ComradeKayAdams

So you want the free market to dictate our energy policy? What are your thoughts on fossil fuel subsidies, going back to the days of the 1950’s Federal Highway Act? And who pays for the negative externalities in your free market system? So you don’t want to listen to climate activists? Do you think it is remotely reasonable or responsible to ignore over half a century’s worth of climate science research canon on the off chance that future discoveries could, in theory, come along and prove anthropogenic global warming to be wrong? Why did you ignore my post in the “How much did you pay for gas and groceries today?” thread (page 15, Friday, June 10)? I do not like it when people ignore me. It makes me feel sad. << Insert Commie Kay sad face >> Um…oil and gas company profit margins ARE noticeably higher now than they were at any point in the years preceding the pandemic! Yes, I’m referring to the percentages and not the net dollars. Look it up for yourself. One can call it “price gouging”, or one can call it “businesses doing what good businesses do for their shareholders through share buybacks and dividends, in response to pandemic-related losses.” Either way, it’s a non-trivial component of the inflation. It’s by no means the entire explanation of inflation, of course. I covered the multifaceted topic of inflation in the “How much did you pay for gas and groceries today?” thread (page 15, Friday, June 10). Did you read it? Oh, that’s right…you didn’t. Because you instead chose to be an irreverent d!ckhead to me. The summary, when reading between my lines, was that right-wingers have no coherent message on inflation beyond the predictable partisan whining of “Biden = high gas prices, Trump/GOP = low gas prices.” The one consistent right-wing talking point, I suppose, is that Biden needs to allow more drilling permits so to increase the supply. “Drill, baby, drill” in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, national parks, backyards, etc… But what is the mechanism that will ensure the oil companies drill in these new places when they already own plenty of property on which they still have yet to drill? Or the mechanism that ensures these companies sell the new additional supply domestically and not on the international market? Are right-wingers warming up to the idea of nationalizing the energy industry?? Hmmm… I’m not sure what else the GOP is proposing? Some of them may agree with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, even though that’s going to ensure a recession and hit the working class hard. The libertarian wing of the GOP has long been clamoring for a contraction of the money supply. I assume emergency fossil fuel windfall taxes are off the GOP negotiating table because that would be socialism and socialism is evil?? Did I type too much again with this post?? Awww…poor baby. I should have been more sensitive to your pathetically short attention span and notoriously subpar reading comprehension. My sincere apologies, SoCal D!ck.

Progressives don’t hate the country! It would certainly be accurate, however, to say that progressives are more scathing in their criticisms of typical American public policies. As you probably guessed, my opinion of classical liberalism is low and my opinion of American conservatism is even lower. Neither philosophy belongs in the twenty-first century. A classical liberal’s view of macroeconomics is overly simplistic and doesn’t pay attention to international data that informs us on how to best grow economies. There are also the modern ethical assessments of economic policy that classical liberals ignore, especially regarding certain goods/services like health care, education, and housing. American conservatism is even worse because it subsumes laissez-faire capitalism, incorporates sentiments of American supremacy into a foreign policy which is slowly bankrupting our country (financially and morally), and hides various bigoted beliefs often behind the guise of either religion or (painfully misinterpreted) science. I would say that the rise of modern progressivism in the United States is a direct consequence of the Reagan tenure’s shortcomings and the ascent of neoliberalism. NAFTA, the Iraq War, the Great Recession, and this ongoing post-COVID recession (or depression?!) have further irrevocably alienated Americans from classical liberalism and conservatism. There are consequences to shrinking the middle class and decimating the lives of the working class! Or rather…there SHOULD be consequences to doing so. Just looking at polling data and the national surge in labor activism…I’m cautiously optimistic that progressives will take over the Democratic Party by the end of this decade and start exerting real political power throughout the 2030’s.

