You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Rant’ tag.
We all know the UCP are scum. Just terrible garbage people. Broken promises left and right, austerity for everyone, and harming the poor, the young, the old, the severely handicapped, and everyone. Then they lie about doing these things even as they are doing them. This is pretty much neo-liberalism 101. It’s been going on since Reagan, Thatcher, and our very own Brian M. and Klein. What’s also true is that your average UCP supporter is also trash.
Yup, that’s right. I’m calling you all trash. That, after all that’s been going on, the UCP would still win an election if it was called today is reprehensible. It means one of three things is happening. It means either you don’t know what’s going on, or you don’t care what’s going on, or you support what’s going on. In any of these three situations you are trash but it’s the people who don’t know what is going on that are the worst of you. Not that this distinction matters much as the scale ranges from sewage byproducts to nuclear waste. But ya, those of you who don’t know what is going on are the nuclear waste.
Seriously, if you are in ignorance of what is going on all that means is that it is purposeful ignorance, the worst of all ignorance. It would take a concerted effort to avoid all media and be unaware of how your choice at the polling station is decimating this province. But I’m guessing if you are reading this then you aren’t one of those people because they are likely unicorns. As in they don’t exist or if they do they are so rare that they’ve never been spotted by another person.
As for the other two, which is worse you ask? Well, you guessed it, it’s those that don’t care. At least those who support this selling off of our province stand for something. I mean it’s a terrible and evil something, but at least it’s something. If you are one of those people that just shrug your shoulders and go “ehh.. one politician is as bad as another” then you are the problem. You’ve literally just lived through a politician that kept the lights on during one of the worst economic downturns we’ve ever had and are seeing a politician that took a bad but improving situation and immediate turned it into dog shit and see no difference. Honestly, you are bad and you should feel bad.
But wait, there is still time! You can contact your MLA, tell them you voted for them and you are very angry and will not be voting for them next …. BWAHAHAHAHA. Nope. Sorry. It’s too late. Kenney is an unaccountable king for the next few years and by the time he is done with his first term the damage will take generations to repair. But don’t worry, because that won’t happen either because you idiots will still keep voting UCP because one politician is as bad as another, am I right?
So to sum things up, the UCP are trash and so are their supporters. Their austerity is causing generational damage to our province and everyone will suffer, especially the most vulnerable. Nothing they do will bring back the heydays of $100/barrel of oil and nothing they can do can even affect that. So we’re all screwed because garbage people are voting for garbage politicians.
*(editor’s note – As this post has been rebutted, I’ve given it a second time over to improve readability and fix some of the more egregious construction errors)
I’m kinda glad people can share their opinions on WordPress (mostly), but there seems to be a category of dudes that take it upon themselves to write important(?) words about radical feminism. While discussing the great satan and how it is destroying men, society, and the universe (clutches pearls), it becomes markedly clear that the author(s) in question know sweet fuck all about how society works, and if possible, even less about feminism.
I’m sure you’ve heard it before: radical feminism is targeting men, harming them, and making them victims of sexism against males.”
Sometimes the punter in question gets close to the truth, but almost always quickly veers away; asymptotically doomed to forever miss the point. As is the case here.
Radical feminists correctly deduce that the class of men oppress the class of women in society. That we should change the structure of society to get rid of the oppression is the crucial factoid that dudes just seem to gloss over.
Instead we get the pablum presented in the quote. I don’t pretend to understand what this first sentence is saying. I’m gonna apply my bafflegab to English translator and roughly interpret the point our beleaguered dude is trying to make. Best guess folks: The argument being made is that radical feminists are calling men out for their bullshit behaviour and this is making them have a sad.
Sorry my dude, but enough men are still on board the good ship patriarchy and thus continue to treat women as second class citizens.
“While all of this is true, there are victims here of third-wave feminism that we don’t talk about as much (and no, I’m not actually addressing the unborn babes that are slaughtered by the thousands). “
Good, because it sounds like, unsurprisingly, you are against female bodily autonomy. (*shocked*)
“That’s right. For as much as the Left would like to make it seem like they’re truly concerned with the plight of females, they’ve proven time and time again that the last thing they really care about is raising up the females around them. You may have heard about “sisterhood”, “female power”, kumbaya around the campfire, etc. But while strong female relationships do thrive in different situations, this idea of “empowered females banding together” isn’t quite as accurate as we’d all like to believe. Don’t believe me?”
