spite of your best efforts, is not betrayal.
There’s some serious slippage in this formulation. Whose best efforts?
Two people betrayed the efforts of 48 colleagues. 48 colleagues put in their best effort. Two colleagues could have delivered on those goals for the other 48, but chose to withhold their support.
The 48 can claim best effort and celebrate what they were allowed to accomplish from their much more ambitious goals, but there is no way to claim this as a collective victory for all 50, and you don’t smile and act like everything is good with the two who sabotaged the goals that were supported by the vast majority of even their supporters.
That’s insane.
If you want to argue that Sinema betrayed her voters, you have a solid case. Manchin, perhaps not so much.
But bobby appeared, at least to me, to be arguing that the Democratic party had betrayed its voters. Which is simply not true. IMHO. Unless he can give a strategy by which the party could have delivered the things he advocates for. If there is such a strategy, I can only say that it isn’t obvious.
If you want to argue that Sinema betrayed her voters, you have a solid case. Manchin, perhaps not so much.
But bobby appeared, at least to me, to be arguing that the Democratic party had betrayed its voters. Which is simply not true. IMHO. Unless he can give a strategy by which the party could have delivered the things he advocates for. If there is such a strategy, I can only say that it isn’t obvious.
the two who sabotaged the goals that were supported by the vast majority of even their supporters.
why do you focus only on the things that aren’t happening, and not at all on the things that are?
the two who sabotaged the goals that were supported by the vast majority of even their supporters.
why do you focus only on the things that aren’t happening, and not at all on the things that are?
cleek: want a functioning government, get rid of the filibuster
Amen! Possibly with one exception: lifetime judicial appointments.
I always thought Harry Reid got it backwards, back in the day. Legislation by simple majority can be undone by simple majority. And the majority can change, depending on how “good” or “bad” the legislation is in the eyes of the electorate. All the usual caveats apply, of course: the Affirmative-Action-for-Small-States nature of the Senate, the outsized influence of money, the public’s susceptibility to propaganda, etc. But without a major rewrite of the Constitution, we have to put up with those in any case.
Lifetime judicial appointments are a different kettle of fish. It may prove impossible to staff the judiciary, given polarization and the filibuster together. Or maybe, even in a polarized polity, the filibuster would coerce “both sides” to be “moderate” in nominating judges-for-life.
Anyway, the filibuster being strictly a quirk of the Senate, which is itself a quirk of history, the time has come to be less quirky.
–TP
cleek: want a functioning government, get rid of the filibuster
Amen! Possibly with one exception: lifetime judicial appointments.
I always thought Harry Reid got it backwards, back in the day. Legislation by simple majority can be undone by simple majority. And the majority can change, depending on how “good” or “bad” the legislation is in the eyes of the electorate. All the usual caveats apply, of course: the Affirmative-Action-for-Small-States nature of the Senate, the outsized influence of money, the public’s susceptibility to propaganda, etc. But without a major rewrite of the Constitution, we have to put up with those in any case.
Lifetime judicial appointments are a different kettle of fish. It may prove impossible to staff the judiciary, given polarization and the filibuster together. Or maybe, even in a polarized polity, the filibuster would coerce “both sides” to be “moderate” in nominating judges-for-life.
Anyway, the filibuster being strictly a quirk of the Senate, which is itself a quirk of history, the time has come to be less quirky.
–TP
according to NYT, here’s all the very disappointing betrayals that one can find in the current proposal:
why on earth should lefties be mad about any of that?
according to NYT, here’s all the very disappointing betrayals that one can find in the current proposal:
why on earth should lefties be mad about any of that?
why on earth should lefties be mad about any of that?
Because it’s not, you know, perfect.
why on earth should lefties be mad about any of that?
Because it’s not, you know, perfect.
Amen! Possibly with one exception: lifetime judicial appointments.
the whole filibuster / cloture / track rule stuff is absurd, even without the effects of its abuse. so just as a matter of style, i’d kill it for judges too. and then i’d make a new rule that simply requires a supermajority vote for judicial appointments.
optimize the ruleset!
Amen! Possibly with one exception: lifetime judicial appointments.
the whole filibuster / cloture / track rule stuff is absurd, even without the effects of its abuse. so just as a matter of style, i’d kill it for judges too. and then i’d make a new rule that simply requires a supermajority vote for judicial appointments.
optimize the ruleset!
why on earth should lefties be mad about any of that?
On the other hand, why should moderates get all pissy because they didn’t get their precious pork barrel road bill NOW?
Perhaps you could tell us the shape of BBB if the proggies had caved and let the roads bill pass first? A lot of so-called moderates were chastising the left for not just accepting that course (ahem, wj) and “trusting” the other side that tossed an implicit agreement.
The left now has votes. They used them. Apparently there are some who have a problem with that, and give us all that, “Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good” nonsense.
In the absence of the left chewing the carpet, Biden would have most likely gotten zero in a BBB, and moderates would blame the left for the Dems going down in flames in ’22….becasue that is what they do.
why on earth should lefties be mad about any of that?
On the other hand, why should moderates get all pissy because they didn’t get their precious pork barrel road bill NOW?
Perhaps you could tell us the shape of BBB if the proggies had caved and let the roads bill pass first? A lot of so-called moderates were chastising the left for not just accepting that course (ahem, wj) and “trusting” the other side that tossed an implicit agreement.
The left now has votes. They used them. Apparently there are some who have a problem with that, and give us all that, “Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good” nonsense.
In the absence of the left chewing the carpet, Biden would have most likely gotten zero in a BBB, and moderates would blame the left for the Dems going down in flames in ’22….becasue that is what they do.
Because it’s not, you know, perfect.
So easy to dismiss the real needs and fears of people who worked their asses off to overcome election shenanigans as some sort of unrealistic expectations and illegitimate feelings.
People will lose jobs and houses over the cuts.
People will have to put parents in care and take on extra jobs to pay for that.
