Why We Can't Wait on Solving the Climate Crisis

This is how the Democratic party eats its own. (2.00 / 5)

From the link provided:

These so-called moderates are the real barrier to the progressive change that the country needs right now. As such, we should be directing our fire at them, rather that at the right-wing.

Being a "squishy centrist" I have resumed my normal mode of listening to all 'sides' (not that I ever really stopped, but it's hard to listen to a 'side' when you are actively competing against it).  I am starting to recognize the first (for me) few bits of sane observation coming from the Right since the last election, and while few and far between it is a sign that that portion of the political spectrum is beginning to stabilize.

Simultaneously, I am hearing more and louder voices on the Left saying that they really don't need that bothersome middle, anyway.  That if there could only be a Pure Liberal (I debate the leftish definition of "Progressive") Democratic Party then all would be sunshine and roses.  Further, that the best way to achieve this is to "direct our fire at (centrists)" - to attack me, as it were - and everyone else like me who is not capable of passing the purity test of simply agreeing with  whatever the liberal party line is.

Can anyone say "the shortest majority of any party in history"?  

Just yesterday I'm called to task for not toeing the party line (in this case: that people are greedy scum) in a facebook thread:

These findings don't surprise me at all. The essentials of human nature never change, and believing that people, who are of their very nature, worshippers of money and power, would willingly share it was pure fantasy. It always has been.

Mr. or Ms. Blask, occupying the middle an easy place to be. Poking fun at people of strong conviction on either side of the debate is safe but it rarely helps or changes things.

Mr. XYZ, I so energetically disagree. On all counts: with the cynically hopeless view towards human nature; with the safety of the "middle" and the ease of occupying it; and that there is any necessity for occupying a 'wing' to help or change things.

I welcome you to debate these things (and all things) on http://motleymoose.com , where you will find me nearly always doing (or not doing, as you please) what I can.

I do not hesitate to remind anyone that the one (single, only, sole) reason that there is a Democratic majority in Congress, the House and the White House is that "squishy centrists" voted Democratic en masse.  I further have no compunction whatsoever in stating that if the efforts at "directing fire at them" are successful then Democrats better pass everything they want PDQ because their ability to do so is going to evaporate like breath-fog on a black car in the Arizona sun.

I will repost the comment from my local "Beck 9/12" action group list, for comparison:

OK, I just got an indication from Vern about 20 minutes ago as to how he would vote on Waxman-Markey.  Many factors come in to play, and he is leaning strongly against it, but new developments are in play as we spoke.

The offset oversight authority was just yanked from EPA and given to the Dept of Ag.  An interesting side note is that FPL already has the infrastructure in place that would prevent a big energy cost increase in District 13, and might even demand some offset payments to the positive side.  Vern is a fellow conservationist and is strongly concerned about the environment, but not Al Gore blind.  His charge is to serve his district along with the nation as a whole.  I think it is most wise to wait until the last info is in to make a final decision on something as vital as HR2454.

When "Glenn Beck 9/12" members have more moderate things to say about Cap & Trade than liberal Mooses it may be time for the Democratic faithful to pause and consider.  

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 16:59:51 PM CDT

I blame Howard Dean for this (2.00 / 5)

and this is probably the only liberal blog I can say that on without being flamed.

I actually don't "blame" Howard Dean in a negative way, he was smart enough to realize if Democrats are going to regain a majority, they're going to have to appeal to all 50 states.

The problem is, not all 50 states are progressive and liberal and Dean's 50 State Strategy didn't include winning in all 50 states with Dennis Kucinich clones.

Dean realized we needed to form a coalition to win...and we formed one...and what we got is one that passed a pretty good bill that, yes, the left wing of the party isn't thrilled with.

If we're going to be a majority, the left is going to have to accept, they will very often not get 100% of what they want, more like 50%. The moderates are going to accept that occasionally, they too, will lose. (They lost on this bill, that's why so many of them voted no). If we can't accept that, we will not survive as a majority.

Ask the far right what they think they got from the Bush presidency and they'll say "not much"

Liberals weren't thrilled with the first pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal (Huey Long), and liberals weren't thrilled with the first Civil Rights Act in 1957. Conservatives weren't thrilled with Nixon or Ford, and they really weren't thrilled with Reagan at first either.