No, you’ve demonstrated an astonishing allergy to even the most basic features of society and how it works. The best part is, you’re going to start making assumptions and arguments based on nothing but your sheer ignorance and the power of your uninformed opinion. Buckle in tight, my lovelies, because the nothing good can come when your argumentative building blocks are made of high-octane stupid.
“Take for example, the statistics. Men are often cited as being the ultra-violent, over-aggressive beings that are causing workplace abuse and bullying. “
Men perpetrate the most violence in the world. The current shite state of things is a direct result of the ‘male way’ of handling problems.
“While men contribute, it’s actually women that tend to target women in work situations.”
Based on what? You are making an assertion of fact right here. Where is it coming from other than the dark recesses of your arse?
“While men contribute, it’s actually women that tend to target women in work situations. This is not due to men’s “crippling” of women and turning them against each other, but instead due to the fact that women are naturally very competitive and intellectually aggressive [see HERE and HERE for examples and studies proving this point].”
I do love it when people cite research. It is also good to read the sources and see what they actually say, rather than just what you think they say.
Quote from the first source: “I recently conducted a survey focused on women in the workplace, and found that approximately 70% had been the victim of either workplace bullying or covert undermining by a female boss”
Methodology? Sample Size? Where the results were published? Nothing like that to be found? Okay then, first source is trash, disregard.
Quote from the second source: “More recently, research has shown that women may not support each other’s progress specifically in situations where they are outnumbered by men. Ryan et al. (2012) found evidence that female supervisors were less supportive of female employees in male-dominated organizations.”
Less supportive, in situations where males outnumber females does not support what you’re saying – “but instead due to the fact that women are naturally very competitive and intellectually aggressive “- your claim that women are ‘naturally competitive’ is not backed up by even a charitable reading of your source, and claims that people are “naturally x” is usually fallacious (see genetic fallacy).
“Keep in mind that women were designed to compete for the best resources. For as long as time has begun, women have competed for the best man, the best home, and in a modern day when marriage is no longer the only way to financial and physical security, the best jobs.”
Tests for genetic fitness of partners is indeed a part of our system of drives. But it is not a single totalizing endeavour. We are a complex social species and it is wrong to attribute motivations of people based on one factor, especially without consider the current context (the workplace).
“As such, everything that leads to a better quality of life and more security is something that women will bully each other over. This is why (biologically, at least) girls tend to dress nicer not just to impress men, but also to outdo their former females, all of whom have the same motivation of getting a mate.”
*sigh* Biologically speaking you’re full of feces. We have the social construction of society that great affects how we act and are how we are expected to act in society. The wearing of clothes (nice or not) is a social construction and has little to do with biological precursors.
“Radical feminism, however, rejects the idea that women have this natural competition and instead embraces a group mentality where all women band together to fight abusive male. “
Please quote the Radical Feminist source that says this? The only branch of radical feminism that embraces this idea exists only in your head. For bonus points, historically speaking, our societies have been based around the principle of cooperation. Only when hierarchical structures have been introduced (see patriarchy) do we see competition in society become a lauded virtue.
Women need solidarity to fight the patriarchal structures in society because going against societal norms individually is not effective and is quite dangerous to undertake without support. Do not mistake action against patriarchy as action against particular men – it is the system that empowers them that is the problem.
“So why do feminists want to ignore the damage perpetrated by females and focus primarily on that spread by males?”
Because male violence is endemic within the structure of society? Women literally mold their lives around reducing the threat of rape and male violence. Violent males and their aspirations exist in every facet of society and if you happen to be in the class that receives most of unwarranted aggression, then it becomes a problem.
“For one thing, it means females can continue inflicting this damage on females while crying “victim”.”
Oh, so if women would just shut up and let men do their thing, the problem of violent male behaviour would fix itself (?).
No.
It doesn’t work that way, the problems of society need to be identified, deconstructed, and replaced with ones that acknowledge the base humanity of all members of society.
“And it means they can continue to shift the blame of their bullying onto men so they can talk about what they really consider to be the “problem”. “
Men need no help in the bullying department, no blame shift is required.
“ Girls who are read this book will be taught that they are discriminated in every circumstance without reason”
Truth hurts, no? Living in a patriarchy is not a fun time if you happen to be female.