I highlighted two points of contention in your post: 1. It’s not that they don’t care, “they” being the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress. They are simply constrained by what their corporate donors allow them to do. And in the case of many like Biden, at this point in their lives they are also probably too entrenched in neoliberal philosophy to explore aggressive alternative actions. I do have a tinfoil hat theory for you, however: the Democrats see a harrowingly unlikely path to victory over the next two years, so their plan is to make Biden/Harris the scapegoats and elevate someone more salable like Gavin Newsom during the 2024 presidential primaries. Hey, it would work on me! I hate Newsom, but I’d still vote for him over the rebranded trickle-down economics nonsense that the GOP always peddles as their economic panacea. 2. Even if the Keystone Pipeline System was fully functional at this very moment, it would only put a VERY modest dent on overall gas prices. This very modest dent doesn’t come close to justifying all the environmental damage that it would eventually create. Further exploitation of the Athabasca tar sands should not be encouraged in any way. And what about the Indigenous groups that the pipeline construction affects? And what about that whole climate change thing? The boreal forests of Western Canada are way too important for combating MMGW. The Keystone Pipeline System would mostly help Canada, anyway, but not the U.S. in terms of jobs. I would advise Western Canadians to find other ways to grow their economy. Since the inflation topic is by far the most important one in politics today, FWIW here’s my little contribution to PPP: What I think Biden should generally be doing to ameliorate the problem: 1. Issue a series of executive orders that expedite supply chain networks, especially at shipping port bottlenecks. 2. Publicly articulate a clear short-term and long-term national energy plan so that fossil fuel companies can better anticipate demand and moderate their releases of supply, thereby stabilizing some of the inflationary pressures (much of which is still a consequence of fossil fuel supply shocks). 3. Provide any sort of Keynesian-esque demand-side relief to working-class families (tax relief, energy credits, etc…just do something for them, please…). What is or what has been (mostly) out of Biden’s control: 1. Anthropogenic global warming constraints on public policy (note to anyone who still thinks it’s a myth: please reply to me with a published post-July 1988 scientific research paper that either refutes the observed warming altogether or explains it with any mechanism other than atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm…a published scientific research paper, please; not a link to some random fella’s website…). 2. Fossil fuel oligarchic control of government since the 1970’s energy crisis (they are chiefly responsible for our country’s relatively pathetic state of renewable energy research/development at this present moment in time). 3. Enormous global supply chain disruptions due to COVID-19 and its subsequent variants. 4. General supply chain weaknesses on the U.S. side that were exposed by the pandemic and that were, in large part, due to decades of outsourcing of domestic manufacturing jobs. 5. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine that has affected much of the fossil fuel energy and wheat/grain food markets. 6. The world economic market for fossil fuels that sets the supply, the demand, and thus our prices of oil and gas independent of U.S. political decisions. 7. The privatized status of the U.S. fossil fuel industry, which means that these companies are largely free to sell domestic supply wherever they want in the world, make use of drilling permits however they want, and thereby drive domestic energy supply/demand/costs (to some extent) to their own financial advantage and not necessarily for any greater societal good. 8. The cumulative effects of American imperialism since the advent of the Cold War that have limited import/export options on the international energy markets.

I agree with your first two recommendations, but not the third. Enforcing full legal responsibility for a gun’s use is not practical and opens a Pandora’s box of draconian punishments in any number of less typical criminal situations. At the moment, here is what I generally support with regard to gun control: mandatory classes/training/licenses for gun ownership (obvious exemptions for military or law enforcement experience), mandatory safety devices and safe storage laws, raising the age to 25 (not 21!) for all semi-automatic rifles, enhanced and universal background checks (particularly around DSM-5 mental health issues), increased spending for local community mental health programs, sensible augmentations to school security measures, red flag law implementations, closing gun show loopholes, banning high-capacity gun magazines, banning ghost guns, and banning bump stocks or other firearm conversion devices. I carefully read everything else you typed, but I’m only going to respond to a couple parts because I don’t really disagree with any of the points you raised. Sorry to disappoint or bore…but as you may recall, I’m a centrist on the Second Amendment issue! 1. Gun control research references: The study that I was mainly thinking about when typing my post was “What Do We Know About The Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?” (Epidemiologic Reviews, January 2016) by Professor Julian Santaella-Tenorio of NYU, published while he was at Columbia U. It was somewhat of a landmark paper because it prompted a flurry of research that uses international data and isolates a host of statistical variables (a.k.a. right-wing excuses for gun violence) like video game violence and religious affiliation. In my admittedly very non-expert opinion, we need to see more conclusive research done on the link (or lack thereof) between fatherlessness and inner-city gun violence as well as between mental health and gun violence. If you do decide to delve into all this wonky academic stuff, bear in mind the distinctions made between mass shootings and general gun violence. 2. Progressive political strength in the United States: Okay, so I should have clarified what I mean by political strength. Progressives are presently thought to be roughly 40-45% of the Democratic Party electorate. The Democratic Party needs to court their votes in order to win anything, so in that respect progressives ARE powerful and have some degree of influence. However, I tend to think of political strength mainly in terms of legislation that actually gets passed, politicians that actually get elected to office, or even just platforms on which candidates actually run. The Democratic Party certainly does lean into identity politics rhetoric and some of the anti-police rhetoric in order to stitch together their voting bloc, but us sad progressives can’t get hardly any of our domestic economic agenda, none of our foreign policy/anti-MIC agenda, and much of our environmental/energy/civil infrastructure demands met at the national level. The reason? Corporate influence on moderates/centrists. Corporatists hate the pro-worker pro-Main Street politics of progressives. As I think I mentioned earlier here, we only have 7 true progressives in all of Congress. That is to say, we only have 7 politicians in Congress who don’t accept big money campaign donations.

In all honesty, I think these “slippery slope” fears of species identification are non sequitur responses to gender identification. Rational people can all agree that the concept of gender is distinct from the concept of species. It’s as simple as saying “no” and drawing a red line for the VERY few number of people who, I suppose, genuinely want to identify as an animal. This similarly fallacious argument was used against gay people in the gay marriage debate: we can’t let them get married because then people might try to marry their pet cats or dogs. I really don’t see a problem with conflating biological sex and “psychological sex,” for lack of a better term. In almost every situation that comes up in society, it’s no big deal to accommodate this slight increase in complexity. The vast majority of humans psychologically identify with the same sex as their biological sex, anyway. Civilization shouldn’t collapse because of this. You did, however, bring up one of the very few societal situations where accommodation is not so easy: competitive athletics. I don’t have a solution that I can confidently recommend. Do we force people to compete only with peers of the same biological gender that they were assigned at birth? Do we assign athletic gender based on morphology or hormone levels? Do we increase the number of competitive categories? Do we let the competitors decide for themselves with whom they want to compete? I’ll let you guys debate this one. I’ll stay out of it and just read the responses.