I sorta wish we had a coalition system like in Italy...this way when the Kucinich wing of the party wins 12% of the vote, while the DINOS win 35%, they'll understand what little power they actually have...or maybe voters will actually give most of the coalition vote TO the Kucnich wing, which would strengthen them...but we don't know. Anyway, in Italy it doesn't work, the left wing coalition elected in 2007 collapsed because the Greens and Communists wanted all the power and wanted their agenda passed even though they won less than 1/3 of the vote among the coalition, which only won with less than 50% of the vote nationwide... in fact the far right parties won more votes than the far left. Far Right parties won about 18% as part of the right wing coalition's 49.6%, while left wing parties won about 10% as part of the left's 49.9%, yet the far left parties wanted their agenda to usurp the moderates, who made up about 35% of the left wing coalition vote. They rebelled when they didn't get their way, Prodi's left wing government fell and the right wing coalition won the next election in a landslide...and it doesn't look good, the left wing coalition got slaughtered in Sardinia this year...they have tended to do well there. I see parallels to what happened in Italy happening in America right now...and if that happens, if the Democrats fall from power because the far left abandons them, the ones who will hurt the most are the far left and the American people, not the politicians who lose elections. We have more at stake than they do. If you want to call their bluff, they will win.

In the meantime what liberals need to do is fight for what they want, accept what they can get and keep fighting more...or, if you don't like it, leave the Democratic Party, let the Republicans win and live in the desert for the rest of your lives.

The bills that are coming out of Congress now were unthinkable when I started participating the blogsphere five years ago.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:05:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thing is, *everyone* cares about the environment. (2.00 / 4)

The few exceptions (Armeggedonist whackjobs) hardly matter.  I won't say "global warming deniers" - because despite the preponderonce of evidence in favor, it is a complex and arguable issue - but at least "those who doubt mankind's ability to impact weather" are not hopeless cases: they can be and often are won over.  Everyone else "in the middle" - IOW, everyone not completely sure how much of the climate is going to change how soon in what way - are the people who need to be lobbied and convinced of the need to do (or not do) which things when.

The best way to do that, of course, is to attack and deride them.  That always works...

For one, I have been aware of and concerned about mankind's ability to have a negative impact on global climate since long before many of the rabid activists of today took up the cause (and in many cases before they took up breathing).  I am extremely concerned that there may be changes we have instigated in global climate systems that we do not have the time or wherewithall to mitigate.  The complexity of understanding the technical issues involved is not lost on me: climate science is perhaps the single most complicated endeavor ever attempted.  The complexity of addressing the issue is also not unfamiliar: perhaps the only thing approaching the complexity of climate is the mesh of socio-economic-political-technological factors that restrain our ability to change the impact our actions have on weather.

It is all so complicated that I am not even completely sure that having a group of raving activists shouting "burn the Middle Witches!" might not somehow be a net positive, in its own twisted and counter-intuitive way.  Maybe just because it causes said Middlefolks to stomp disgustedly out into the fray and try to talk some sense to the mob.

One of the few things that I am entirely sure of is that any steps that require extreme and sudden changes are not going to happen short of trigger events that cause near complete unanimity of opinion.  Getting congresscritters to vote for anything that clearly costs jobs in their districts - for example - is not going to happen (which sums up most complaints with the current legislation).  Attacking the "opposition" into agreement is another non-starter.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 10:47:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Case in point (2.00 / 3)

Claire McCaskill expressed concern about the bill's effect on Peabody Energy...of this course must mean that she's a corporate sellout...can't possibly be her concern for the 10,000 people in Missouri employed by Peabody, mostly in economically damaged St. Louis...nope, must be because she's a sellout. (similarly Kay Hagan and healthcare, who has said she's concerned about the public option's effect on Blue Cross Blue Shield, which is among the largest employers in North Carolina)

Realism is that if we're going to get a climate change bill, we're going to get one that both balances the concerns of the environment vs. making sure it doesn't cost jobs or shut down energy companies. Realism is understanding that we elected Democrats from coal country and oil country who are not going to tell their constituents "Hey, you know that industry that's been our livelihoods for decades? Yeah, we're doing away with that, it's killing deers in Tennessee"

When Senators and Representatives from places like West Virginia and Kentucky have to choose between pleasing their constituents and Greenpeace...Greenpeace loses, sorry. Doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Democrats.

