So we need to get rid of the outside money (agree) and Congress (disagree) and SCOTUS (tempting, but careful what you wish for) so that a president can just enact policies without resistance? That might happen, but, wait, Trump's the BIGGER monster, so maybe not? Only the president you want in charge should have that power? Or what am I missing?
Believe me, nobody could be more disappointed in my generation that I. After Woodstock, I and many others of my cohort were sure that when we were in charge everything would be groovy. No more pop wars, no more racial disharmony, and sex without hangups. Instead of fighting, people would put The Dead on the stereo and knock back to share a joint. Didn't quite work out that way. What happened? Were we mugged by reality? I think that nothing really happened to turn a generation of hippie/yippie radicals into Republicans. I think we never really were a generation of hippie/yippie radicals. Sure, kids were happy to flash the peace sign, grow their hair, and tout the latest Doors album, but underneath was a deep conservatism. There were many more George W. Bushes than Abbie Hoffmans.
Still, I think that a great deal of the impetus for the environmental movement came from Boomers. Bill McKibben is a boomer (born 1960). So is Al Gore (born 1948). I participated in the first Earth Day 54 years ago this month. The Environmental Defense Fund was founded in 1967 and Boomer Fred Krupp has been its president since 1984. The National Resources Defense Council was founded in 1970. Leading climate scientist Michael Mann missed being a Boomer by one year (born 1965). Two of the books that most influenced my generation were Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. Though the latter's apocalyptic prognostications did not come to pass, it did alert us to the fact that the earth's bounty is not limitless. So, we Boomers were young and some of us were idealistic when the modern environmental movement got going, and some of us were inspired to lifelong activism.
The above paragraph is not meant to exonerate a generation. I think whole generations can neither be condemned nor exonerated. Did the Boomers solve the climate crisis? No. Will any younger generation do it? I won't live to see, but I am skeptical. Sure "cowardice, comfort, and political expediency" are factors, but this greatly understates the power and entrenchment of the anti-environmental forces. Consider just the Koch Brothers (Now down to one. Boo hoo.). They could pour unlimited millions to support pro-pollution candidates and lobbyists and even found whole "think tanks" staffed with ideologues and opportunists who happily promulgate misinformation and disinformation. The ones who will be most affected by climate change are in poor countries and have no power. To the younger generations, then, I say, "Good luck," and I will not be so spiteful as to say, "I told you so" If the world is burning up in 2050.
I will respectfully beg to massively differ. I also "restacked" with a note similar to the comment below.
Sorry, Clinton (and ultimately Ed, who has long expressed similar stances), but from outside the duopoly, Biden’s supporting the proxy war in Ukraine … and his part, along with European NATO countries, of binding Putin and boxing him in … is NOT a bonus point in my book. I won’t use the word “justified” for Putin, unlike Norman Finkelstein. (That is in part because, per Walter Kaufmann in “Without Guilt and Justice,” I think many thinks in human affairs are neither “justified” nor “unjustified.”)
And, in any case, Clinton’s friend didn’t mention Gaza and Biden abetting genocide at all. As for freeing hostages? Yes. Israel as well as Hamas. And, Israel needs to stop taking hostages in the first place. And, that’s EXACTLY what arresting Palestinians off the street and putting them in indefinite detention without charges is — hostage taking.
Foreign policy, as well as domestic issues — national health care and many other things could be cited along with climate change — is why I did my long-ago "duopoly exit" on presidential elections, and also on lower-level races where I could.
I agree with your K, but for a different reason. Biden presents as a nice person, a gentleman who supports Ukraine but funds genocide in Palestine. What's the difference between those two peoples? They belong to different races. Sir, America, as the self-proclaimed beacon of democracy (where one man can cause a violent rebellion against the federal government and he roams the streets for years, away from prisons, where the candidate with the majority national/popular vote doesn't necessarily become president), should steadfastly stand on the side of the oppressed, irrespective of the people's race. But I'm not surprised. Some US senators considered Mandela a terrorist. And, of course, you and I have discussed this in private, and you no longer correspond with me because your eyes can't see the genocide in Palestine. Well, I wasn't born a free man; not until I turned 12 did my people become free from the British Monarch, so I understand what it means, how it feels to be oppressed. I was once a student of history, and I never stumbled upon such hatred and punishment meted by one state on another, as we see in Gaza today. On climate change, I wouldn't place the blame on Biden; it's much more complicated than people think - I think. Global warming is no single country's problem. It's a "global" issue, and President Biden isn't President Global.