But we should celebrate all these other things and pretend that their hopes were all just impractical pipe dreams.
Which they will remain as long as all those people see their needs not just ignored, but swept off stage for a victory lap by the person who forced the cut.
Not the way to start a blue wave anywhere purple.
Because it’s not, you know, perfect.
So easy to dismiss the real needs and fears of people who worked their asses off to overcome election shenanigans as some sort of unrealistic expectations and illegitimate feelings.
People will lose jobs and houses over the cuts.
People will have to put parents in care and take on extra jobs to pay for that.
But we should celebrate all these other things and pretend that their hopes were all just impractical pipe dreams.
Which they will remain as long as all those people see their needs not just ignored, but swept off stage for a victory lap by the person who forced the cut.
Not the way to start a blue wave anywhere purple.
In the absence of the left chewing the carpet, Biden would have most likely gotten zero in a BBB
And your evidence for that would be what?
Again, no problem with progressives advocating, vigorously, for what you want. (Even when it’s stuff that I personally don’t much care for. 😉 My problem is with chewing the carpet after the bill is passed and signed because it wasn’t perfect. Which, again AFAICT, what you are saying the left should do.
In the absence of the left chewing the carpet, Biden would have most likely gotten zero in a BBB
And your evidence for that would be what?
Again, no problem with progressives advocating, vigorously, for what you want. (Even when it’s stuff that I personally don’t much care for. 😉 My problem is with chewing the carpet after the bill is passed and signed because it wasn’t perfect. Which, again AFAICT, what you are saying the left should do.
But we should celebrate all these other things and pretend that their hopes were all just impractical pipe dreams.
Absolutely not. Yes, you should celebrate the things that were accomplished. And then you use that achievement to build support for all those other things. Because they aren’t necessarily impractical pipe dreams. Even though it didn’t prove feasible to get them done NOW.
But we should celebrate all these other things and pretend that their hopes were all just impractical pipe dreams.
Absolutely not. Yes, you should celebrate the things that were accomplished. And then you use that achievement to build support for all those other things. Because they aren’t necessarily impractical pipe dreams. Even though it didn’t prove feasible to get them done NOW.
On the other hand, why should moderates get all pissy because they didn’t get their precious pork barrel road bill NOW?
you keep fighting moderates.
i’ll be over here trying to help preschoolers.
On the other hand, why should moderates get all pissy because they didn’t get their precious pork barrel road bill NOW?
you keep fighting moderates.
i’ll be over here trying to help preschoolers.
People will lose jobs and houses over the cuts.
People will have to put parents in care and take on extra jobs to pay for that.
All of those things will happen if no bill passes.
It sucks that Manchin and Sinema are able to throw their various monkey wrenches into the process. It sucks that the (R)’s are opposed, as a solid and consistent and unvarying block, to anything whatsoever that the (D)’s put on the table.
Lots of things suck. A lot.
You play the hand you are dealt.
Something is better than nothing.
People will lose jobs and houses over the cuts.
People will have to put parents in care and take on extra jobs to pay for that.
All of those things will happen if no bill passes.
It sucks that Manchin and Sinema are able to throw their various monkey wrenches into the process. It sucks that the (R)’s are opposed, as a solid and consistent and unvarying block, to anything whatsoever that the (D)’s put on the table.
Lots of things suck. A lot.
You play the hand you are dealt.
Something is better than nothing.
+1 russell
+1 russell
wj: Yes, you should celebrate the things that were accomplished.
Let’s hold off celebrating until “the things” are actually “accomplished”. The MAGAts and the “moderates” have neither surrendered nor been defeated yet, in my humble and heretofore justifiably pessimistic opinion.
–TP
wj: Yes, you should celebrate the things that were accomplished.
Let’s hold off celebrating until “the things” are actually “accomplished”. The MAGAts and the “moderates” have neither surrendered nor been defeated yet, in my humble and heretofore justifiably pessimistic opinion.
–TP
Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that I say that its a good thing to pass the bill and for Democrats to point to the victories.
It’s also important to show the people who worked and sacrificed to get a majority elected and had their biggest priorities cut that the Democrats are still fighting for those things. And since the only reason we did not get those things THIS TIME is because two Democrats voted against them, it’s vitally important to tell those people who worked and voted that there is a way past and around those two Democrats and that electing more Democrats with more work will lead to victory on the rest of these issues and not just more of the same.
If you can’t do the call to action and make a credible case for how to get past those two, then you are not ever going to be able to get those extra votes you need to do it.
Those votes are going to have to come from the left. More wishy washy austerity moderates will just add numbers to the roadblock.
Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that I say that its a good thing to pass the bill and for Democrats to point to the victories.
It’s also important to show the people who worked and sacrificed to get a majority elected and had their biggest priorities cut that the Democrats are still fighting for those things. And since the only reason we did not get those things THIS TIME is because two Democrats voted against them, it’s vitally important to tell those people who worked and voted that there is a way past and around those two Democrats and that electing more Democrats with more work will lead to victory on the rest of these issues and not just more of the same.
If you can’t do the call to action and make a credible case for how to get past those two, then you are not ever going to be able to get those extra votes you need to do it.
Those votes are going to have to come from the left. More wishy washy austerity moderates will just add numbers to the roadblock.
Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that I say that its a good thing to pass the bill and for Democrats to point to the victories.
nous, you do say that. bobby? Not so much.
Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that I say that its a good thing to pass the bill and for Democrats to point to the victories.
nous, you do say that. bobby? Not so much.
Those votes are going to have to come from the left. More wishy washy austerity moderates will just add numbers to the roadblock.
there’s a lot of space between “the left” and “wishy washy austerity moderates”. it’s not a binary.
Those votes are going to have to come from the left. More wishy washy austerity moderates will just add numbers to the roadblock.
there’s a lot of space between “the left” and “wishy washy austerity moderates”. it’s not a binary.
My problem is with chewing the carpet after the bill is passed and signed because it wasn’t perfect.
