+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 44
Latest: Robinquit
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 11564
Total Topics: 251
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 9683 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19532
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #240 on: November 29, 2018, 11:53:45 am »
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

November 29, 2018

WSJ    Opinion 😈 Page Thinks Hundreds Of Billions Of Dollars of Climate Damages Are “Affordable”

To those who have already suffered from climate impacts, like the Native Americans displaced by sea level rise in Louisiana and permafrost melt in Alaska, or those who lost their homes in wildfires or lives in heat waves, the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page has a message: you’re expendable.

That’s the gist of a pair of pieces responding to the NCA (National Climate Assessment) this week. The report says explicitly that climate change is already making extreme weather like hurricanes and wildfires worse, is already raising sea levels to the point that coastal communities are flooding on sunny days, and is already hurting the health of Americans across the country. Despite this, all the Journal seems to care about is money.

In a piece published on Monday, Steve Koonin 😈 argues that the report says “the overall economic impact of human-caused climate change is expected to be quite small.” To reiterate, this is the report that says many coastal communities will likely flood daily regardless of emission reductions, and that the entire $3.6 trillion dollar coastal real estate market is on the line.

The NCA also suggests there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses, primarily from three factors. First, Americans dying prematurely means lots of hospital spending but not much else (turns out the dead don’t buy much). Second, there will be losses in outdoor worker productivity as entire swaths of the South becomes so hot that sustained outdoor work would literally be lethal. And thirdly, sea level rise will put coastal communities under water, literally and financially.

But because the economy will grow between now and then, Koonin claims that the costs won’t be so bad. As a country, we’ll be four times richer by 2090, so what’s a few hundred billion dollars lost every year by then?

Holman Jenkins Jr. 👹 follows Koonin’s lead, and on Tuesday put a finer point on his misplaced priorities of profits over people.

In reference to the report’s $510 billion in potential losses by 2090, representing thousands of dead Americans, Jenkins quips that “paying this bill would be a nuisance, not Armageddon.”

Sure, a nuisance. What a great way to describe grandmothers dropping dead of heat stroke, or children gasping for air as asthma rates in communities of color climb even higher.

Jenkins helpfully advises the climate community, which he’s spent years insulting, to slip a carbon tax into a larger tax reform package, because “the biggest holdup to direct action on climate is showing that preventing these changes would be cheaper than enduring them.”

Apparently, $500 billion dollars a year in dead Americans, flooded coastal communities and the scorching of the South’s agriculture industry is affordable, but switching from fossil fuels to renewables now is just too expensive.

While most deniers are clearly funded by fossil fuels, it’s starting to feel like the WSJ’s biggest advertiser might be the coffin-makers.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19532
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #241 on: December 07, 2018, 06:27:32 pm »
No, it's not a lie. I still remember the thread where you went off on me for daring not to blindly believe your theories about ancient aliens and high-tech Atlantis type societies. What happened to all of those theories, AG?    Did you finally realize it was all nonsense you were following because it sounded intellectual and made you feel superior to those without the secret "knowledge"?   

Only among tarantulas could be it "trolling" or "sophistry" to simply be honest and admit you do not know something well enough to write intelligently about it. This is what you should be doing when it comes to a great many things you have written about, but wanna-be tyrants will never admit their intellectual blind spots and personal weaknesses.

If their is one thing you have NEVER done, it's "admit intellectual blind spots and weaknesses". You are always too busy inventing said "blind spots" and "weaknesses" in your perceived opponent. Disingenuous posturing does not qualify as an admission of ZIP, counselor. 

Deny all you want and keep up the false accusations, as is your wont. I understand that "works for you" so you can avoid discussing the Climate Crises issue objectively. So, go head, continue keeping your Denier head firmly ensconced in your status quo worshipping descending colon. The fact that you consistently refuse to acknowledge the validity of the dire need for a worldwide effort to get the global economy off of fossil fuels (and other biosphere degrading human activities), to the point that you disingenuously claim that "tinkering" with this complex CAPITALIST system this way will "unjustly hurt the poor" (a Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda Denier talking point for the last TWO decades, at least) means that you, like the others that cheerlead the status quo, have blood ☠️ on your hands. Those of us advocating a clean energy based economy for a viable biosphere, do not, despite your Orwellian attempts to demonize us.   

Be sure and IGNORE the following post because, if you read it, it will make your head hurt.

Have a nice deluded day.