Yes, absolutely! Lax gun laws and the Republicans who perpetuate this status quo are the main culprit! That’s what the gun control policy research is telling us, research which is based on comparative studies with other countries around the world. All the right-wing explanations fall apart in the comparative international research: drug use, atheism, single-parent households, COVID lockdowns, school security measures, transgenderism (lol…), and video games. A mental health explanation may not be entirely far-fetched since we stand alone as the only industrialized country without universal health care programs, but it’s completely disingenuous of right-wingers to raise this issue because they are the ones who will be against any future “subsidization” of poor people’s mental health care. Your attempt to establish an impact equivalency between lax gun regulations and progressive attitudes toward law and order is equally weak, and it’s weak for two main reasons: 1. Across-the-board progressive activism is far stronger and louder in many other countries that have much lower gun violence and many fewer mass shootings. Antagonism towards police officers and deep suspicions of police are pervasive elsewhere and somewhat ubiquitous because of the nature of the types of personalities that gravitate toward the law enforcement profession, but we simply don’t hear about these international problems here in America often because Americans, by and large, don’t care about what happens in other places. With specific respect to gun control activism, the rest of the civilized world looks at gun access as a privilege and not as an inalienable right. It’s a huge distinction between our country and others that is definitely reflected in the stark differences in gun laws. 2. Progressive politicians have negligible political power (at the moment…) in this country, ESPECIALLY compared to the rest of the world. While the AOC and Bernie types are mere fringe political pawns to the Pelosi and Biden types in the United States, they would be considered well-established centrists in, say, mainland Europe or outright right-wingers in Scandinavia. Moderate Democrats in our country always do the bare minimum to court progressive voters, and they are simultaneously always working behind the scenes to undermine actual progressive power (latest example among many: Bakari Sellers raising big money to defeat Rashida Tlaib in Michigan this August). No law-and-order progressive activism ever actually makes it into the broader Dem political platform. No meaningful gun control legislation, I believe, has been passed at the national level since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Cori Bush was the only national Democrat who ran on a “Defund the Police” call, and that’s because her district infamously includes Ferguson, MO. No national politician ran on an “Abolish ICE” call. Bottom line: Team GOP is just trying to run out the attention clock on gun control legislation until the country becomes preoccupied with other major current events. They don’t want to listen to the 70-90% of Americans who want meaningful gun control laws. They only want to obey their NRA donor masters. So I can’t take any of their red herring explanations for gun violence seriously, and that includes progressive antagonism toward law enforcement. You asked for my opinions on a few specific issues that you listed, but I don’t think you’d find my opinions terribly interesting because I’m more of a centrist on law-and-order politics. I identify as progressive because of other things (environment, energy, social democratic macroeconomics, health care, foreign policy, etc.). However, I’ll still try to add a few thoughts: 1. Demonization of Police: The “Defund the Police” movement was never about not having any law enforcement agencies. It was about breaking corrupt police unions and reconstructing these institutions with a more streamlined set of responsibilities. The in situ incompetency and subsequent coverups in Uvalde are highlighting for the rest of the country just what these progressive activists were talking about back in 2020. 2. Police Demilitarization: There is simply NO WAY that our domestic law enforcement agencies require all of the military equipment that they’ve been allowed to possess in order to do their jobs. Furthermore, military and domestic law enforcement have two very different sets of responsibilities. The military mindset that has been allowed to carry over into police departments since Reagan’s Drug War days (~20% of U.S. police have military backgrounds) is undoubtedly aggravating a host of civilian law-and-order situations. All of this is yet another tragic consequence of our country’s sh!tty imperialistic foreign policy, by the way… 3. Lax District Attorneys: I agree that violent offenders shouldn’t be granted any leniency, but I would go easy on nonviolent victimless crime offenders such as those caught up in drug use or those found in the sex industry. U.S. law and order should still ultimately aspire to reflect the spirit of human redemption in order to discourage recidivism. 4. Villainization of Border Patrol Agents: I’ve found many of the detention practices toward illegal aliens detestable and unnecessarily inhumane. This was true throughout the Trump presidency, also true during Obama’s reign, and unfortunately these problems persist under Biden’s administration.

Probably among the most salient sentences that have ever been written in this subforum, yet you chose video links from an obvious right-wing grifter like Matt Walsh over highly cited research from biologists who devote their lives to the study of gender science? Which side, exactly, is in a religious cult?? “What is a woman?” Is that your honest question? The answer is that gender identity is a bit more nuanced than chromosomes and reproductive systems. For whatever still undetermined reason or combination of reasons (genetics, prenatal development, etc.), the brain development of a small percentage of people does not match their visible outside markers of gender distinction. When I say “brain development,” I’m referring to the observable differences between a stereotypical male brain and female brain in terms of structural composition and neural activity. Early studies of transgender people are showing this discrepancy to be the case for them. Neuroscience is an extremely complex subject that you could say is very much still in its infancy, so that’s why the scientific community tends to prevaricate when asked about definitive gender identification protocols. I suppose our society can eventually reach a point where we demand expensive brain scans and elaborate neuroimaging for every single person who wants to identify as a gender incongruous with their physical bodies, but in the meantime…it’s a lot easier to simply ask them. Whatever happened to “live and let live” from the political right, anyway? The lives of transgender people are already extremely difficult (especially throughout their adolescence), so why not just leave them alone instead of amplifying the hatred and discrimination and bullying? EDIT: Note that competitive sports participation and hormone therapy for legal minors ARE legitimate debates to be had on the subject of transgenderism, but they can’t be had with a debate side that disregards these human beings as psychological “freaks” and “weirdos.” Go out and meet actual transgender people and ask them about their lifelong gender-based thoughts and experiences.