Let’s see what they pass first, OK? Look, I think the ACA was a great legislative acheivement, but I don’t see much point in getting all worked up when folks like me point out there are different policies that would be better (not to be confused with “no way they could ever get passed”).
My problem is with chewing the carpet after the bill is passed and signed because it wasn’t perfect.
Let’s see what they pass first, OK? Look, I think the ACA was a great legislative acheivement, but I don’t see much point in getting all worked up when folks like me point out there are different policies that would be better (not to be confused with “no way they could ever get passed”).
You play the hand you are dealt.
Certainly. The left is currently dealt a much more powerful hand than they have had in the past, but to hear some folks here opine, they should not use that power because….reasons.
If they get some kind of BBB bill out the door, it will be because there was a great deal of hard horse trading…but I guess better to just throw your hands in the air and declaim, “Well Joey M. and Kirstyn are agin’ it, so we’re fucked, let’s just give them whatever they want.”
I would argue that the left killing the roads bill in the House brought the moderates to the table…but I guess some here overlook the fact that those moderates basically tried to steamroll the entire process.
You play the hand you are dealt.
Certainly. The left is currently dealt a much more powerful hand than they have had in the past, but to hear some folks here opine, they should not use that power because….reasons.
If they get some kind of BBB bill out the door, it will be because there was a great deal of hard horse trading…but I guess better to just throw your hands in the air and declaim, “Well Joey M. and Kirstyn are agin’ it, so we’re fucked, let’s just give them whatever they want.”
I would argue that the left killing the roads bill in the House brought the moderates to the table…but I guess some here overlook the fact that those moderates basically tried to steamroll the entire process.
bobby? Not so much.
I am saying it should and could be much better. Why to you have such a big problem with that?
bobby? Not so much.
I am saying it should and could be much better. Why to you have such a big problem with that?
The left is currently dealt a much more powerful hand than they have had in the past, but to hear some folks here opine, they should not use that power because….reasons.
Who here do you think is saying that? As far as what I’ve read, everybody is fine with the left using the power it has. The issue that I have is with you, as far as I can tell, assuming that you have more power that you really do. And then concluding that, therefore, if something doesn’t happen it shows a failure to use that power.
The reality is that the left has more power than it has had in a long time. But not enough to do everything you want done.** And, from what I read here, you just refuse to recognize that, even with more power than in the past, it isn’t enough to do some of the things you want.
** Hell, not even enough to do everything that *I* want done. And I’m nobody’s image of a lefty.
The left is currently dealt a much more powerful hand than they have had in the past, but to hear some folks here opine, they should not use that power because….reasons.
Who here do you think is saying that? As far as what I’ve read, everybody is fine with the left using the power it has. The issue that I have is with you, as far as I can tell, assuming that you have more power that you really do. And then concluding that, therefore, if something doesn’t happen it shows a failure to use that power.
The reality is that the left has more power than it has had in a long time. But not enough to do everything you want done.** And, from what I read here, you just refuse to recognize that, even with more power than in the past, it isn’t enough to do some of the things you want.
** Hell, not even enough to do everything that *I* want done. And I’m nobody’s image of a lefty.
I sometimes get the sense that the Identity Politics Moderates are moderates because they believe that when it comes time to compromise in order to get something done, their side of the compromise always has the moral high ground by virtue of not being “extreme,” and therefore always deserves to come out on top.
Kinda how Swing Voters see themselves as impartial arbiters, rather than triangulating trend followers.
I sometimes get the sense that the Identity Politics Moderates are moderates because they believe that when it comes time to compromise in order to get something done, their side of the compromise always has the moral high ground by virtue of not being “extreme,” and therefore always deserves to come out on top.
Kinda how Swing Voters see themselves as impartial arbiters, rather than triangulating trend followers.
Interestingly, one of the LGM wrecking crew is (I think) with cleek and wj
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/10/do-we-have-a-deal
Interestingly, one of the LGM wrecking crew is (I think) with cleek and wj
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/10/do-we-have-a-deal
Interestingly, one of the LGM wrecking crew is (I think) with cleek and wj
“Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.”
Interestingly, one of the LGM wrecking crew is (I think) with cleek and wj
“Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.”
Who here do you think is saying that?
umm…you, for one. You came out swinging for the left to fold and go ahead and pass the roads bill first. Perhaps you have forgotten.
The issue that I have is with you, as far as I can tell, assuming that you have more power that you really do.
I have not one iota of power beyond my voice and my vote. Sorry to disappoint.
Gosh, I say the left should use its voting bloc power in the House and you get all huffy about me “not understanding they can’t get everything they want”? LOL. I’ve been a left winger for over half a century. Not getting “what you want” is par for the course.
But do keep misrepresenting my position if it makes you feel better.
Have a nice day!
Who here do you think is saying that?
umm…you, for one. You came out swinging for the left to fold and go ahead and pass the roads bill first. Perhaps you have forgotten.
The issue that I have is with you, as far as I can tell, assuming that you have more power that you really do.
I have not one iota of power beyond my voice and my vote. Sorry to disappoint.
Gosh, I say the left should use its voting bloc power in the House and you get all huffy about me “not understanding they can’t get everything they want”? LOL. I’ve been a left winger for over half a century. Not getting “what you want” is par for the course.
But do keep misrepresenting my position if it makes you feel better.
Have a nice day!
My problem is with chewing the carpet after the bill is passed and signed because it wasn’t perfect.
You may have noticed that neither bill has been passed and signed. Just thought I’d let you know.
My problem is with chewing the carpet after the bill is passed and signed because it wasn’t perfect.
You may have noticed that neither bill has been passed and signed. Just thought I’d let you know.
I have not one iota of power beyond my voice and my vote. Sorry to disappoint.
The trouble with the English language is that the individual and collective second person pronoun is the same. My comment assumed the collective “you” — that is, the left (defined however one does).
I have not one iota of power beyond my voice and my vote. Sorry to disappoint.
