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?
Appreciate your comment. You appear to be making a straw man argument. I never mentioned or implied getting rid of other branches of government. We just need leadership.
OK, so what would "leadership" have done with Sinema's and Manchin's votes? (Given SCOTUS's grant of standing in the first student loan forgiveness action, I expect that law to have gone to the Court.) So tell me, how does this leadership stuff work?
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.
One need not think the duopoly is a good thing—I do not—to think we are, at least for now, stuck with it. That being the case, every voter must decide: overall, who is better for the nation, Biden or Trump. No other choice matters. Easy call, IMNHO
Sometimes life presents us with a simple binary option: A or B. That is the case with the 2024 presidential election. Biden or Trump. That's it. No alternative. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you will, de facto, be voting for Biden or Trump. If you abstain from voting, you will, de facto, be voting for Biden or Trump. Short of nuclear Armageddon or the zombie apocalypse, one or the other of these two men will take the oath of office on January 20, 2025. So, which will it be? Suppose that, for whatever reason, you do not like Joe Biden. John Oliver offers an analogy. It is gross, but it makes the point. Your first choice for your airline meal is chicken. You don't really care for airline chicken. However, the other choice is shit with ground glass. Which do you choose?
The problem with John Oliver's colorful analogy it is inaccurate, by implication, about one important detail: a better analogy would be if everyone on the plane would get and *have to eat* either bland chicken or disgusting SWGG--and everyone *had to ingest* whatever the most passengers chose. No "No, thanks, I'll eat later" choice available. We all get one prez and, under our current duopoly, it will be ONLY Trump or Biden. If you adore Joe Kennedy, Jr. or Cornel West and you live in one of the battleground states that will decide the electoral college vote, you must contend with winner-take-all rules that mean Trump and Biden are the only ones who can win. If you don't vote for the one of those two you prefer, however slightly, you are helping the other one of those two. There are no other meaningful choices.NONE.
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.
Why would you say I don’t correspond with you? We disagree of course about Biden funding genocide in Palestine, but I haven’t ever refused to correspond or even stopped counting you as a friend. And my exact point is that if anyone considers either Biden or Trump a worse choice, our poorly designed electoral system means he should vote for the lesser of two evils.
Glad to hear we'll be corresponding. I can imagine how busy you must be.
For many, life, I guess, is more often about making bad or poor choices than good ones. I agree with you that where the political system stifles you to the extent that you have to choose between two wrongs, you must close your eyes and for what will only harm you, as opposed to what will kill you dead. So, since we have a full time monster on the one hand, and a genocide supporter on the other, this year, I'll write in Senator Bernie Sanders. I t doesn't offer a solution to my dilemma, but at least it gives me the satisfaction that I didn't vote for someone I thought I knew but didn't know. What candidate Biden has done to people like me is to wonder if there's any politician worth supporting. Eventually, you stop voting.
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?
Appreciate your comment. You appear to be making a straw man argument. I never mentioned or implied getting rid of other branches of government. We just need leadership.
OK, so what would "leadership" have done with Sinema's and Manchin's votes? (Given SCOTUS's grant of standing in the first student loan forgiveness action, I expect that law to have gone to the Court.) So tell me, how does this leadership stuff work?
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.
One need not think the duopoly is a good thing—I do not—to think we are, at least for now, stuck with it. That being the case, every voter must decide: overall, who is better for the nation, Biden or Trump. No other choice matters. Easy call, IMNHO
Sometimes life presents us with a simple binary option: A or B. That is the case with the 2024 presidential election. Biden or Trump. That's it. No alternative. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you will, de facto, be voting for Biden or Trump. If you abstain from voting, you will, de facto, be voting for Biden or Trump. Short of nuclear Armageddon or the zombie apocalypse, one or the other of these two men will take the oath of office on January 20, 2025. So, which will it be? Suppose that, for whatever reason, you do not like Joe Biden. John Oliver offers an analogy. It is gross, but it makes the point. Your first choice for your airline meal is chicken. You don't really care for airline chicken. However, the other choice is shit with ground glass. Which do you choose?
The problem with John Oliver's colorful analogy it is inaccurate, by implication, about one important detail: a better analogy would be if everyone on the plane would get and *have to eat* either bland chicken or disgusting SWGG--and everyone *had to ingest* whatever the most passengers chose. No "No, thanks, I'll eat later" choice available. We all get one prez and, under our current duopoly, it will be ONLY Trump or Biden. If you adore Joe Kennedy, Jr. or Cornel West and you live in one of the battleground states that will decide the electoral college vote, you must contend with winner-take-all rules that mean Trump and Biden are the only ones who can win. If you don't vote for the one of those two you prefer, however slightly, you are helping the other one of those two. There are no other meaningful choices.NONE.
We are all chicken, then. On the other hand, you don't have to to have an airline meal. You'll eat when you get home.
see above, Keith N.
I believe we have two bad candidates - even though one is worse than the other, of course.
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.
Why would you say I don’t correspond with you? We disagree of course about Biden funding genocide in Palestine, but I haven’t ever refused to correspond or even stopped counting you as a friend. And my exact point is that if anyone considers either Biden or Trump a worse choice, our poorly designed electoral system means he should vote for the lesser of two evils.
Glad to hear we'll be corresponding. I can imagine how busy you must be.
For many, life, I guess, is more often about making bad or poor choices than good ones. I agree with you that where the political system stifles you to the extent that you have to choose between two wrongs, you must close your eyes and for what will only harm you, as opposed to what will kill you dead. So, since we have a full time monster on the one hand, and a genocide supporter on the other, this year, I'll write in Senator Bernie Sanders. I t doesn't offer a solution to my dilemma, but at least it gives me the satisfaction that I didn't vote for someone I thought I knew but didn't know. What candidate Biden has done to people like me is to wonder if there's any politician worth supporting. Eventually, you stop voting.