“They will be taught that all-guy’s club are sexist and that any activity in which they are not the first chosen is due merely to their gender.”
Being educated, or allowed to vote, or have a credit card/bank account in their name was once only in the domain of males. So one must look with a certain amount of skepticism to ‘all-guys’ clubs or organizations.”
“And for girls who don’t submit to this narrative? They are taught that they are being sexist or even worse, that they have no minds of their own and that they are being bowled over by men.”
Plugging your ears and denying the reality of women’s station in society doesn’t fix the problem. Feminists realize though that each woman must strike her own patriarchal bargain within society and do what she must to survive.
“Their problem isn’t that they dare to think differently; their problem is the evil patriarchy who has stuffed their oppressive, sexist ideas down their throats. “
The patriarchal norms of society are passed on through both the father and the mother. The mother does what she can to help her daughter survive in a society that is fundamentally arrayed against her and her personhood.
“Girls in the past were faced by ideas that kept them in their station in life and the same is true today. Not much has changed unfortunately.”
Glad to see that you (unknowingly) acknowledge patriarchy is a thing and its bad for women.
“Girls are still being told how and what to think. The only difference? Those distributing this wisdom are not their fathers, their brothers, their husbands, or their friends. Instead it is their sisters, who insist that the girl who refuses to believe is the girl who refuses to rise above her circumstances. “
Because men know the solutions to female problems. Right… Right? Most men cannot even fathom (see this post) what being female in society is like, and what women do to survive within it. It is only from a position of assured ignorance does drivel like this get written.
“It is the poor female who must choose between obeying the louder members of her own gender or allowing herself to be crushed beneath the “patriarchal” heel. “
You have a very strange notion of what a patriarchal bargain is. The choice women face is how to deal with the fact that they are treated as the submissive class in society and their base humanity is always in question. Sure you can go along with the ‘proper’ feminine prescriptions of society but how much of yourself and your ambitions are you willing to sacrifice to guarantee(?) your position/safety in society?
Feminists ask the question, why should there have to be a sacrifice in the first place?
Oh hey we have a rebuttal ping back. I went a typed a response over there, but nothing’s come through yet. Being somewhat experienced in dealing with people who are perhaps not the most intellectually honest spoons in the drawer, I’ve replicated my response in the comments below. Good fun. :)
The RPOJ comes for thee.
Greetings fellow blog travellers, today we have a special treat as we get to look through the looking glass of the misogyny that masquerades as queer theory. Hypocritical, obtuse, with a generous side of bloviation make for a prime field day for the RPOJ. Let’s watch how attempting to justify violence against women, the rewriting of gay history, and making the case for having men in feminism come together in one extruded steaming mass of horseshit.
Let’s begin, shall we?
—–
“There is not a writer from The Queerness who would disagree on how wrong it is to make threats of violence, to use violent words and violent actions. We do not condone those on the Twittersphere who participate in violent words or actions aimed at anyone, and particularly women, who are often the target.”
The higher the goal, the further to fall. I would just like my careful readers to keep this point in mind as we go through this particular RPOJ, because the hypocrisy quickly ramps up to 11 and then manages to increase from there.
“We don’t however believe that the acronym ‘T.E.R.F’ in itself is a violent term. “
Well dayum! See! I told you! It didn’t take long for the hypocritical bullshit to start oozing. Fun fact: ‘terf’ like the term harridan, witch, slut, cunt, whore (et cetera) are all terms used to describe females who have the audacity to stand up against males and defy the patriarchal stereotypes society has mandated for them.
- Just a small window into how the term ‘Terf’ is used – https://terfisaslur.com
- Elizabeth Hungerford remarks on TERF – “Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting. These characterizations are hyperbolic, misleading, and ultimately defamatory. They do nothing but escalate the vitriol and fail to advance the conversation in any way.”
- TERF is used as a label for ‘uppity women’ who do not accept the patriarchal male narrative and normative attitudes.
So, the usage of the term ‘TERF’ is almost always accompanied by insults and threats of violence (see #1). Yet we have this statement:
“‘TigTog’, a blogger coined the term during discussions on a blog post, which if you think about it, really isn’t outside the realm of possibility, “
I could care less about who coined the term. It is being used to target and harass females on the internet and in the real world. Said targeted group – feminists – would prefer not to have to deal with the term. You know, common decency mutual respect that sort of thing. But rather than acknowledge female linguistic preferences – Annette, the author of this hackneyed literary drive-by, would rather attempt to justify the usage of the term.