The trouble with the English language is that the individual and collective second person pronoun is the same. My comment assumed the collective “you” — that is, the left (defined however one does).
“Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.”
Well, I’ve said that they are often too harsh for me (though I think it is important to separate out the individuals) But I feel like they’ve had a much better batting average than a lot of others…
“Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.”
Well, I’ve said that they are often too harsh for me (though I think it is important to separate out the individuals) But I feel like they’ve had a much better batting average than a lot of others…
You may have noticed that neither bill has been passed and signed.
The infrastructure bill has been passed in the Senate, though. The only way it fails to be approved is if enough House progressives decide that if they don’t get all their stuff, no one gets anything.
You may have noticed that neither bill has been passed and signed.
The infrastructure bill has been passed in the Senate, though. The only way it fails to be approved is if enough House progressives decide that if they don’t get all their stuff, no one gets anything.
LOL, michael. ALL their stuff? That’s funny.
LOL, michael. ALL their stuff? That’s funny.
Two points about “all their stuff”.
First, my understanding is that the progressives are holding back from voting for infrastructure because they don’t trust Sinema or Manchin to vote for the BBB after the infrastructure bill is passed. Biden wants them to pass the infrastructure bill now, based on Biden’s word. The problem with that is that there has been absolutely zero evidence that Biden or anyone else has any leverage on Manchin or Sinema except maybe the infrastructure bill. If Biden had some way to pressure them then surely he would have used it. This, btw, is why I don’t agree with some of the far lefties I usually agree with. They seem to think that if Biden were really serious he’d be going all out to pressure them, but I don’t see how that works in this case. But that also means Manchin and Sinema can do anything they want once they get the infrastructure bill.
It would be an interesting experiment to see what happened if they passed the infrastructure bill first. I think there is an extremely good chance that Sinema or Manchin or both would then have more demands. They still haven’t openly committed to voting for it. So I am in sympathy with the progressives who say they can’t trust Manchin and Sinema and want both bills passed at the same time. Biden’s word in this context doesn’t mean much.
Second, more general point–when people say progressives won’t get all they want, what we are really talking about is that people won’t get some things that would make their lives better. It’s not like progressives are voting for their own dental care or their own paid family leave. On the other hand, when Manchin votes he is pretty damn close to voting for his own personal financial gain.
The way people talk about these issues they often conflate the different demands in exactly the way I describe. Sometimes issues are morally gray and it is just an honest technocratic difference of opinion on what is best, but these days the Republican Party has no discernable moral principles and Manchin and Sinema are not much better.
Two points about “all their stuff”.
First, my understanding is that the progressives are holding back from voting for infrastructure because they don’t trust Sinema or Manchin to vote for the BBB after the infrastructure bill is passed. Biden wants them to pass the infrastructure bill now, based on Biden’s word. The problem with that is that there has been absolutely zero evidence that Biden or anyone else has any leverage on Manchin or Sinema except maybe the infrastructure bill. If Biden had some way to pressure them then surely he would have used it. This, btw, is why I don’t agree with some of the far lefties I usually agree with. They seem to think that if Biden were really serious he’d be going all out to pressure them, but I don’t see how that works in this case. But that also means Manchin and Sinema can do anything they want once they get the infrastructure bill.
It would be an interesting experiment to see what happened if they passed the infrastructure bill first. I think there is an extremely good chance that Sinema or Manchin or both would then have more demands. They still haven’t openly committed to voting for it. So I am in sympathy with the progressives who say they can’t trust Manchin and Sinema and want both bills passed at the same time. Biden’s word in this context doesn’t mean much.
Second, more general point–when people say progressives won’t get all they want, what we are really talking about is that people won’t get some things that would make their lives better. It’s not like progressives are voting for their own dental care or their own paid family leave. On the other hand, when Manchin votes he is pretty damn close to voting for his own personal financial gain.
The way people talk about these issues they often conflate the different demands in exactly the way I describe. Sometimes issues are morally gray and it is just an honest technocratic difference of opinion on what is best, but these days the Republican Party has no discernable moral principles and Manchin and Sinema are not much better.
Yes to Donald 11:47
Yes to Donald 11:47
if a progressive doesn’t think a half-trillion $ on climate change doesn’t count for “their stuff”, even if they wanted more than that, they are something other than progressive.
if a progressive doesn’t think a half-trillion $ on climate change doesn’t count for “their stuff”, even if they wanted more than that, they are something other than progressive.
cleek,
does it count? Yes. Is it enough? No. Bottom line: Well, you get what you can get. But that is not the argument here.
You apparently believe that there is an “offer” on the table for the progressives to accept.
That is not the case.
The crazy left has pared back their wish list considerably in order to try to get to agreement. The other side? Who the fuck knows? They have not been bargaining in good faith. They have not even committed to what you claim is an offer.
cleek,
does it count? Yes. Is it enough? No. Bottom line: Well, you get what you can get. But that is not the argument here.
You apparently believe that there is an “offer” on the table for the progressives to accept.
That is not the case.
The crazy left has pared back their wish list considerably in order to try to get to agreement. The other side? Who the fuck knows? They have not been bargaining in good faith. They have not even committed to what you claim is an offer.
+1 Donald at 11:47
and thanks for the analysis on the strategy around the timing on votes for the bill. helpful (to me anyway) to have that information.
+1 Donald at 11:47
and thanks for the analysis on the strategy around the timing on votes for the bill. helpful (to me anyway) to have that information.
So when conservatives hold out on a price tag and demand that whole programs get cut they are negotiating and compromising, but when progressives try to hold out in order to keep *really important and needed* programs and provisions in the bill, then are being spoiled children who want everything their way?
How this conflict gets framed is really revealing. There are some deep seated prejudices agains progressives that are really distorting the narrative.
So when conservatives hold out on a price tag and demand that whole programs get cut they are negotiating and compromising, but when progressives try to hold out in order to keep *really important and needed* programs and provisions in the bill, then are being spoiled children who want everything their way?