And BTW, does the left want to know why corporations always get bailout and always get attention before we do? That's why...because if Peabody or Blue Cross Blue Shield go under, the people who get f*cked are the constituents of Claire McCaskill and Kay Hagan, and that will register larger at the polls that some revolt by the blogsphere. Corporations control America because they can render large amounts of people, constituents of members of Congress, unemployed and angry.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 11:06:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know how I hate to disagree with you Chris, (2.00 / 5)

but I must in this case. Everyone doesn't care about the environment. Far too many endtimers and fundamentalists don't care at all. Far too many corporatists are only concerned with making money and providing jobs. They could care less who is left with a messed up local environment as long as they don't get stuck with the bill.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 12:43:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't be silly, you love disagreeing with me... ;~) (2.00 / 2)

It's OK, I disagree with you, too.

I think there is a very very small fraction of the population that falls into that group.  Real honest-to-god endtimers who are willing to hasten the end are a very small group, being fundamentalist itself doesn't qualify for being anti-environment.  And I'm still baffled by these "corporatists" I keep hearing about, I think they may mostly live in Brothers Grimm fairy tales.

Many born-agains are also outdoors folks, 'god helps those who help themselves types, and boyscout tree-planters.  Sure, there is a percentage who are "throw the old car battery in the creek" types but even in the Belt Woods that isn't as cool as it once was.  Many Corporatist CEO types are also environmental lobbyists and philanthropists.  But maybe you mean only certain types of industries' CEO types (or maybe it is that Evil Middle managers you mean?).

The sort of attitude you voice is - at risk of being offensive - offensive.  Exclusive claims to moral highgrounds are usually as hollow as they seem.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 15:12:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Offensive is my middle name. (2.00 / 3)

So the corporate types that are willing to sacrifice the environment are a small minority. I suppose that doesn't include the ones who go to court to win the right to dump the waste from strip mining into streams and lakes, or the car companies that fought the idea of catalytic converters based solely on the cost, or the tobacco companies, or ... You want me to list a few hundred more examples or is that enough?

There are a hell of a lot more endtimers than you might think. And it isn't so much that the endtimers believe the world will end before we destroy the environment, although that is a part of it. It is that they, along with many fundamentalists, believe that we can't destroy God's creation. There is a belief that humans were given the earth to do with as they please. Those beliefs don't allow room for anything like human effects on the climate.

Then there are the anti-environmentalists. Not people who are anti-environment, just anti-environmentalists. They hate the goody two-shoes that love spotted owls or field mice. Those are the people that mocked the lights-out campaign for earth day.

Here's a single example. I can find more if you'd like to see them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncaScrooge View Post
From 8:30 PM to 9:30 PM tonight (whatever time zone you're in) be sure to turn on ALL the lights in your house. And don't forget to run your appliances... stove, diswasher, air conditioning, furnace, microwave, And turn on all your radios and TV's... full blast!!!

And if you have power tools, plug them in and let them run for that full hour!

And don't forget to turn on your vacuum cleaner and let it run also!

Anything electrical in your house... turn it on tonight for that one hour: full blast!

After all, tonight, from 8:30 to 9:30 in each time zone, everyone will be celebrating "earth-day-something-or-other."

DO YOUR PART!!! Show you're AWARE!!!
My entire block will show support by turning on all of our lights 1/2 hour early. Let the huggers eat dirt!

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 15:39:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrapping all of the business community into a sludgeball doesn't really work, (2.00 / 2)

and is imho counterproductive.