(skipping prolix and shitty ‘justifications’)
“She’s right, any group identifying word can and will be used against that group as a slur. For example: ‘queers’, ‘gays’, ‘lesbos’, ‘dykes’, we’ve all heard them, we all know what they sound like. “
Precisely. So should we make the case for normalizing a derogatory term? Or perhaps, maybe, just maybe, use the terminology the particular group would like employed. But nah, let’s continue to use slurs for these despicable TERF’s, the faster we can ‘other’ them, the easier it is to hate them.
“Imagine if Katlyn had said “I continue to hate these fucking lesbians what else is new”, or Antonio saying “kill every fucking queer”. It’s not new is it, we hear this all the time. I’ve been subject to a few death threats, and we can see, absolutely, how it can be upsetting.”
Yes. Violence and death threats are bad. Maybe not attempting to justify their usage would be a good thing.
“Without getting into an academic discussion about how violent words are used to silence women and how this is misogyny, lets remember that men aren’t the only perpetrators of this.”
Because the male epidemic of violence against women is sooooo fuuuucking booooring. I mean really, do we have to go over the fact again that the class of males overwhelmingly commit the majority of acts of violence toward the other class of people females the world over, pretty much since forever?
Like fuck, this little tidbit seems to be at the root of most radical feminist analysis of the problems our society faces – maybe one shouldn’t gloss it over and skip directly to personal anecdotes about how mean those evil terfs…err females are.
“In my time as a trans ally I’ve been subject to horrific abuse from cis-het women on twitter, even some cis-lesbians laid into me for standing up for my trans friend’s appearance in Diva Magazine. I’m a cis-lesbian and I’ve been called a ‘misogynist’ and a ‘homophobe’.”
Make no mistake, transactivism is misogynistic and homophobic by nature. Sorry about your luck.
“We at the Queerness firmly distance ourselves from this type of violent language, and we have no time for trolls like this on the internet.”
See, I’m not too sure what you’re referring to, the accurate description of what transactivism is or the use of violent language, of course which terf is a part of. I’m guessing though, it seems like it is only violence when applied to *you*.
“Yet it’s those like this that make it harder for those who are trans positive to defend their trans friends and colleagues, and end up getting lumped in with this group of trolls, because they use one acronym in a more appropriate way than these trolls,”
Discourse with transactivists is almost always fraught with threats and violence. Male resort to violent behaviour when their arguments and ideas are shown to fall short. Nothing new under the sun here.
“So let’s discuss trans exclusionary radical feminists without using the term itself. “
So after 500 hundred feckless words of abysmal pseudo-justification now let’s not use the word that I’m trying so hard to prove is OKAY and JUST FINE for radical feminists.
The term ‘terf’ is either problematic, or it isn’t.
Clearly, for a large segment of the radical feminist population, the usage of terf -whether it is intended to or not (oooooooh, intent isn’t magic is it?)- isn’t cool. Respectful people, interested in furthering rational argument would acknowledge this and move on.
The Our Queerness author quotes Rebecca Reily-Cooper it is one of the few breaths of fresh air in this piece so for interests of my sanity I choose to quote it.
“From writers such as Rebecca Reily-Cooper who states the definition of radical feminism as:
“an approach to analysing the oppression and exploitation of the class of female people by the class of male people. It seeks to uncover and challenge the root causes and origins of that system of oppression, which it labels patriarchy.” RRC’s blog
That’s fine, I can get on board with that.
She states that the term ‘T.E.R.F’ is ‘not a meaningful description of feminist politics’. But different people clearly have a different view of feminist politics.”
Ahhh…thank you RRC. So at least we have a viable definition of what radical feminism is, and what its goals are.
“There were several cis-het radical feminists who sent a flurry of abuse at one of my trans members this year. “
One statement contains the kernel of radical feminist theory, and thus the basis of radical feminist praxis, the other statement contains no refutation or counter-argument – rather mere anecadata – essentially saying those bad feminists were mean to one of my friends – how dare they?!?
This suggests a lack of a reasonable counter argument and no, your feelings are not an argument.
“And there were plenty of LGBTQ+ and cis-het allies who, having read the screen shots from that discourse, would NOT have described those comments and views as ‘feminism‘. They’d have described them as ‘hate speech’.”