Climate Crisis Critical Issue in 2020 Elections – Jane Sanders

December 7, 2018

Jane Sanders tells Paul Jay that voters shouldn’t support candidates who claim to be progressive, but don’t prioritize the fight against fossil fuel interests

Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay.

The Gathering, a meeting of 200 or so progressive thought leaders invited to Burlington, Vermont, was a meeting to talk about what comes next in the coming 2020 elections to help create a vision, a policy framework, for what candidates might run on, what people might fight for. It comes at a rather momentous time in human history, as I said in one of the other interviews; 2020 is maybe the most important election anyplace, ever, given what’s at stake. The Gathering was called by Jane O’Meara Sanders, who’s co-founder of the Sanders Institute; now serves as a fellow. Jane served as a political consultant, has held appointed and elected office, and Jane was the driving force behind the Gathering. And she now joins us here in our studio at the Gathering. Thanks for joining us.

JANE SANDERS: Thanks, Paul.

PAUL JAY: Your hopes going in—and I heard this a little bit in the email back and forth—is we don’t want to spend all this time trashing Trump. We really want to talk policy and what a different world might look like. How do you feel that was achieved?

JANE SANDERS: I was astounded. I mean, we had 49 speakers in 48 hours. And actually, I think a few added on during the weekend. It was thought provoking, inspiring, much better than I had ever envisioned. I had pretty high thoughts for this weekend. We came—you mentioned thought leaders. And what I realized by the end is they’re not just progressive thought leaders. They are bringing the heart to the, their hearts to the causes, to the issues that we talked about. They’re leading from values and principles, and then their intellect informs the rest. But the first layer is the values and the principles that we espouse, for democracy and for human dignity.

PAUL JAY: The times we live in are, as I said, this may be—the coming election may be the most important ever, to a large extent because of climate change. If a climate denier is elected again, or if a corporate Democrat is elected who pays lip service to the climate crisis and doesn’t take effective action, we’re kind of screwed. We’re already close to 1.5 or 2 degrees above—in terms of warming, above pre-industrial averages. The tipping point is really within sight. In terms of the messaging of the extent of the crisis and what to do about it, do you think that was addressed here?

JANE SANDERS: I think it was. I think that people walked away with the concept that, and with the realization, that time is running out. And what we need to do is not just ask people what to do or inform people about the issue.

One of the things that we need to do, and the reason for the Gathering, was to amplify each other’s voices, resonate on the issues. We need leadership that actually says, I’m sorry, this is a crisis. We need to address it now. Not next year, not the year after. It’s leadership at the local, the statewide, the national, the international level. Not just people who are elected, but people who want to make a difference in the world.

At the end of the climate crisis panel, Bill McKibben said that we need to have healthcare, Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and 100% renewable. Those are not the only things. But the 100% renewable and the focus on the climate crisis has to be at the outset of anybody running for office. Where do you stand? Where do you stand? Not [crosstalk]

PAUL JAY: Absolutely. But I’m not hearing it. Even with progressive candidates it’s like, I have to say even to some extent Bernie, although he’s certainly better than any of the others that actually have a mainstream role. But the extent of the threat is not like—it’s got to be front and center. We’re often, it’s like a shopping list, healthcare, Medicare for all, $15, climate. Well, climate is, it doesn’t matter if you get $15 an hour if we ain’t here. There seems to be a feeling both amongst people that work on this issue in the climate sector, people involved in political campaigns, that if you talk about the extent of the crisis you’re just going to scare people. Well, shouldn’t we be scaring people?

JANE SANDERS: I think so. I think you’re absolutely right. And we have to start—I believe a lot of people have conferences, and that’s the end game. Let’s have a conference. This was a jumping off point. We want to have the conference inform future action. What I heard from the questions from the attendees, the hallway conversations was that we have to hold people accountable. It’s not from a perception of you have to vote for this or vote for that. What do you understand about the climate crisis? Where do you stand on it, what are you willing to do, and what are you not willing to do? Don’t talk to me about in sound bites, don’t talk to me to say climate crisis is really bad, but no, I’m not going to fight the pipelines in the states. I’m not going to not take fossil fuel industry money. I think with the climate crisis, I think more than anything else we have to draw a very clear line and say these are the expectations. If you don’t do this, I don’t care how progressive you are, supposedly, it’s not—we’re not interested.