What you are saying is that corporations - as entities - are liable to push to fulfill their profit-making motivations, which is kind of an "and..?" statement.  To extrapolate from that fact that "corporatists" (and I'm supposed to be envisaging now a stylized cartoon of waistcoated martini-drinking monocled tophatters, right?) don't care about the environment is nonlinear thinking (which is admirable in other circumstances).  Corporations are in fact designed to make profits, and those who benefit from these profits - be they pensioners, employees or management - are not disinterested parties when it comes to regulations that impact those profits.  For this reason it is imperative to have other truly disinterested parties involved in creating and enforcing regulations that impact these organizations, but it does not necessarily follow that these aforementioned individuals don't (or for that matter, do) care about the environment.  They just also do care about their vested monetary concerns.

And the examples of reactionary anti-environmentalist rhetoric also is no solid metric of the quantity of folks who do not care about the environment.  It is an indication that there are those who "hate the pompous-ass smug condescending tree huggers!" - and an indication that some of them are vocal and pugnacious - but it's not a census by any means.  You and I are vocal and pugnacious but that doesn't mean we necessarily do (or don't) represent any given amount of people. Your example is some amount of validation of my point, though, which to be pedantic is: "Smugly claiming lone ownership of a moral highground is only an effective method of ensuring that you do in fact stand alone".

All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people love clean air and seas full of fishies and want their kids and grandkids to be able to have them, too.  Assuming that only a given group (such as the actively political enviro-left) has anything like a monopoly on caring is exactly the kind of thing that makes people (rightly) sick of "pompous-ass smug condescending tree huggers" and does nothing to promote the cause (unless of course the cause is having an excuse to be even more pompous and condescending, in which case it is wonderfully effective).

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 21:28:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm the one who is smug? (2.00 / 2)

Just because I don't believe the people who run corporations have hearts of gold? I could rewrite your comment and turn it completely around by substituting the groups. You are stretching my point to the breaking point.

There are people who don't care about the environment. Take a look at some mountains in Appalachia if you don't believe me. There are people who are so greedy and shortsighted that they will pump poison into the ground instead of spending the money that it would take to comply with regulations. If my pointing that out makes me some kind of wacko environmentalist then  you have a very skewed view of things.

There are people who will do anything for money. That's why we have laws and regulations. That's why we need those laws and regulations. You sound like you think anyone who believes poorly of corporate culture is a communist. I've got news for you. I'm a realist, especially when it comes to human nature.

Those examples I gave, of which you made light, are real examples. Do you think tobacco companies covered up research into the hazards of smoking through good intentions? Do you think companies that knowingly pollute the environment, like many coal mining operations in Appalachia really care about the environment? Not really. The owners of those companies don't live near the mines. They don't give a shit about that area. I'm sure they love the environment in their backyards. They'd probably have fits if someone built a landfill near their estate in the Hamptons.

I know there are plenty of people on the right that love nature and are strong environmentalists. Hell, I'm a lifelong hunter and fisherman. Did you really think someone like that spends his time hanging around with "tree-huggers?" I also know there are many on the right who couldn't care less about the environment. There are some like that on the left. Plenty of urbanites, who are frequently liberals, wouldn't dream of going further off the pavement than someplace like Central Park.

That smugness, which you've mentioned before, isn't limited to the Left. The smugness on the right is equally annoying. They dismiss people that care about something larger as bleeding hearts or tree-hugging hippies. Tell me again how there aren't any of those people out there and I'll find example after example to prove you wrong.

I believe you've distorted my argument and made it look like I hate business or profit making. I don't. I disapprove of excessive greed at the expense of others. I disapprove of people raping the land and then walking away with the loot while they leave others to clean up their mess. I do not believe in the altruism of people that run corporations. I don't believe that we can trust people who think their sole moral responsibility is to generate profits to choose the greater good over those profits.

History is replete with examples of greed at work. Hell, look at Madoff. Look at Enron. Look at PG&E. Need I go on?

I'd be willing to bet that if we didn't regulate the disposal of nuclear waste that some company would start cutting corners until something bad happened and then they'd try to get out of dealing with the aftermath. It's not like stuff like that hasn't happened before.

I don't want to hobble business with useless regulations. I want to control the greed and avarice of normal human nature by passing meaningful regulations. An economy based on a totally free market would be a dog-eat-dog world. Even Adam Smith believed in regulationing the markets. Our current economic troubles were caused by lax regulations and lax oversight of the regulations we do have in place.