The issue is that I don’t necessarily think buildings full of little children become incrementally safer with military-grade weapons located inside them. And I don’t necessarily think the children are incrementally safer in the heat of battle when educators not trained for combat are wielding these weapons. That is not to say that I am completely against the idea of having armed defenders in schools, but this idea would have to be combined with other substantial gun control measures. FWIW, I’m a progressive lefty who considers herself a center-righty on the Second Amendment issue. I’ve tended to defer to gun owners on the types of guns they insist they need for self-defense, but I’m quickly losing patience with right-wing obstinance when it comes to regulating who is allowed to buy these guns. I think the fundamental problem we have here (along with gerrymandering rules) is the lack of campaign finance reform legislation. Those with the most money can best bribe the politicians and control the propaganda. ~70-90% of Americans want meaningful gun control laws, but major campaign donors from the NRA own the GOP and intimidate the Democratic Party into inaction. So far, the only politicians I’m aware of at the national level who reject corporate and large individual donations are AOC, Omar, Pressley, Tlaib, Bowman, Cori Bush, and Bernie. Hmmm…

By chance, have you been following the Democratic primary race in the Texas 28th congressional district?? Jessica Cisneros versus Henry Cuellar? If so, any quick thoughts?? Mine: 1. It’s shameful (but predictable) for Pelosi and Clyburn to be backing a scandal-ridden, pro-NRA, anti-Roe DINO like Cuellar in this particular election season. 2. Cisneros is probably going to lose by an incredibly small margin (<100 votes??), but it was still a very impressive showing since she almost beat an incumbent who had the entire financial backing of the Dem establishment. 3. I’m not at all confident like Pelosi is that Cuellar will win in November against Cassy Garcia, and I don’t think it even matters in the big picture because of the whole DINO thing. 4. This is a bellwether Dem primary and among the most important ones in the country. I think it shows that moderate Dems are slamming into a popularity ceiling with non-Cuban Latinos, and that suppression of progressive electoral energy is going to hurt in November. Meanwhile, we’re managing to see plenty of Latino enthusiasm for a candidate in conservative South Texas “despite” her full endorsement from a supposedly wacky NYC socialist. 5. The generational divide between moderate old Democrats and progressive young Democrats is once again rearing its ugly head. Democrats will have to somehow keep this caustic coalition glued for another five months in the face of a looming economic recession and a failed agenda for the working class (namely: Build Back Better).

Yes, thank you! I was just about to make this same point. All sorts of spurious statistical arguments can be made from insufficient amounts of data. And yes, the concept of some random bespectacled Good Samaritan educator saving the day with a Wyatt Earp-esque fast draw and steady hand is BEYOND absurd. While I’m not at all a gun maven, let’s just take the case of the Buffalo Tops shooting…long story short…I made the HORRIBLE mistake of watching the full 6-minute video recording. My main takeaway here was that prevention of much of the carnage was always going to be completely unrealistic, regardless of the firearm skills of any passers-by. Payton Gendron, equipped with military-style weaponry and decked out in military-style body armor, murdered the first four people outside the front entrance within about five seconds after opening his car door! You also mentioned psychological evaluations as an important component of gun regulations. Well…sure enough, we have come to learn that both Payton Gendron and Salvador Ramos had a despicable history of cat torture. Animal torture is obvious criminal behavior and should have been flagged by someone beforehand for the law enforcement agencies! It’s classic behavior for clinical sociopaths, who are exactly the types of people capable of carrying out mass shootings. So if we’re serious about preventing mass shootings, then we need to work as a society on the identification and management of sociopaths as much as we work on more sensible gun laws. This would have to mean expanded mental health counseling programs under the rubric of a universal health care system.