How this conflict gets framed is really revealing. There are some deep seated prejudices agains progressives that are really distorting the narrative.
The crazy left has pared back their wish list considerably in order to try to get to agreement. The other side? Who the fuck knows?
there’s a hypothetical Core Deal in there somewhere that contains things that everyone in the caucus likes. and that’s what they’re trying to find.
but the crazy left is in a weak position. ostensibly they want everything in that Core Deal. but they also want a lot of stuff that most of the caucus might like but ultimately can live without and aren’t willing to sacrifice the party’s future (by not passing anything) in order to get. so those things simply aren’t going to make it. the caucus isn’t going to kill itself for crazy left things that Manchin and Sinema ultimately won’t allow.
and those two get to be the gatekeepers because they will pass that Core Deal. the left aren’t the gatekeepers, because they want a superset of the Core Deal, but Manchin and Sinema won’t vote for it.
people can get the Core Deal by just going through Manchin and Sinema. so that’s what they’re doing.
the crazy left can kill the caucus if it wants to. i doubt that will do much for their political futures, though.
The crazy left has pared back their wish list considerably in order to try to get to agreement. The other side? Who the fuck knows?
there’s a hypothetical Core Deal in there somewhere that contains things that everyone in the caucus likes. and that’s what they’re trying to find.
but the crazy left is in a weak position. ostensibly they want everything in that Core Deal. but they also want a lot of stuff that most of the caucus might like but ultimately can live without and aren’t willing to sacrifice the party’s future (by not passing anything) in order to get. so those things simply aren’t going to make it. the caucus isn’t going to kill itself for crazy left things that Manchin and Sinema ultimately won’t allow.
and those two get to be the gatekeepers because they will pass that Core Deal. the left aren’t the gatekeepers, because they want a superset of the Core Deal, but Manchin and Sinema won’t vote for it.
people can get the Core Deal by just going through Manchin and Sinema. so that’s what they’re doing.
the crazy left can kill the caucus if it wants to. i doubt that will do much for their political futures, though.
How this conflict gets framed is really revealing.
mm hmm.
There are some deep seated prejudices agains progressives that are really distorting the narrative.
take a look at how the ‘crazy left’ frames it, if you like distorted narratives.
How this conflict gets framed is really revealing.
mm hmm.
There are some deep seated prejudices agains progressives that are really distorting the narrative.
take a look at how the ‘crazy left’ frames it, if you like distorted narratives.
TPM has a bit of a recap of the latest. The purity police are willing to take Joe Biden’s word for it. Let’s see if he gives it.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/the-sausage-making-a-weird-stop-start-kind-of-a-day
The Progressive Caucus has climbed quite a ways down, would you not agree?
Sincerely,
The Purity Police
TPM has a bit of a recap of the latest. The purity police are willing to take Joe Biden’s word for it. Let’s see if he gives it.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/the-sausage-making-a-weird-stop-start-kind-of-a-day
The Progressive Caucus has climbed quite a ways down, would you not agree?
Sincerely,
The Purity Police
and those two get to be the gatekeepers because they will pass that Core Deal.
There is no guarantee of any such “core deal”. Right now the “core deal” seems to be the Roads bill, and anything else is, “We’ll think about it.”
Get back to me when this mythical “core deal” is actually on the table.
I am arguing that not passing some significant legislation such as BBB is what will kill the Dems in ’22.
It’s like 2010 when all the moderates in swing districts ran away from the ACA. They were the ones who got slaughtered.
But they never learn.
and those two get to be the gatekeepers because they will pass that Core Deal.
There is no guarantee of any such “core deal”. Right now the “core deal” seems to be the Roads bill, and anything else is, “We’ll think about it.”
Get back to me when this mythical “core deal” is actually on the table.
I am arguing that not passing some significant legislation such as BBB is what will kill the Dems in ’22.
It’s like 2010 when all the moderates in swing districts ran away from the ACA. They were the ones who got slaughtered.
But they never learn.
The Progressive Caucus has climbed quite a ways down, would you not agree?
yep.
and maybe it helped that they set the bar so high to start.
The Progressive Caucus has climbed quite a ways down, would you not agree?
yep.
and maybe it helped that they set the bar so high to start.
Get back to me when this mythical “core deal” is actually on the table.
sounds like you’re hoping for failure.
I am arguing that not passing some significant legislation such as BBB is what will kill the Dems in ’22.
then i’m agreeing with you. and so is Biden and everyone else, including the GOP.
the difference is, you have apparently decided that the current proposal is insignificant. and it ain’t.
Get back to me when this mythical “core deal” is actually on the table.
sounds like you’re hoping for failure.
I am arguing that not passing some significant legislation such as BBB is what will kill the Dems in ’22.
then i’m agreeing with you. and so is Biden and everyone else, including the GOP.
the difference is, you have apparently decided that the current proposal is insignificant. and it ain’t.
I see the the section allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices has gotten dropped out. So here’s an idea that I innocently expect bobby and nous (and pretty much everyone else here) could support.
Given how popular the idea is, that will likely win some Senate seats that would otherwise be out of reach. Actually, I could see it being as fatal for opponents as “legitimate rape” proved.
I see the the section allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices has gotten dropped out. So here’s an idea that I innocently expect bobby and nous (and pretty much everyone else here) could support.
Given how popular the idea is, that will likely win some Senate seats that would otherwise be out of reach. Actually, I could see it being as fatal for opponents as “legitimate rape” proved.
but the crazy left is in a weak position. ostensibly they want everything in that Core Deal.
They want something in that deal. What that is, is to be thrashed out. So the word “everything” in what you wrote there is simply nonsense.
but the crazy left is in a weak position. ostensibly they want everything in that Core Deal.
They want something in that deal. What that is, is to be thrashed out. So the word “everything” in what you wrote there is simply nonsense.
the difference is, you have apparently decided that the current proposal is insignificant. and it ain’t.