Now excuse me while I go hug a tree.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 23:37:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me try this again: (0.00 / 0)

All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people love clean air and seas full of fishies and want their kids and grandkids to be able to have them, too.  Assuming that only a given group (such as the actively political enviro-left) has anything like a monopoly on caring is exactly the kind of thing that makes people (rightly) sick of "pompous-ass smug condescending tree huggers" and does nothing to promote the cause (unless of course the cause is having an excuse to be even more pompous and condescending, in which case it is wonderfully effective).

I may have to parse that out.

All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people love clean air and seas full of fishies and want their kids and grandkids to be able to have them, too.

I know in my original statement I said "everyone cares about the environment" and I could have said "*virtually* everyone cares about the environment", but I think I have made that clarification already.  This is really the point we seem to be debating here, and if you do not disagree then we can end it here.

If I am reading you correctly, though, you seem to be saying what I am disputing, which is that there is some large (perhaps huge) population of people who don't care about the environment.  More to the point, that this population consists of many (or most?) people across the political aisle from where you are.  

You characterize these folks as "corporatists" - which sure seems like shorthand for "business people" (of which I know you are one), and if this is not what you mean then I am a loss if it isn't shorthand for some even more stereotypically anti-establishment caricature of "Them" (suits, cigars: The Man).  While I don't disagree that there have been plenty of people at the helms of large organizations who have raped and pillaged the environment to no good for anyone other than themselves and those who benefit financially from their decisions, the complicity of those beneficiaries (employees, shareholders) who enable such folks blurs the demonization of such people in many cases and the counter-examples of "corporatists" who refrain from environmental rape and pillage complete the dilution of this tired stereotype past the point of uselessness.

You characterize these folks as fundamentalists.  While I don't disagree that an overabundance of Faith In God can lead some people to believe that God will cleanup after them I don't concede the point that there is direct evidence that most (or all or even many) of such folks think that way.

Assuming that only a given group (such as the actively political enviro-left) has anything like a monopoly on caring

If you aren't taking this position, then you aren't.  If you are - as is not uncommon among folks not unfairly categorized as "actively political enviro-left", such as Chris Bowers whose OpenLeft article started me on this rant - then you are perpetuating an attitude that I think is detrimental to resolving the issue of environmental degradation.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with being actively concerned for the environment - with actually being a "tree hugger" - what I am saying there is something wrong with is perpetuating the stereotype of "Liberal Treehuggers" as those who believe they hold the exclusive moral highground on issues of the environment.  They don't.  You don't.  I don't.  Just because someone is not politically Left is no indication of whether or not they are concerned with the environment nor whether their ideas about what to do on the topic are correct or incorrect.  

The OpenLeft article - and with all due respect to ATD, this diary as well - takes all this a step further and effectively states that the real problem is those in the middle even moreso than the Satanic Right, and that the solution is to Unleash the Hounds on the "squishy centrists" until they see the Light of Reason.  This, IMO, raises (or lowers) the discussion to the point that pointing out the snobbish smuggery of such positions is mandatory.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 00:52:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can see we have a major misunderstanding here. (2.00 / 2)

One is that somehow you got the idea that I thought this was mainly a Right vs Left issue. It's not, as I pointed out in my last comment. I know lots of conservatives that actually believe 'conserve' is part of their philosophy when it comes to the environment. I also know lots of conservatives that don't trust corporations to act responsibly without some kind of oversight.

The biggest confusion is about my use of the term 'corporatists'. That does not refer to people that run corporations. That refers to people that believe corporations are great forces for good that are in battle with the evil libtards. The people that think gov't is evil and only private corporations should be running the world. The ones who rejoice every time some function is taken from gov't and given to a private concern. Functions like prisons and education. People that have these beliefs aren't necessarily leaders of corporations. Some of them don't even work for corporations. They just view gov't as evil and private concerns as good. To them, it is a simple good vs evil battle for the soul of humanity.