So we need to get rid of the outside money (agree) and Congress (disagree) and SCOTUS (tempting, but careful what you wish for) so that a president can just enact policies without resistance? That might happen, but, wait, Trump's the BIGGER monster, so maybe not? Only the president you want in charge should have that power? Or what am I missing?
Believe me, nobody could be more disappointed in my generation that I. After Woodstock, I and many others of my cohort were sure that when we were in charge everything would be groovy. No more pop wars, no more racial disharmony, and sex without hangups. Instead of fighting, people would put The Dead on the stereo and knock back to share a joint. Didn't quite work out that way. What happened? Were we mugged by reality? I think that nothing really happened to turn a generation of hippie/yippie radicals into Republicans. I think we never really were a generation of hippie/yippie radicals. Sure, kids were happy to flash the peace sign, grow their hair, and tout the latest Doors album, but underneath was a deep conservatism. There were many more George W. Bushes than Abbie Hoffmans.
Still, I think that a great deal of the impetus for the environmental movement came from Boomers. Bill McKibben is a boomer (born 1960). So is Al Gore (born 1948). I participated in the first Earth Day 54 years ago this month. The Environmental Defense Fund was founded in 1967 and Boomer Fred Krupp has been its president since 1984. The National Resources Defense Council was founded in 1970. Leading climate scientist Michael Mann missed being a Boomer by one year (born 1965). Two of the books that most influenced my generation were Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. Though the latter's apocalyptic prognostications did not come to pass, it did alert us to the fact that the earth's bounty is not limitless. So, we Boomers were young and some of us were idealistic when the modern environmental movement got going, and some of us were inspired to lifelong activism.
The above paragraph is not meant to exonerate a generation. I think whole generations can neither be condemned nor exonerated. Did the Boomers solve the climate crisis? No. Will any younger generation do it? I won't live to see, but I am skeptical. Sure "cowardice, comfort, and political expediency" are factors, but this greatly understates the power and entrenchment of the anti-environmental forces. Consider just the Koch Brothers (Now down to one. Boo hoo.). They could pour unlimited millions to support pro-pollution candidates and lobbyists and even found whole "think tanks" staffed with ideologues and opportunists who happily promulgate misinformation and disinformation. The ones who will be most affected by climate change are in poor countries and have no power. To the younger generations, then, I say, "Good luck," and I will not be so spiteful as to say, "I told you so" If the world is burning up in 2050.
Let's not forget John Sununu's successful efforts to prevent climate change action during the GHW Bush administration and Bush's capitulation.
I will respectfully beg to massively differ. I also "restacked" with a note similar to the comment below.
Sorry, Clinton (and ultimately Ed, who has long expressed similar stances), but from outside the duopoly, Biden’s supporting the proxy war in Ukraine … and his part, along with European NATO countries, of binding Putin and boxing him in … is NOT a bonus point in my book. I won’t use the word “justified” for Putin, unlike Norman Finkelstein. (That is in part because, per Walter Kaufmann in “Without Guilt and Justice,” I think many thinks in human affairs are neither “justified” nor “unjustified.”)
And, in any case, Clinton’s friend didn’t mention Gaza and Biden abetting genocide at all. As for freeing hostages? Yes. Israel as well as Hamas. And, Israel needs to stop taking hostages in the first place. And, that’s EXACTLY what arresting Palestinians off the street and putting them in indefinite detention without charges is — hostage taking.
Foreign policy, as well as domestic issues — national health care and many other things could be cited along with climate change — is why I did my long-ago "duopoly exit" on presidential elections, and also on lower-level races where I could.
I agree with your K, but for a different reason. Biden presents as a nice person, a gentleman who supports Ukraine but funds genocide in Palestine. What's the difference between those two peoples? They belong to different races. Sir, America, as the self-proclaimed beacon of democracy (where one man can cause a violent rebellion against the federal government and he roams the streets for years, away from prisons, where the candidate with the majority national/popular vote doesn't necessarily become president), should steadfastly stand on the side of the oppressed, irrespective of the people's race. But I'm not surprised. Some US senators considered Mandela a terrorist. And, of course, you and I have discussed this in private, and you no longer correspond with me because your eyes can't see the genocide in Palestine. Well, I wasn't born a free man; not until I turned 12 did my people become free from the British Monarch, so I understand what it means, how it feels to be oppressed. I was once a student of history, and I never stumbled upon such hatred and punishment meted by one state on another, as we see in Gaza today. On climate change, I wouldn't place the blame on Biden; it's much more complicated than people think - I think. Global warming is no single country's problem. It's a "global" issue, and President Biden isn't President Global.