FFS. I argue no such thing. As a matter of policy, I opine the so-called “deal” comes up woefully short. As a political matter, I support the P-caucus position that they must have something in the way of a guarantee that “something” will get passed.
There has been no such guarantee forthcoming, your imagination notwithstanding.
the difference is, you have apparently decided that the current proposal is insignificant. and it ain’t.
FFS. I argue no such thing. As a matter of policy, I opine the so-called “deal” comes up woefully short. As a political matter, I support the P-caucus position that they must have something in the way of a guarantee that “something” will get passed.
There has been no such guarantee forthcoming, your imagination notwithstanding.
wj,
That’s a fine idea, but as I understand senate rules (a mystery that passeth all understanding) it cannot be put into practice without basically overturning some of those rule, up to and possibly including, the filibuster.
I give Chuckie a good deal of credit here. If that were a realistic option at this point, he would have tried it.
wj,
That’s a fine idea, but as I understand senate rules (a mystery that passeth all understanding) it cannot be put into practice without basically overturning some of those rule, up to and possibly including, the filibuster.
I give Chuckie a good deal of credit here. If that were a realistic option at this point, he would have tried it.
They want something in that deal. What that is, is to be thrashed out. So the word “everything” in what you wrote there is simply nonsense.
here’s what i wrote:
the Core Deal i’m talking about is, by definition, a bill that contains things that everyone likes.
capice?
They want something in that deal. What that is, is to be thrashed out. So the word “everything” in what you wrote there is simply nonsense.
here’s what i wrote:
the Core Deal i’m talking about is, by definition, a bill that contains things that everyone likes.
capice?
bobby, historically (until a “reform” in the 1970s) the filibuster required actually talking. There’s no reason the Senate couldn’t return to that practice. It’s a merely rule change, so it can be done with a simple majority.
Since it wouldn’t eliminate the filibuster, or even carve out a new exception, the devout filibuster-preservationists might well be OK with it.
bobby, historically (until a “reform” in the 1970s) the filibuster required actually talking. There’s no reason the Senate couldn’t return to that practice. It’s a merely rule change, so it can be done with a simple majority.
Since it wouldn’t eliminate the filibuster, or even carve out a new exception, the devout filibuster-preservationists might well be OK with it.
There was a time when you could sacrifice a few votes from your own party and peel off a slightly larger number of votes from the other party. That’s not really a thing anymore, at least not for Democrats on anything that matters enough to get people’s attention. And there are currently only 50 Democrats in the US Senate.
When you’re up against those constraints, there’s bound to be someone screwing things up. If it wasn’t Manchin and Simena, it would be someone else. It’s almost lucky that there are only two of them.
It’s like we’re all arguing about which crayons to use in our coloring book to get ready for a physics exam – only because it’s the closest thing we have to a physics text and we’ve forgotten what a poor substitute it is.
Who’s fault is it? If they can pass something, will it be good for what’s in it or bad for what’s not? I don’t know, but it’s like asking whether to color the balloon yellow or pink to get ready for the physics exam. It doesn’t matter. All we can do is hope we paid attention in class and can remember enough to at least pass.
I can’t really figure out what anyone’s arguing about anymore. Maybe it’s just differing subjective characterizations of an objective reality that isn’t actually in dispute – a big part of which is that the Democrats are kind of f**ked right now.
There was a time when you could sacrifice a few votes from your own party and peel off a slightly larger number of votes from the other party. That’s not really a thing anymore, at least not for Democrats on anything that matters enough to get people’s attention. And there are currently only 50 Democrats in the US Senate.
When you’re up against those constraints, there’s bound to be someone screwing things up. If it wasn’t Manchin and Simena, it would be someone else. It’s almost lucky that there are only two of them.
It’s like we’re all arguing about which crayons to use in our coloring book to get ready for a physics exam – only because it’s the closest thing we have to a physics text and we’ve forgotten what a poor substitute it is.
Who’s fault is it? If they can pass something, will it be good for what’s in it or bad for what’s not? I don’t know, but it’s like asking whether to color the balloon yellow or pink to get ready for the physics exam. It doesn’t matter. All we can do is hope we paid attention in class and can remember enough to at least pass.
I can’t really figure out what anyone’s arguing about anymore. Maybe it’s just differing subjective characterizations of an objective reality that isn’t actually in dispute – a big part of which is that the Democrats are kind of f**ked right now.
I have seen lefties make exactly the proposal wj suggests— put up individual parts of the package ( the rejected parts which are popular) up for a vote and make people argue against negotiated drug prices. To the layperson like myself it seems like a great idea. Isn’t that what Congress is supposed to do? I see bobbyp just said there were or might be weird procedural reasons why this can’t happen, and maybe that is so. The way Congress or at least the Senate operates just boggles my mind. Until this year I had no notion there was a Senate Parlimentarian or rather, I might have guessed such an entity might exist, but without ever giving it a thought. Then it turns out she is apparently the fourth branch of government.
I have seen lefties make exactly the proposal wj suggests— put up individual parts of the package ( the rejected parts which are popular) up for a vote and make people argue against negotiated drug prices. To the layperson like myself it seems like a great idea. Isn’t that what Congress is supposed to do? I see bobbyp just said there were or might be weird procedural reasons why this can’t happen, and maybe that is so. The way Congress or at least the Senate operates just boggles my mind. Until this year I had no notion there was a Senate Parlimentarian or rather, I might have guessed such an entity might exist, but without ever giving it a thought. Then it turns out she is apparently the fourth branch of government.
Incidentally, if McConnell becomes the Senate leader how much influence will the Parlimentarian have on what he wants to pass? I am guessing it will be very little.
Incidentally, if McConnell becomes the Senate leader how much influence will the Parlimentarian have on what he wants to pass? I am guessing it will be very little.
if McConnell becomes the Senate leader how much influence will the Parlimentarian have on what he wants to pass? I am guessing it will be very little.