Buffarukus, You put some time and effort into your response, so I’ll try my best to address every point you raised: 1. Interpretations of Poll Percentage Numbers: Acknowledging the enormous and highly nuanced diversity of thought on this subject doesn’t detract from the central point that these are many tiny Venn diagram opinion circles that often overlap. I’d like to see more Roe v. Wade polling data this month, but we may already have an ~80% national consensus on legal protection for the first 12 weeks (plus the usual list of exemptions…rape, mother’s life at risk, etc.). I would NEVER want to shut down the ~20% from expressing their points of view and trying to persuade the ~80%, but we also have time constraints and many other pressing issues to debate! I don’t think the domain of reasonably productive discourse on abortion lies anywhere outside the second trimester interval. By the way, don’t forget that the abortion stats breakdown is this: 90% occurring within the first trimester, 9% within the second, and 1% within the third. So any realistically productive conversations on abortion should be centered around exploring the nature of what’s happening in these (9+1)% cases. 2. Leaving Things Up To The States: You raised a good question of what makes abortion a uniquely federal health/safety issue, in comparison to other ones that are left to states. I haven’t yet thought too deeply on this question, so others here may have better answers. One part of it may have to do with the immense time and energy and cost that is involved with raising another potential human being. Another part of it may be just what ends up being impractical to implement, which is especially true if you have such large deviations between policies on a state-by-state level. I’d also add that sometimes a large percentage of Americans can simply find a state’s behavior way too ethically appalling, as was the situation preceding the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what I expect will be the case once the 13 red state abortion “trigger laws” come into effect. 3. Sundry Left-Wing Hypocrisies: I think we’re mostly in agreement here. No, the Democrats don’t hold any greater integrity than the GOP on numerous other issues and court rulings that you could name. Yes, the Democrats have been using abortion as a political football. I was never much of a COVID Karen, so I’ll acknowledge that point as well. We should note, however, that the left’s argument is that masks/vaccinations are related to the greater public health while abortion services are related to individual health….so it’s not a perfect “my body, my choice” comparison. 4. The Public Paying for Abortion: Yes, I’m a huge proponent of universal health care. I’d start with the United Kingdom version, but I’d eventually want an even more expansive version than that. So am I okay with forcing those Americans who are morally opposed to abortions to pay for these health services? Well…sure. Why? Because Rousseau’s “social contract” (the philosopher, not the defensive end!). I mean, no one is allowing me tax exemptions for my moral opposition to much of our military budget or to meat/dairy farm subsidies! Nor should they. 5. My Own Evolved Stance on Women’s Privacy: I come from an active Catholic family, so I started out very pro-life as a child and have evolved to very pro-choice (in terms of public policy) as a young adult. What mostly changed my opinion was learning about the personal experiences of women who had them and imagining what it would have been like to have “walked a mile in their moccasins,” as they say. You weren’t ever going to have a serious conversation with me. Your strongest rebuttal was going to be a large scary picture of Moloch drawn in crayon.

First of all, “Moloch’s Gaping Maw” is a PERFECT name for a hard rock band. “Moloch” is equally awesome as a slightly edgy name for a pet dog…even more so if the dog is small and ferociously energetic like a corgi! But getting back to the topic at hand, I can’t tell if you are intending to say that a woman who has an abortion is morally irredeemable? Going by Judeo-Christian principles, that is simply untrue. Forgiveness and redemption are two of its core themes, along with all that other important stuff like love, empathy, respect for the poor and the downtrodden, etc… Secular humanism has these same principles too, though I’m not sure if it applies for sociopaths (another topic altogether…). I can’t tell if you instead are intending to say that it is not your personal obligation to educate/persuade a woman from having an abortion? Maybe not, but it is certainly your obligation to educate and persuade others on your moral values IF you want these values to become laws in a democratic society! Lately, the GOP seems to want to hide their least popular ideas behind the Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment. That can be an effective strategy since we do live in a republic and not a democracy, but only up to a point. The political right seems to be careening past that point now. Why do I say that? Simple: Roe v. Wade scientific polling data is at ~30% legal in all cases, ~50% legal but with restrictions (rape, *****, life of mother, health of baby, first trimester only, no third trimester, etc.), and ~20% illegal in all cases. Comparative polling studies can maybe break that ~50% number down to ~35% up through the first trimester only and ~15% up through the second trimester (i.e. up to what is considered the traditional point of viability). In other words, ~80% of Americans are effectively in support of Roe v. Wade, whether or not they realize it. Does anyone here disagree with my numbers? If so, state what you think those 4 numbers (30% + 35% + 15% + 20%) actually are in this country, right now as of May 2022. If you want to talk about “moral imperatives,” I believe it is now my moral imperative to make sure your ~20% stays out of power this November and beyond. I care about all life as well, including the lives of scared and struggling young mothers who are stuck in red states…lives of women whom you castigate and judge for whatever personal reasons…possibly because you get fulfillment from assuming the white knight role for the innocent unborn…in which case I hope you’ll join me in making sure these unborn have universal health care coverage as soon as they are born…??

At the risk of speaking a bit too broadly and dichotomously, I think this is the crux of the debate’s heat: each side somehow believes they’re the ones who are the 70%. By the way, I wonder which side would score better on a basic test of gynecology and abortion facts?? Hmmm… No matter. The truth of the actual 70% will reveal itself once the Bible Belters begin rolling out their draconian state abortion laws. And in terms of political strategy, any failure to pass some version of the Women’s Health Protection Act (i.e., a federal codification of Roe v. Wade) can serve as a useful foot in the door for various far-left political goodies like socialized health care. Hey is it just me, or is anyone else suddenly getting REALLY horny over the prospects of eradicating right-wing zealotry this November?! I haven’t felt this way since the 2008 Kucinich campaign during the halcyon days of my carefree adolescence…my Lord…T.M.I.? Perhaps, but my Lord… Muppy!!! I like your new profile pic! I changed mine too! I’m personally very pro-life but publicly very pro-choice. Often times, the “correct” public policy for such a heterogeneous society as ours can be defined as the “least awful” one. I sincerely believe that a “least awful” solution is the passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act. Those with strong opinions against abortion should focus on educating and persuading young women instead of legally restricting/punishing them.