PAUL JAY: It’s got to be a criteria people use on who they vote for. But to do that we’ve got to get into those sections amongst working people who right now, climate is barely on the top 20 of their list. We did some work in southern Pennsylvania, we’ve done work around Baltimore where we’re based. And without doubt, the day-to-day suffering is such that people, they want that addressed. This thing has to be framed in a way that it is today. It’s not some great future prospect. And it’s your kids at stake, your grandkids at stake. The messaging is not getting through much to ordinary people.

JANE SANDERS: Well, when you look at the floods and the torrential rains and the fires, there is no analysis of that on the news. They cover it like voyeurs to say, oh, look at this terrible thing that’s happening. These people are helping, this is good news. The community is coming together, great. But they don’t ever ask why. Why is this occurring? Cover the science. And that is not happening. They need to cover the science.

PAUL JAY: Every day.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, every day. But they’re not, and we need to insist they do.

PAUL JAY: We’re going to be, we are. and we’re going to be every day doing science. Because what’s missing from the whole discourse for ordinary people, people coming in on the issue, is the sense of urgency. People that understand what’s going on, we feel a sense of urgency, but there’s still this feeling that you can’t tell people that because it’s going to overwhelm them. It’s like treating people like kids.

JANE SANDERS: Partly. But I also think that people don’t want to have—want to just focus on a problem without a solution. Many of the people that are speaking about it or looking for votes don’t want to deal with the solutions. I do think that we have an opportunity at this point in time to say, to lay out what this administration has been doing in terms of rolling back air and water and all this, and all these regulations, and to recognize the support they’re giving to the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars and not to renewables, which would help us. But to be able to say there is an answer.

The House just turned, and we should be making it very clear to the Democrats that are in control of the House, are you going to do something? If you’re not going to do something, thank you very much, we’re not going to be supporting you. If we say to the people, this is what you can do, and this is what we expect of you as leaders in your community or as elected leaders, we need your voice out there, then we can make a change. I think people need to not just focus only on the climate crisis, because as you say, that’s what everybody is saying. Everybody is going to be very nervous about it and very concerned. They should be, but we have to give them a path forward. We have to say how are you going to be able to make this-

PAUL JAY: Well, one of the things that came out of the conference was the discussion of a new green deal, a Green New Deal, I should say, which seems to make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense when you already understand why we need a new green deal—Green New Deal. Most people don’t even get the urgency of that.

JANE SANDERS: I think the bully pulpit really matters. The people in that room, and hopefully the people that watched on livestream, and the people that watch the things we’ll be putting out in the future at the Sanders Institute, will understand more. And Real News. You’ve been talking to people this entire time to have the Real News be covering the science, covering the facts, and having people who are in a position to lead their communities to solution. That helps. Now, the problem is that so many of the solutions, or so many of the approaches, seem to be protesting only. That’s not what we—I mean, protests are very important. That’s not enough. What we need to do is demand accountability, demand that they don’t take money from pipeline, they don’t support banks that fund pipelines. We need to say to our representatives and to the media, we expect you to ask and answer serious questions that are complex and not just give us sound bites.

PAUL JAY: I got a suggestion for the Sanders Institute.


PAUL JAY: One of the things I learned over the weekend was how Barcelona has created a publicly owned energy company. It seems to me more of that kind of program, like here’s what, if you actually took over a city, major city in this country, here’s what a city can do, here’s what a state could do. Also in terms of Congress, I think there’s going to be a real fight over whether real hearings are going to be held over what to do about climate change or trash Trump. I have no problem with trashing Trump. But if the focus is on that it’s just more of the same rhetorical battle.

JANE SANDERS: I agree. I think, unfortunately, the Democrats have a great opportunity, and unfortunately I’m concerned that they are going to blow it and focus on investigations, investigations, investigations. People want them to pay attention to the real issues facing their lives. And what’s happening now, I know, I really want Medicare for All, I really want $15 minimum wage, we want a lot of things. And a lot of new ideas and replicable policies came out of this conference. In terms of the climate crisis, what we need to do is focus on it, and if they don’t deliver to the voters that put them in, I think that it’s over. I think it’s over for that party. I don’t, I think-

PAUL JAY: It’s over for us humans.

JANE SANDERS: Well, but no. Because I think if they don’t focus on real change, on effecting real change, especially in this area, I think that we will be able to lead from below.

PAUL JAY: The logic—I mean, other than the fact that a whole section of the Democratic Party is very tied up with finance and fossil fuel, but set that aside for a second. They accept the dictatorship of corporate media. What I mean by that is the corporate news media is making a fortune out of this partisan battle. Not only does it drive ratings, because it’s like watching a football game, then the parties spend a billion, over a billion dollars, billions on advertising and campaigns. The partisan war, the news media loves. The logic goes if we have a hearing on climate change they won’t cover it.