Another misconception is that there is some connection in what I said between fundamentalists and end-timers with the term corporatist. While there are plenty of the first two groups that also belong to the third, as defined in the graf above, they aren't interchangeable. There are, as you acknowledged in your last comment, some people that believe God will never allow mankind to do major damage to the earth. Others think that if God didn't want us to do things like strip-mining or mountain top removal then he wouldn't have given us dominion over the earth.

The key verse in the Bible is Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Some people read that verse and skip right over the part about replenshing the earth and see only the part about subduing it and having dominion over every living thing. Some people. Not all, and not even all fundamentalists, but there are some, more than some people would like to acknowledge.

This leads to behavior like that mentioned in the one forum post that I quoted above. This wasn't one or two fringe nutcases. These are people that listen to Michael Savage or Rush. Both of them belittled Earth Day and the idea of lights out. They encouraged people to waste as much energy as possible on Earth Day as a form of protest against environmentalism.

Those people are out there. They aren't a majority. They aren't even a large minority, but there are some of them. They are just as smug in their belief that everyone who shows much concern in the environment is a crazy liberal tree-hugger. They view simple measures like bottle deposits to be an evil agenda from some vague conspiracy on the Left. They view polymorphic climate change theory as a fairytale or a vast conspiracy.

This smugness that is displayed by some on the Left has its counterpart on the Right. I see examples of it from both sides. You seem to only see it as a trait of the Left. Speaking of smugness. There is no one more smug than a true believer that things everyone that doesn't believe exactly as they do about religion is going to burn in hell for eternity.

Now let me restate my position on this.

I don't view business concerns or corporations as evil entities. I view them as human enterprises run by humans with all of the fallibility that comes with that humanness. That includes avarice and greed. The way to counter that fallibility is to put in place sensible regulations to mitigate the worst of the damage that greed can cause. This doesn't mean everyone who runs a corporation is an evil bastard that sits around thinking of ways to squeeze every penny from their operations at the expense of the environment. Hell, Ben & Jerry's is a corporation.

I don't view fundamentalists as essentially anti-environmentalists. I've spent enough time hunting and fishing with some of them to know they love nature every bit as much as I do. However, there are some that do think environmentalists are the enemy and they base that belief on the verse in Genesis that I quoted above.

End-timers are another story. Some of them believe the earth won't be around much longer so why should we worry about the environment. They are out there, whether you want to acknowledge them or not.

There are also people that would be considered on the Left that don't support environmental causes. I mentioned that above. They live in urban areas and care little about what happens outside their neighborhoods. They have never had any real experience outside of cities and not only don't care about nature, they may actually fear it.

Here is the definition of corportists as I meant it when I first used the term.

"At a popular level in recent years "corporatism" has been used in a pejorative context to refer to the application of corporatism by fascist regimes[5] or to mean the promotion of the interests of private business corporations in government over the interests of the public."

Nowhere have I claimed that these groups are a majority of any sort. Not all CEOs are greedy bastards. Not all fundamentalists believe we can do what we want to the earth and its environment. Everyone that pushes for privitisation of gov't services is a corporatist. But there are enough of them in each group to be a problem.

I think this all got as heated as it did because we each read something that set us off. I was offended by your assertion that the Left has some kind of monopoly on smugness while you thought I was going off on the evils of business.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:49:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

WOOF! (2.00 / 1)

:~)

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:51:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seems like what a really smart guy who is currently living (2.00 / 6)

in the White House understands.

In the meantime what liberals need to do is fight for what they want, accept what they can get and keep fighting more...

It might be pragmatism or realism, but anyone who thinks the Left is going to be perfectly happy with everything coming out of Congress is nuts.  It's frustrating to have to move in small steps but it's better to move ahead slowly than not move at all.  Doesn't mean we don't keep fighting; just means we don't have to go hyperbolic over every "defeat."

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 13:15:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What would we do if we couldn't bitch about everyone else. Go hug a centrist today. nt (2.00 / 2)

---

by: creamer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 10:06:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We're like Agnostics. (2.00 / 1)

Well, not really completely like, definitively, but sorta in the same type of blurred probability space.