I, on the other hand, guess it will be huge. After McConnell appoints a new one who is a partisan hack, who will give him cover when he doesn’t want to publicly oppose something.
Hey, it’s working for Supreme Court justices, why not for the parliamentarian?
if McConnell becomes the Senate leader how much influence will the Parlimentarian have on what he wants to pass? I am guessing it will be very little.
I, on the other hand, guess it will be huge. After McConnell appoints a new one who is a partisan hack, who will give him cover when he doesn’t want to publicly oppose something.
Hey, it’s working for Supreme Court justices, why not for the parliamentarian?
The filibuster as it stands currently begins with blocking opening a debate about a bill and ends with blocking the end of the debate. The vote on the bill itself is not affected, i.e. when the debate ends unfilibustered the vote to pass the bill itself cannot by blocked by it.
The GOP just blocked opening the debate on any voting rights bill. If they somehow would agree to a debate, they could extend it indefinitely by filibustering it again. But if tehy somehow allowed the deabte to end, they could not stop the bill from coming up for a vote.
The filibuster as it stands currently begins with blocking opening a debate about a bill and ends with blocking the end of the debate. The vote on the bill itself is not affected, i.e. when the debate ends unfilibustered the vote to pass the bill itself cannot by blocked by it.
The GOP just blocked opening the debate on any voting rights bill. If they somehow would agree to a debate, they could extend it indefinitely by filibustering it again. But if tehy somehow allowed the deabte to end, they could not stop the bill from coming up for a vote.
The way all of this looks to me is like this:
The (D)’s are, amongst themselves, having the kind of discussion and negotiation that Congress as a whole should be having.
The (R)’s are standing around waiting to see what comes out of that so they can vote “no” on it. Whatever it is. They’re just gonna vote no.
The (R) party in Congress (and many places) has basically abdicated its role in governance. The (D)’s are left to do their best, albeit with the 500-pound anchor of (R) intransigence shackled to their ankles.
The specific content of the bill, and the timing of the votes, will be whatever comes out of the (D) deliberative process. It won’t be perfect, it will however be better than nothing.
A trillion and a half is a hell of a lot less than three-plus. But it’s also a hell of a lot more than zero.
The whole contentious process doesn’t bother me. That *is what is supposed to happen*. It’s people representing different constituencies, with different interests, hammering it out. Or, in the case of Manchin (and others), representing their own personal best interest, but the only people who can change that are the voters of WV.
The dysfunctional part of all of this is the (R)’s waiting around to do nothing, other than do their best to make sure the (hopefully not too) brief window of (D) majority achieves nothing at all.
Whatever they can get done is a win. More is better than less, something is better than nothing.
The way all of this looks to me is like this:
The (D)’s are, amongst themselves, having the kind of discussion and negotiation that Congress as a whole should be having.
The (R)’s are standing around waiting to see what comes out of that so they can vote “no” on it. Whatever it is. They’re just gonna vote no.
The (R) party in Congress (and many places) has basically abdicated its role in governance. The (D)’s are left to do their best, albeit with the 500-pound anchor of (R) intransigence shackled to their ankles.
The specific content of the bill, and the timing of the votes, will be whatever comes out of the (D) deliberative process. It won’t be perfect, it will however be better than nothing.
A trillion and a half is a hell of a lot less than three-plus. But it’s also a hell of a lot more than zero.
The whole contentious process doesn’t bother me. That *is what is supposed to happen*. It’s people representing different constituencies, with different interests, hammering it out. Or, in the case of Manchin (and others), representing their own personal best interest, but the only people who can change that are the voters of WV.
The dysfunctional part of all of this is the (R)’s waiting around to do nothing, other than do their best to make sure the (hopefully not too) brief window of (D) majority achieves nothing at all.
Whatever they can get done is a win. More is better than less, something is better than nothing.
wrs
wrs
The dysfunctional part of all of this is the (R)’s waiting around to do nothing, other than do their best to make sure the (hopefully not too) brief window of (D) majority achieves nothing at all.
Well that and making profitable use of the time saved by not legislating. Either cash or egoboo — whichever form of profit they individually prefer.
The dysfunctional part of all of this is the (R)’s waiting around to do nothing, other than do their best to make sure the (hopefully not too) brief window of (D) majority achieves nothing at all.
Well that and making profitable use of the time saved by not legislating. Either cash or egoboo — whichever form of profit they individually prefer.
It’s a merely rule change, so it can be done with a simple majority.
I may be wrong, but I understand that the motion to alter the rules is, itself, subject to the filibuster, so you have to end the filibuster (can be tailored to apply to just this motion), to even begin debating the motion.
Obviously, this would initiate the slippery slope to ending it all together….and we simply cannot have that now, can we?
Perhaps our parliamentarians out there can provide an assist on this one.
It’s a merely rule change, so it can be done with a simple majority.
I may be wrong, but I understand that the motion to alter the rules is, itself, subject to the filibuster, so you have to end the filibuster (can be tailored to apply to just this motion), to even begin debating the motion.
Obviously, this would initiate the slippery slope to ending it all together….and we simply cannot have that now, can we?
Perhaps our parliamentarians out there can provide an assist on this one.
This is an interesting historical retrospective about how tge current partisanship resembles the late 1800’s, though I think the optimistic ending might be overstated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/opinion/normal-politics-gilded-age.html
Also, to me it seems like the first part of the 19th century was even more partisan and vicious— it did, after all, result in a civil war.
This is an interesting historical retrospective about how tge current partisanship resembles the late 1800’s, though I think the optimistic ending might be overstated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/opinion/normal-politics-gilded-age.html
Also, to me it seems like the first part of the 19th century was even more partisan and vicious— it did, after all, result in a civil war.