JANE SANDERS: That’s what they said, actually. They have said that to us, that the ratings on climate change don’t matter. Then, at the same time, the ratings on fires and floods, they cover ad nauseum. Now, how hard would it be to cover them in a way that said these are the facts, this is climate change at work. This is why it’s happening. And this is what you can expect to happen later. These parts of the world are going to be underwater, and there’s going to be mass migration, and there’s going to be food shortages. They don’t have to cover it all at once. But when you look at things and you see the same footage for three days of terrible personal pain that people are experiencing, the loss of their homes and of their communities and even their cities, instead of saying, okay, we don’t have to put that on again, we can keep informing the people. That’s my, one of my concerns, is I think the fourth estate has been letting us down. A democracy requires an informed electorate. The media, the fourth estate, is supposed to inform the public. They’re not doing that. They’re selling ratings. But they’re not even thinking deeply about it. Because if they covered the fires and explained them, they’d get the same ratings.

PAUL JAY: I agree with you. But I have no expectation that corporate news media is going to change. This Democratic-controlled House, if they’re serious about climate change, they can create hearings with as much drama as the Kavanaugh hearings. You know, subpoena the head of Exxon, create a real dramatic presentation.

JANE SANDERS: Like they did with tobacco years ago, under Henry Waxman.

PAUL JAY: Exactly. But they have to want to do it. And that’s going to be a fight.

JANE SANDERS: It is going to be a fight, because people don’t want to take on the banks. They don’t want to take on the fossil fuel industry. They don’t want to take on the large donors and the big corporations. My hope is there will be—and I know there will be a group of people that will in the new Congress. And the Progressive Caucus in the Congress is pretty good.

PAUL JAY: There is a group now pushing for hearings on a Green New Deal.

JANE SANDERS: I think we’ll see some, for once, moving in the right direction. And I think the fact that under the Trump administration so many things have been so difficult for not just climate crisis, but everything, that I think people are beginning to realize we can’t take six more years of this. We can’t possibly survive that well. I guess that’s dramatic but-

PAUL JAY: A lot of people won’t survive.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, a lot of people won’t. I think people are getting that. I have more faith in the American people. I think that they’re going to pay attention if they can be informed. That’s why places like The Real News and the Sanders Institute and all the people that were here from different organizations are so important, because—you started it with I don’t think they know. That education is extremely important.

PAUL JAY: Great, thanks very much.

JANE SANDERS: Thank you.

PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19532
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #242 on: December 20, 2018, 06:25:25 pm »
Jordan Peterson is BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the Koch Brothers

Who is Jordan Peterson 😈, the ‘alt-right’ darling of YouTube?

Brenden Gallagher— Apr 30 2018 at 2:00AM | Last updated Apr 30 at 8:45AM


If you hang around intellectuals or academics long enough, one of them will make the joke that they wish they were conservative because there is a lot more money in it. Jordan Peterson is living proof of that.

The Koch Brothers and the Heritage Foundation are eager to fund and promote the brightest minds conservatism has to offer. They intend to use the free market language of the right, there is a high demand for “intellectuals” who will defend conservative ideas, but there is a very low supply.

So if you’re wondering how 55-year-old Canadian psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson became an overnight sensation, going from obscure academic to international bestseller lauded in the New York Times 👹 as “most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now,” you don’t have to look much further than that old academic joke.

Jordan Peterson is famous because in the era of the resurgent alt-right, the loose collection of conservatives that align with white supremacists, there are few intellectuals willing to align themselves with the movement. The alt-right is in need of intellectuals to justify their fascist worldview, and Peterson has been ready.

Full article:


Agelbert NOTE: Jordan Peterson is a stalking horse for FASCISM. He enthusiastically supports the Koch Brothers push to get Trump and his wreckng crew to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.

Jordan Peterson is a Kochroach. He is a stalking horse apologist for empathy deficit disordered, might is right, Social Darwinism. Peterson is quite fond of Hitler's favorite "philosopher", Nietzsche 😈 , of the "Territorial Imperative" (BALONEY) and "man needs to become superman" infamy.

In short, this Peterson Canadian Climate Denying Kochroach is a defender of our present oligarchic civilization destroying status quo. 👎

Read more:


Here's more:

Psychology Today

Posted Feb 14, 2018

By Paul Thagard Ph.D.