Okay, thanks for the opinions! Much appreciated. On the progressive side: I’ve been texting my NYC peeps for updates on both the local and national scene. Incumbent grassroots campaign coffers are supposedly rapidly filling and third party enthusiasm seems to have collapsed practically overnight. There’s little chatter anymore about any so-called “hostile takeover” of the Democratic Party. Weeks ago, Nina Turner’s loss in Ohio would have enraged a lot of progressives. But now? Everyone seems laser-focused on collaborating to destroy our common enemy first, and it’s hard for me to disagree with that strategy these days. Maybe I’m also a bit afraid of Julia Salazar scolding me again over my Green Party dalliances lol… The KEY factor by November is going to be the mobilization of college students and young professionals. Fear is a powerful motivator and maybe the most powerful one. If Roe v. Wade is overturned before the election, I think millions of normally apathetic voters are going to witness and freak out over the absurdly restrictive (and punitive!) abortion laws that immediately go into effect in many of the backward red states. The horrific impracticality of managing all the accompanying interstate legal discrepancies will likely become quickly apparent, too. And prospective voters with even the most modest capacities for foresight will soon reason that millions of forced pregnancies to go with a negligible social safety net is a recipe for societal chaos. Election day voter turnout and polling data should ultimately guide any Dem decisions on ending the filibuster and packing the courts. Normally I am against using these strong-arm tactics, but not in special cases of voter mandates. Besides, any lingering notions of honor and civility in American political discourse are dead now. It’s time we acknowledge that reality and instead just prioritize enacting good public policy.

Mr. Governor, I have always respected your political acumen, so I ask you: do you think we can reach the necessary Senate numbers in November?? The economy and inflation is still going to take precedence over social issues for many (if not most) voters. California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire? Sure. That gets us to 47. Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida?? All of these would get us to a more comfortable 55, but I’d say each one is far from guaranteed. But even if we get up to 55, will the Senate Democrats actually have the courage this time to end the filibuster and pass the Women’s Health Protection Act in January? And even if it passes, will the Democrats down the line have the temerity for court packing if the conservative Supreme Court attempts to kill the bill? This, of course, is predicated on the assumption that the Democrats would hold Congress and the Presidency in 2024 and beyond…a huge uncertainty. In the meantime, two things that we have great control over: 1. Continued support and promotion of organizations like The Brigid Alliance that help low-income and other disadvantaged women stuck in backward red states. 2. Targeted campaign organizing on campuses and working-class neighborhoods.

What about Tremaine? Have we discussed Edmunds yet? He’s really good, no?

Your third line needs work. It is one syllable short. Otherwise, good job! Long gone by our pick… McDuffie, Booth, or Gordon. Let’s go cornerback! Super lazy, Dan… You write haikus like Kelvin Benjamin runs routes. TWO BILLS DRIVE POETS: we are counting syllables and will impose fines. I enjoyed this one! The third line is redundant, But it made me laugh!

Respect special teams. A new punter on day three? Matt Haack is not good. 4merper4mer, Where is your haiku structure? Can you try again? Poetry is fun! No more negativity. You got this, Brennan! Ugh! Et tu, Dopey?! A name that is apropos… Why do you hate Dan?!

Um…sorta. Lessons abound for all! Let’s discuss: What the left can learn: 1. The value of nuclear: Germany and most far-lefties should talk to France about it…the benefits, the costs, the technical risks, etc. They will feel much better about nuclear after this long conversation with the French. If Germany hadn’t abandoned nuclear after Fukushima, Europe as a whole wouldn’t be nearly as dependent on Russian fossil fuels as they currently are. What the right can learn: My goodness…where do I start… 1. Basic import/export facts: Russia makes up only a small percent (~7%?) of our total fossil fuel imports. Canada is our #1 exporter by far. Also, U.S. fossil fuel production has never gone down since Biden took office. Furthermore, no additional global fossil fuel production is necessary in order to facilitate cutting Russia off from the international energy trade market. A complete rerouting of the current trade market would suffice. If you don’t believe me, look up global import/export data for each major country and play around with the arithmetic for yourselves. 2. Keystone pipeline: It was always going to take several years to come online, so it’s not a viable solution for either the current Russia-Ukraine fiasco or the current COVID-related cost-push inflation fiasco. 3. Drilling permits: There’s no need to issue new ones when fossil fuel corporations already have an abundance of sea/land plots that are currently untouched. 4. Nationalization of energy: Lots of right-wingers want Biden to take firm control of the situation and alter our country’s energy trade market. Fine…but keep in mind that U.S. energy is controlled by private corporations, so you are technically advocating for at least a temporary “socialization” of the national energy sector. 5. Energy independence: You are free to prioritize this aspiration if you wish, but keep in mind that U.S. energy will continue to be a tradable private commodity on the global market. Therefore, it will continue to be subject to the global market whims of energy supply/demand laws, a.k.a. global cost fluctuations. 6. The many tentacles of the U.S. oligarchy: The most important point for righties to understand because it undergirds much of contemporary American politics, especially as it pertains to energy commerce. The fossil fuel corporate oligarchs have propagandized you to think that anthropogenic global warming is even a scientific debate. The manufacturing industry oligarchs are behind ridiculous Supreme Court cases like WVA v. EPA, which aims to undermine the practical federal power to regulate pollution. U.S. corporate oligarchs of all stripes have colluded to ensure opacity in international commerce transactions, which makes federal sanction impositions much more difficult to enforce (relative to the rest of the industrialized countries that comprise the West). I could go on and on with this subcategory, but you probably get the point… What both the left and the right can learn: 1. Long-term planning: Everyone in the West should have started much sooner with renewables. Ideally, we all should have been dramatically increasing our fundamental R+D budgets during the era of the 1970’s energy crisis. By not doing so and by not having a sufficiently diversified energy portfolio at this point in time, we have ceded a lot of economic leverage to Russia (and China). 2. Basic patience: Putin invaded Ukraine rather suddenly (yah yah, I understand Russia had a lengthy military buildup at the border…). It takes a bit of time to reroute a gigantic global energy trade market. And given present inflation issues and risks of further energy supply shocks, it kinda makes sense for the West to slowly wean ourselves from Russian fossil fuels instead of forcing an abrupt cut-off. 3. Problems with U.S. imperialism: All of our Russian oil import issues could have magically gone away if we had healthy (i.e. open) trade relations with countries like, say, Venezuela. But in Venezuela’s example case, we are sanctioning their people to death because we hate global left-wing politics and we want to install our latest hand-chosen coup puppet, Juan Guaido, who will do our economically exploitative bidding in ways that no leftist would ever allow.