Me and my good buddies were offended! Still not an argument. This is the meat of transactivism, right here folks: Accept my personal subjective reality or else!
Sorry (not sorry)! Material reality takes precedence over subjective personal feelings and respecting material reality (biological sex) is not a crime and is certainly not ‘phobic’ in any reasonable way.
“So are both sides as bad as each other ?”
Well no actually, as transactivists online and in person threaten and physically attack women who speak against their particular delusion (see terfisalur link above). Transactivists support deplatforming radical feminists from speaking at public engagements. Transactivists illegally occupy and deface female only spaces.
Yeah, and the radical feminist side…. *crickets*. So no, both sides are not as bad as the other, stop with false equivalencies (side note: attempting to equivocate this male violence with radical feminist’s *CRITICISM* of transactivism is really quite beyond the pale).
” Or can we simply not ever agree ?”
Fuck no. Feminism is the struggle to liberate females from patriarchal structures and normative attitudes in society. Gender – a hierarchical patriarchal concept – exists to oppress members of the female class and must be dismantled, not celebrated.
Why are gender and gender roles a good thing, and how do women benefit from the preservation of traditional gender roles? What exactly does trasnactivism have to say about that?
*Crickets* because transactivsm isn’t a feminist project, it seeks only to promulgate the status quo and continue with the oppressive gender hiearchy that benefits the class of males in society.
“When you appear on a website that lists your twitter handle and allows a single user to block all 800+ of those names simultaneously to avoid abuse, it suggests you belong to a ‘hate group’. “
Because Transactivists (FETA’s – Female Exclusionary Trans Activists, if we like the snappy four letter acronyms) don’t allow criticism of their ideology and have a block list to stop interactions with those who would question it is much more a reflection of the insular, cultish nature of the trans community. You can’t argue with radial feminists because your arguments are shit, so plugging your ears and labelling people ‘terfs’ or ‘transphobic’ are the only plays you have.
No ideology or movement can be free from criticism.
“If you purposefully and deliberately target trans activists and question the validity of trans people’s existence, it suggests you have some prejudice.”
Textbook play here. Questioning transactivism is not debating over their existence. Trans people have the capacity to hold shitty ideas their ideas and those ideas should, rightly, be subject to criticism and rebuttal – especially if they impact other classes of people in society (see members of the female class).
“If you imply that somehow trans women are predators; that there is some hypothetical risk to cis-women from trans women, or simply that you can’t accept them as they are because you: ‘just can’t agree’, and when you dress it up as ‘gender critical’, rather than transphobia, then you probably are trans exclusionary.”
Transwomen – MEN – behave like men. It is not a particularly shocking fact when one adheres to analysis based on objective, material fact.
“If you simply ask polite questions this is different. But lets be clear, the questions: “why do I have to accept them in my bathrooms ?”, and “Are they are taking something away from my definition of womenhood?”, are not very polite, and are entirely dehumanising.”
Men, do not belong in female spaces. Female spaces provide some small margin of protection from the male violence that permeates our society. Natal sex should be the determinant of which bathroom you use.
Why don’t transwomen use the male washroom? Most of them still have the plumbing for it. Let me answer that for you – the very real threat of male violence. Now why should females be forced to put up with that very same threat? Why is the issue of female safety from violence even a debatable issue?
What an opportunity for the trans and feminist communities to come together and name the root of the problem – violent male behaviour (enforcement of patriarchal gender norms)- and make that an issue.
But that choice was not made.
Rather, the choice via dubious legislative attempts, was to make female only spaces accessible to men based on often nothing more than their deeply subjective personal feelings. And that, is a crock of shit, and is rightly being fought against by radical feminists.
The definition of woman is adult human female, the gender-feels of entitled males does not change the original definition one iota.
“Trans women have been at the centre of the LGBTQ+ civil rights movement from the beginning, “
Demonstrably wrong, if you happen to be talking about StoneWall. Trans historical revisionism (the “T” was added in the 1990’s) is poor form and a dubious practice at best.
“[…]even the LGBTQ+ community needs to recognise that, and feminism is a good thing as long as it doesn’t trample on human beings on its’ way.”
Feminism, by effective definition, is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy. The misogyny rife in the transactivst movement qualifies it as a force to be struggled against in the fight for female liberation.
“but trans women are right there with you in that fight. Don’t shut them out because of a word, or an acronym.”