In January, Peterson released 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos. Several hundred pages slimmer than his earlier work, the book mixes his ideas about masculinity, individualism, and mythic destiny with a self-help style manual for living.

12 Rules breaks up his long academic and philosophical digressions into chapters with titles fitting of a book like The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, like “Stand Up Straight with Your Shoulders Back” and “Be Precise In Your Speech.” With this book, Peterson rebranded as a kind of Malcolm Gladwell of the right, boiling down varied, complicated concepts into digestible chunks that support generally accepted ideas that he can then use to bolster his misogynistic, bigoted, reactionary worldview.

Full article:

Read still more:

December 20, 2018

« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 09:27:52 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19532
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #243 on: January 07, 2019, 01:58:59 pm »
January 7, 2019

New Year, Same Struggles: Climate Denial, Racism and Sexism

Back in November, Paul Krugman wrote a great column on “the depravity of climate denial,” comparing climate denial to the tobacco-cancer denial industry. Krugman concludes that climate denial is even worse than the tobacco industrial complex: cancer denial most impacted those who choose to smoke, he argues, whereas climate denial hurts us all.

And it’s not like those in denial have legitimate concerns. Krugman points out that “there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers,” as they are really driven by sins of greed and ego. And because one political party appears beholden to this denial, he concludes that “Republicans don’t just have bad ideas; at this point, they are, necessarily, bad people.”

Krugman’s arguments were so upsetting it apparently took Canadian denial blogger Donna LaFramboise over a month to respond with a post of her own, decrying how Krugman’s disdain for deniers “is extreme prejudice” and “outright bigotry.”

“To be a climate skeptic,” LaFramboise 😈 concludes, “is to belong to a despised minority, one that respectable people think it’s OK to demonize.”

So sad.

On the same day LaFramboise posted her complaint about how respectable people treat deniers, one of the loudest and least respectable deniers wrote a post of his own. At Breitbart last week, James Delingpole wrote up a listicle of things he’d like to see more of in 2019. It’s pretty standard outrage clickbait: Delingpole laments that even conservative media fails to recognize that “Donald Trump is one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history.”

The real kicker, though, is the kicker: Delingpole’s “resolution this year is to be much more sexist.” According to Deli, sexism “is just a made-up leftist term designed to pathologise normal male behaviour.” “Girls are great,” Delingpole writes, “but as we’ve known since Genesis they do have a tendency to get out of hand if they’re either not watched carefully or overindulged.” 


While clearly ridiculous, it's important we not forget that the axis of denial 🐉🦕😈🦖👹 operates on many fronts at once. Keeping women down means keeping the pro-fossil fuel status quo going. And keeping people of color--the real minorities whose struggle LaFramboise minimizes--from positions of power also serves to support the fossil-fuel status quo.

And the tools for doing so are basically the same. As American University’s Director of Anti-Racist Research and Policy Center Ibram Kendi wrote recently at the Atlantic, climate and racism deniers are functionally quite similar. Both deny observable, objective reality by framing the acceptance of climate science or acknowledgement of structural racism as a matter of opinion, which makes it difficult to hold those with different beliefs accountable. This line of reasoning what gives  LaFramboise the cover to complain that deniers are reviled for simply believing something different. Therefore, one way to hold deniers accountable, Kendi argues, is by reframing questions to focus on knowledge rather than one person’s opinion--asking about the evidence of climate change rather than what a person believes about it, for instance, or what racism in action looks like rather than if someone believes a person is racist.

Fortunately, this tone-deaf blindness to reality and full immersion in their false but comforting beliefs can lead to some real own-goals. For example, a tweet (from a now-deleted account) with a video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing that was meant to be an attack on her character. Because apparently conservatives think (a young woman of color) dancing is bad, which AOC respond to by doing a little dance on her way into her new office in the House of Representatives.

Then in addition to having the gall to dance, in an interview Sunday she suggested taxing the rich at historically moderate rates to pay for climate action.

Rare is the political figure who's willing to be honest about the need to raise taxes instead of cutting them, but seems like the only thing AOC wants to cut is loose: footloose!   

« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 02:26:46 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19532
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #244 on: March 16, 2019, 04:43:41 pm »
Much better to suck off the centurions of the status quo. Let's never do anything, but clutch pearls and wring hands
I'm not advocating for that either, but the inertia is so immense, the problem so multi-dimensional, that whatever explanation of the Situation you provide has to be unassailable TEFLON. Whatever you'll do will have to be done steadfastly with historically unheard of resolve.
Gimmicks are prone to backfiring.