Good interpretation, though the rest of that “story” does matter greatly. The Russian cultural ties to Donetsk and Luhansk matter. The strategic military use of the Crimean peninsula matters. Aggressive NATO expansions toward Russian borders (for the benefit of the military-industrial complex) matter. U.S. meddling into Ukrainian politics (for the benefit of the entire corporate oligarchy) matters. But yes, we agree that energy is the underlying source of this international conflict.

Sure, but I’d like to think that the whole point of this thread is for everyone to gain a better understanding of the causes, who’s to blame, what’s going on currently, and paths to take that can solve the crisis. My own assessment, FWIW: 1. The causes: My one-sentence summary is that this is a typical clash between rival imperialist competitors (U.S. and Russia) in a major economic, cultural, and political market (all of Europe, really…not just Ukraine and the Slavic homelands). A slightly more nuanced take requires thinking beyond the classic left vs. right political paradigm and into a populist vs. establishment one. Everyone here understands that Russia is a corrupt corporate oligarchy with an authoritarian ringleader (Putin). But would everyone also agree that the United States also functions as a corrupt corporate oligarchy whose M.I.C.-rooted foreign policy arm is driven by economic exploitation and not some noble illusory support of global democracy and the preservation of human rights abroad? How about the idea that Biden, Trump, Obama, living Bush, pervert Clinton, pantsuit Clinton too, dead Bush, Reagan, etc… were/are all war criminals and political duopolists whose variations in foreign policy decisions were/are pond ripples above an underlying tidal wave of imperialism? How Trump was another in a long line of heavy-handed American supremacists who may have been less of a bully interventionist (relative to Obama and Biden) in some key respects (Libya, Syria, Iraq) but more of one in others (JCPOA/Iran, Yemen, Cuba, Venezuela, certain dealings with Russia, also never got us out of Afghanistan like he promised, etc.)? How the M.I.C. budget keeps rising every year regardless of the political tribe affiliation of the sitting president, and this is why the American people are told that they cannot have basic things that every other civilized country take for granted like universal health care?? No?! OMG seriously? Then we have a HUGE problem here. Shall we carefully go over every single f*$king coup, regime change war, embargo, and sanction since WW2? The Afghanistan Papers? Collateral damage data from drone strikes? Yemeni civil war? Palestine? Activities in the Horn of Africa? OMG what we’re currently doing in Syria??!! What we’re currently doing throughout Latin America beyond the Cuba and Venezuelan sanctions?? By all means, someone PLEASE defend American post-WW2 imperialistic foreign policy for me…and do so from a secular humanist, Judeo-Christian, and/or Constitutional perspective… <<< insert gif of Kay furiously shoveling popcorn (seasoned…no butter…f*$k the dairy industry too) into her mouth. >>> 2. Blame game: It’s all on Russia. None of their many listed grievances against NATO (many of which I found reasonable, up until the Ukraine invasion happened…) can justify this unprovoked military aggression against a sovereign nation. Putin did not come close to exhausting his diplomatic options. 3. What’s going on currently: We’ll just have to rely on the news media and navigate a bit through some of the fog of war and the propaganda. 4. How to fix the crisis: No idea. Does anyone, really? Direct combat between nuclear powers should always be off the table. Proxy combat is very treacherous, but it may eventually become necessary. Sanctions probably present the most viable options, unfortunately, but how can we tailor them in such a way as to maximally affect the Russian oligarchs and minimally affect the Russian people and the rest of the world? I’m very uneasy of the manifold repercussions of banning those oligarchs from SWIFT. One major leverage we do have over Putin is the fact that their national economy is extremely imbalanced and reliant on fossil fuel exports. Our very first option, of course, should be diplomacy where NATO offers a series of concessions (back to its original status during the 90’s?) in order to get Russia to cease fire and withdraw their troops. Western hubris and Putin’s crossing of the metaphorical Rubicon into the physical country of Ukraine, however, may have already rendered this option moot. Something I want to quickly challenge here is the pervasive notion that energy independence through greatly increased domestic fossil fuel production is the West’s best solution. Never mind the anthropogenic climate change debate. I would encourage everyone to look at tabulated data of various energy categories for Russia, the U.S., Germany, the rest of Europe, and basically the rest of the world. Scan over what is exported, imported, and consumed in each country. Look at their trade partners. Look at production before and after the pandemic. The takeaway here should be that a concerted global effort to reroute energy trade markets at current production levels is more than sufficient to isolate Russia. Some basic degree of cooperation is expected from the major Middle East oil countries, however. I assume Venezuela and Iran will align with Russia, while China will try to play both major sides. Thank you for your cathartic post, Leh-nerd, and don’t forget to vote in the 2022 TBD PPP Subforum Moderator election!! Who do you serve?! Who do we deserve?! Toward whom will you electorally swerve? Leh-nerd: “Irv. IRV. For the love of God, Kay…IRV. Just please stop typing. Ugh. I could use another vacation in Florida. I hate you.”