Senate rule changes can be made at the start of the session (when new Senators are sworn in after an election). as part of the process, they all vote on what the rules are. usually they just continue with the existing rules.
they can be changed at any time by a supermajority vote.
they can also be changed at any time by having 51 Senators (or 50+VP) tell the parliamentarian that they are going to change the rule and to shove any complaints. that’s the ‘nuclear option’, and it’s how the filibusters for judicial nominations were killed.
Senate rule changes can be made at the start of the session (when new Senators are sworn in after an election). as part of the process, they all vote on what the rules are. usually they just continue with the existing rules.
they can be changed at any time by a supermajority vote.
they can also be changed at any time by having 51 Senators (or 50+VP) tell the parliamentarian that they are going to change the rule and to shove any complaints. that’s the ‘nuclear option’, and it’s how the filibusters for judicial nominations were killed.
I hadn’t heard it called a “nuclear option.” But that’s what I understood to be the process for any rules change.
I hadn’t heard it called a “nuclear option.” But that’s what I understood to be the process for any rules change.
Donald, that’s a fascinating article on the previous incarnation of “vote a straight party ticket.” Perhaps, in the New Gilded Age, we need to take a closer look at the process by which we got from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era last time.
Donald, that’s a fascinating article on the previous incarnation of “vote a straight party ticket.” Perhaps, in the New Gilded Age, we need to take a closer look at the process by which we got from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era last time.
nuclear option:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
nuclear option:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
It originated as the ‘nuclear’ option but then got split into the nuclear (=Dem) and the constitutional (GOP) option.
It originated as the ‘nuclear’ option but then got split into the nuclear (=Dem) and the constitutional (GOP) option.
Putting popular bills on the floor for debate and up or down vote would be good, but it would be busting the filibuster in any event, and would be opposed from the usual quarters, would it not?
Putting popular bills on the floor for debate and up or down vote would be good, but it would be busting the filibuster in any event, and would be opposed from the usual quarters, would it not?
Putting popular bills on the floor for debate and up or down vote would be good, but it would be busting the filibuster in any event
Not necessarily. You could preserve the filibuster (for those with a bizarre attachment there), just make the Senators go back to actually talking. No more just saying you would filibuster, with no need to exert yourself by carrying out the threat. Want unlimited debate? No problem . . . as long as you’re willing to stand up and talk indefinitely.
When you have talked yourself out, then yes there’s a vote. But the filibuster is intact. Admittedly not as good a solution as just getting rid of it. But something which might have a chance of getting enacted this term.
Putting popular bills on the floor for debate and up or down vote would be good, but it would be busting the filibuster in any event
Not necessarily. You could preserve the filibuster (for those with a bizarre attachment there), just make the Senators go back to actually talking. No more just saying you would filibuster, with no need to exert yourself by carrying out the threat. Want unlimited debate? No problem . . . as long as you’re willing to stand up and talk indefinitely.
When you have talked yourself out, then yes there’s a vote. But the filibuster is intact. Admittedly not as good a solution as just getting rid of it. But something which might have a chance of getting enacted this term.
wj,
If a bill comes to the floor tomorrow, any senator can put a “silent filibuster” on it, and 60 votes would be required to end debate, something neither side can muster at this time. The majority could raise a “point of order” and tell the parliamentarian to take a hike, but I do not believe that would lead to a talking debate. It would lead only to a vote? The talking filibuster would take an official change to the rules, as I understand it.
But I might be wrong on this. It happens.
Regardless, if you are correct, why have the Dems not done as you have suggested? I would wager there are a significant number of Senate Dems, besides Joey and Krysten, who are not favorably inclined to end the filibuster, and Schumer simply does not have the votes.
Now why would that be?
I leave to you to figure that out.
wj,
If a bill comes to the floor tomorrow, any senator can put a “silent filibuster” on it, and 60 votes would be required to end debate, something neither side can muster at this time. The majority could raise a “point of order” and tell the parliamentarian to take a hike, but I do not believe that would lead to a talking debate. It would lead only to a vote? The talking filibuster would take an official change to the rules, as I understand it.
But I might be wrong on this. It happens.
Regardless, if you are correct, why have the Dems not done as you have suggested? I would wager there are a significant number of Senate Dems, besides Joey and Krysten, who are not favorably inclined to end the filibuster, and Schumer simply does not have the votes.
Now why would that be?
I leave to you to figure that out.
actually, I prefer Ornstein’s idea to make 40 senators actually be on the floor to vote to end debate. That effectively moves the pressure to the minority to continue debate. They have to be there and be counted.
actually, I prefer Ornstein’s idea to make 40 senators actually be on the floor to vote to end debate. That effectively moves the pressure to the minority to continue debate. They have to be there and be counted.
bobby, I think it depends on exactly which Point of Order gets raised. But my understanding** is that it would be possible to do it so floor debate starts. Which would allow those who want it to preserve their beloved filibuster.
It could also be approached as you suggest. But that would result in getting rid of the filibuster. Which, no question, would be a Good Thing. But the votes aren’t there, as you say.
The question is, are the votes there to restore the talking filibuster? I think they might be, if Schumer picks the test case bill carefully. My choice would be the Voting Rights bill that Manchin wrote. That would give him some skin in the game. (Might also answer the question about why it hasn’t happened already. Manchin hadn’t had yet his shot at achieving bipartisanship on something he wanted.)
** I might be wrong on this, too. Happens to us all.
bobby, I think it depends on exactly which Point of Order gets raised. But my understanding** is that it would be possible to do it so floor debate starts. Which would allow those who want it to preserve their beloved filibuster.
It could also be approached as you suggest. But that would result in getting rid of the filibuster. Which, no question, would be a Good Thing. But the votes aren’t there, as you say.
The question is, are the votes there to restore the talking filibuster? I think they might be, if Schumer picks the test case bill carefully. My choice would be the Voting Rights bill that Manchin wrote. That would give him some skin in the game. (Might also answer the question about why it hasn’t happened already. Manchin hadn’t had yet his shot at achieving bipartisanship on something he wanted.)
** I might be wrong on this, too. Happens to us all.