Then where to start? Young people, whose lives are in line to be trashed, have tried this gimmick to get the attention of term elders, who nod, smile, and get back to the Godswork of making their quarter.

I completely agree that the inertia is immense, and the forces of greed so richly and deeply arrayed as to make the effort seem futile. Which is right where they want ordinary people. throwing up our hands, sighing, and saying "what's the use?"

I wonder what "explanation of the cause" of anthropogenic climate change" could be made to your satisfaction?

What do you mean "you wonder" ?  You're on the Doomstead Diner for crying out loud !
You know damn well the climate change issue isn't one to be looked at in isolation.
You either give a proper assessment of the WHOLE BIG PICTURE to show you're TRULY COMPETENT ... or you PROVE that you're not by throwing a grab bag of progressive policies and throw them under the umbrella of a half assed Green New Deal  ...

If we wait for that, we might as well go full trump. As it is, the debate seems to be, "here we dead in ten years or 100 years?"

Perhaps the "Green New Deal" is half-assed. At least it's a start. All you get from republicans (and the corpadems who love their donors) is some variant of "drill baby, drill."

but Ocasio-Cortez majored in international relations and economics at Boston University, graduating cum laude in 2011.

I've been reading about energy, economics and finance for over 13 years non stop now, and the time has long passed that such a resume would actually impress me.
The truth is, a science and economics background should now be mandatory qualifications for any government leadership position in all advanced countries. The system is to complex now for overly ambitious lawyers, economist and 'social scientists' to have a go at demonstrating what 'Silo Thinking' can do for us...

You are taking my comment out of context. Citing AOC's credentials was not meant to impress you, but merely to reply to the fuckwit who described her as a "twit." If you have followed her work this far in the House, she's done a really good job in her public outings. Especially for a rookie. I was much impressed with how she spent her five minutes during the House Oversight Committee hearing. I think she will represent her district, and her generation , pretty well. Expect the republicans to richly fund Joe Crowley or some other opponent to get her removed in the next election. She poses far too much of a threat to the status quo, just by mentioning certain policy issues that were never to be spoken of publicly, lest we proles get our hopes up.

Well said, Surly. I admire your patience.

I briefly looked at this thread and my BS meter pegged the needle to the right (pun in tented  ;)) when I noticed the continual pejorative front door (and back door) sniping at the Green New Deal in general, and AOC in particular, from this fine fellow you are patiently debating.

The bottom line for EVERYONE that posts on this forum should be, but rarely is, that NONE of us here will have BEANS to do with shaping the future of humanity, PERIOD.

I am pretty sick of reading hand wringing CRAP from closet (or open) status quo defenders about how ANY attempts at transitioning to a 100% Renewable Energy, decentralized, non-exportable green jobs type economy that cleans up the environment, and consequently improves the the health of we critters that live off the environment, are "not enough", so let's just "DO NOTHING", EXCEPT, OF COURSE, BAD MOUTH anyone like AOC that claims there ARE REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS (THAT DOOM THE FOSSIL FUEL "Industry"). 

The people out there on the (possibly, but not guaranteed) planet saver=social justice side like AOC, Greta Thunberg, etc. et al DAILY struggling against the "people " on the GUARANTEED planet killer side like Mitch McConnel, Rex Tillerson, Koch Brothers, Trump, etc. et al ARE the ONLY HOPE we have, PERIOD.

The POLLUTING INDUSTRY SUPPORTING people should be constantly exposed for their treachery and empathy deficit disordered immoral, biosphere exploiting world view.

Ridiculing those like AOC that propose REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS, which include taking the polluters to the bankuptcy woodshed, is not rational.

Praising the efforts of AOC, Greta Thunberg, etc. et al IS rational.

GO GET EM', AOC, Greta Thunberg and RATIONAL FRIENDS all over the planet!

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
March 18, 2019, 02:13:45 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
March 16, 2019, 04:43:41 pm

Money by AGelbert
March 15, 2019, 08:58:31 pm

Genocide by AGelbert
March 15, 2019, 06:51:44 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 15, 2019, 05:29:23 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 14, 2019, 02:00:05 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
March 14, 2019, 01:28:56 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
March 14, 2019, 12:26:06 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
March 13, 2019, 09:32:02 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
March 13, 2019, 04:41:27 pm