Maybe.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:54:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"He kept us safe" (2.00 / 1)

Ask the far right what they think they got from the Bush presidency and they'll say "not much"

Every far-right or even near-rightist I can recall discussing Bush with has always come back with, "He kept us safe for almost 8 years." Never mind that 9/11 happened on his watch; that he ignored intelligence pointing to exactly that type of attack; that he thrust us into war without adequate training, preparation, or equipment for the troops, based on lies and twisted intel -- a war that has plunged our nation into an unprecedented deficit, contributing to the near-collapse of not only ours, but the entire world's financial systems.... None of that matters to them as long as he kept us safe. (NOTE: "Us" does not include people living in New Orleans during Katrina.)

~~Cheryl

I love my country, but I think we should start seeing other people.

---

by: Cheryl Kopec @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 23:45:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and oh btw (2.00 / 2)

the biggest losers in the 2008 elections that swept the right wing back to power in Italy were the far left, who only received about 5% of the vote. The largest far left group; The Rainbow, which consisted of the Communists and Greens who brought down Prodi's government, failed to win ANY seats in Parliament at all. In some of the Rome constituencies that had elected Communists since the 1960's, they elected right wing coalition members. In Tuscany, politically the "Massachusetts of Italy" where the far left received 13.4% of the vote in 2007, they only won 4.5%.

In the end, their own constituents, who had always supported their agenda, voted against them because they were upset that they pushed too hard and brought down Prodi's government. They were too "purist" as we say. Today the far left is in a general state of malaise...they had thought they were doing the right thing forcing the Prodi government to pay attention to them and now...not only is the left wing out of power, the far left has not one seat in Parliament.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:52:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some opponents motives are purely financial, (2.00 / 2)

they will claim that science is divided or that there is a huge conspiracy to make money off cap and trade, but mostly they yhink it will cost them money and they want to "kick the can" down the road.
I understand Adtleft's frustration with congress's seemingly inability to deal with this, but I don't think its all Chris's fault. Moderates tend to inhibit us from lurching too far one way or the other(though I still don't understand "Reagan Democrats").
Personaly I'm not sure cap and trade will work, but its proably easier to pass than a straight carbon tax. I also worry that this legislation will interfere with health care. If I have to pick between healthy americans today and a sunburn in 2010.......

---

by: creamer @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 11:37:45 AM CDT

Should be "sunburn in 2100". n/t (2.00 / 2)

---

by: creamer @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 11:46:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sure we'll get burned in 2010. (2.00 / 1)

It may just be me, but I seem to burn way faster now than in the seventies.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 11:50:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The loudest voices in opposition are those that don't want to do anything, (2.00 / 2)

because "there isn't a problem".  That's just arrogance (or the opposite, since it is summed up "mankind is not capable of affecting climate").  I got news for those folks: Yes, we can.

One of the financial complaints that we have to deal with is that any attempts to address it may cost jobs and/or raise expenses on voters, and there isn't anything that makes elected officials have strong opinions faster.  This is much more a roadblock than any 'rich people wanting to horde more money' financial issue.

I understand the frustration as well, but it is the kind of thing that concerns me more than oil companies and politicians.  Making this a beach-ball issue that the two Wings can bounce back and forth at each other is too easy, too divisive and too much a waste of valuable time and energy.  We need to find common ground and make Progress, which usually means biting our tongues and doing what is productive as opposed to making really cool rally signs.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 11:49:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No open thread so I thought I'd post this here. (2.00 / 2)

It is about the environment and nature, so I'm not totally ot.

A couple of visitors to our birdfeeder today.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 17:01:18 PM CDT

Very cool! (0.00 / 0)

Our younger cat brought home a baby rabbit a few weeks ago.  We almost kept it alive, but in the end it was just too young to be on its own.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 22:36:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Orphaned bunnies are very hard to keep alive (2.00 / 1)

I know -- my ex and I tried heroically to keep several bunnies alive whose mama had rejected them. Got special formula from the vet, took them to work and bottle-fed them every few hours, but ultimately none lived. Don't feel bad -- it'd be a miracle if it did survive.

~~Cheryl

I love my country, but I think we should start seeing other people.

---

by: Cheryl Kopec @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 23:48:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:29:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]