UGH. Full apologies, Tibsy. You were right and I was wrong. I completely underestimated Putin’s capacity for economic brinkmanship. Is it safe to assume that Russia and China arranged a sweet trade partnership beforehand?? The latest I heard was that China was prevaricating on Ukraine. Yeah, the political tribalism at PPP is super annoying and is also missing the mark. Normally this is the moment where I would insert a lengthy rant against all facets of the bipartisan post-1989 American imperialism (with particular emphasis on NATO aggression, Yanukovych ousting, etc.), but the brutal reality here is that the Ukrainian invasion is 100% Putin’s fault and 0% anyone else’s. At least Nord Stream 2 is dead now. GOOD.

Good to hear! A Russian invasion of Ukraine is highly unlikely because all the players in this stupid game are ultimately rational actors. Everyone here stands to lose so much more in the long run (economically and militarily) than they can ever hope to win. So fingers crossed, but yes it’s looking a lot more like political theater serving to benefit multiple international leaders, namely Biden and Putin, with their respective constituencies’ approval. The worldwide military-industrial complex is also benefiting greatly, of course, and this may very well be the main motivation. Just quickly scanning through the posts in this thread…it appears that (yet again) the corporate mainstream media has been irresponsibly framing the debate through the lens of right versus left, GOP versus Democrats, and Trump versus Biden. Very few have been taking the far more important introspective approach and asking what our own country’s responsibility has been for this escalation? Why is it any of our business to dictate how economic trade relations between Russia and its nearest European Union neighbors are to proceed? As much as I personally despise the Russian natural gas industry, for example, doesn’t a country like Germany have the sovereign right to seek energy price relief from COVID-related inflationary effects? And what about the aggressive military posturing from NATO? Wouldn’t the United States feel increasingly threatened, for example, if China was moving troops closer to our borders from Canada and Mexico? For anyone still wondering what Russia’s endgame is, the best guess would be “economic leverage into the European market.” All of Putin’s aggressive military posturing strikes me as his own unique style of diplomacy. Is he trying to rebuild the Slavic empire from the glory days of the Soviet Union, with the invasion of Ukraine as the first key step? Very doubtful. Way too costly, IMO.

OK, but I don’t see a single sentence in the article that is untruthful. The author calls out Senator Manchin for what he clearly is: a crony capitalist of the fossil fuel industry, legislating based on personal financial gain rather than what’s best for his constituents and the country and the planet. One isn’t necessary because Sinema’s political career is already effectively over. Her resistance to Build Back Better was too radical a departure from the political platform on which she ran in Arizona. As a result, her state approval numbers are now in the basement, though I’m pretty sure she doesn’t care. She knew what she was doing and will be leaving Washington on a very golden parachute. Did you read the article?? He’s NOT looking out for the interests of his constituents! The article described two major ways in which this is the case: higher state utility costs and lower state health/environmental standards. I’ll offer several more that weren’t mentioned: 1. Build Back Better Act: About 70% of all West Virginians and about 90% of registered Democrats from West Virginia have been in favor of the bill. The inflation fearmongering and deficit hawkery that Manchin has used to justify his contrarian position (on a $1.7 trillion bill spread out over 10 years and embedded within a currently $30 trillion national debt, mind you…) contradicts all mainstream macroeconomic rationality as well as Manchin’s own lengthy legislative voting record. 2. General neoliberalism: West Virginia actually has a very rich history of labor activism, but center-right poopheads like Manchin have repeatedly gone out of their way to undermine it. We can start with universal health care and continue on down the long line of Reaganomics nonsense that Manchin has been peddling in opposition to the interests of the working class. West Virginians don’t even care about the coal mining jobs, per se. They care about jobs that provide an acceptable standard of living and that allow them to remain living in their home state. 3. Climate change economic legislation: Manchin has had numerous opportunities throughout his career to advocate for statewide transition program provisions in climate change-related bills that would have allowed coal industry workers to move into new careers (like in renewable energies?). These types of transition programs should have begun 40-50 years ago in West Virginia, or as soon as everyone realized coal was a dying industry. Manchin has never advocated for them. Instead, he has been downplaying, misleading, and flat out lying about anthropogenic global warming. 4. Progressive power shift: For the most part, West Virginia is a socially conservative state, so the social policies of progressive Democrats tend to scare them. Manchin’s (and Sinema’s) uncooperative antics over the Biden administration’s BBB Act, however, have done more to augment and embolden the progressive wing within the Democratic Party than any other political action seen since the Great Recession aftermath. It’s not uncommon for West Virginians to prioritize social policies over economic ones, so I’m sure many of them aren’t too happy with this development.