Yes, I look to the tranwomen for their bold positions on female infanticide, female genital mutilation, female sex trafficking, prostitution, and abortion. I see page after page of poignant prose and argumentation for the advancement of female rights by transwomen….
Oh wait. I don’t.
I see females threatened with verbal and physical violence for not complying with the gendered delusions of men in dresses. I see feminist speakers deplatformed for having a contrary opinion to the trans-cult. I see women only events and spaces subverted because people who have problems with material reality some how think that because they belong there – they should belong there (white male privilege and entitlement at its best).
If your feminism is not working toward female liberation, then it ain’t feminism. Full stop.
Please (*please*), feel free to form your own movements and organizations – but stop co-opting feminist movements and female only spaces.
“When people feel marginalised they fight back, they get angry, if you knew trans people personally, you’d get it. “
Fighting back in tranactivism means harassing, threatening, and hurting females. In other words, standard male behaviour. Feminists know quite well about the capacities of angry men, this has happened before and it will happen again. The tide eventually will be turned in this arena as the struggle for female liberation continues.
“You’d realise that tilting at windmills in this debate is allowing those cis-gender men who are the real culprits, off the hook.”
Something we can agree on, of course my version is without the gender-newspeak because male violence is male violence in whatever guise they happen to present to society.
“Why not educate them to be better men, because predatory cis-gender men don’t need a change in the law to enter a woman only space.”
So we should make it easier (self declaration), not harder for males to enter female spaces gotcha. This simple phrase highlights the vast differences between queer (male-centric) and feminist (female-centric) theory.
Have your queer theory, but know that it mostly represents yet another attempt to keep the female class oppressed in society and that effective feminism is in opposition to it.
And so endeth the RPOJ. :)
Just so we don’t have to play the “no true scotsman” game on the individual level, lets look at the response of Action for Trans Health London has to say regarding the incident where four male transactivists beat up a 60 year old woman.
Notice the nice transition from condemning violence against women, to “WHEN THE TERFS ATTACK, WE FIGHT BACK”. Almost feels like what happens to females when they reject a so called ‘nice guy’s’ advance – the niceness evaporates and is replaced by violence or the threat of violence. Thanks dudes for showing your true colours.
This was to be a debate, with speakers from both sides to discussing concept of gender identity; the fucking peak of what (so-called) civilized societies do when faced with contentious issues.
But it wasn’t it be. The queer regressive left scuttled the event. (screen cap from the New Statesman article)
Fuck your hypocritical queer activism. If radial feminist arguments are shit, then let them say them in safety and security and rebut them and demonstrate why they are faulty, as what we do (or have airs toward) in civilized society. But no, you won’t tolerate debate and move to violence (of the male variety) and your actions speak tellingly of the strength of your position. Your cowardice has been on full display during the September 13th Hyde park incident.
There is no going back now, people are seeing the violence that is transactivism as the cloak of queer respectability has been torn away. Male violence is the language that you spoke on the 13th, as it has always been, but now it is an undercurrent no more.
Females see you, and I hope to christ-on-a-pogo-stick that women who somehow think that including men in feminism is workable, will see you for what you are. (hint:Violent MEN)
It is time for women to reject the queer/trans agenda and the subversion of feminist theory that goes part and parcel with them. Rather, it is time to reform Feminism proper around the notion that Feminism exists for the liberation of females from patriarchy – full fucking stop.
Oh hey, and a recap of all the events in case you missed it.
http://auntiewanda.tumblr.com/post/165366518906/oceanlesbian-lesbian-lizards
I’m not sure why people are having such problems dealing with factual reality.
Whether it be the gender-queer crowd and their patented ability not to understand that sex and gender are not the same thing or here today with this story about the head of the EPA not accepting the fact that CO2 is a significant green house gas and pumping more of it into the atmosphere threatens human existence as we know it.
“The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday he is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change and said he wants Congress to weigh in on whether CO2 is a harmful pollutant that should be regulated.
Pruitt, 48, is a climate change denier who sued the agency he now leads more than a dozen times as Oklahoma’s attorney general. He said he was not convinced that carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal is the main cause of climate change, a conclusion widely embraced by scientists. “
What the ever living frak is this malarkey? Predictably, scientists are call Pruitt’s bullshit for what it is.
“Scientists immediately criticized Pruitt’s statement, saying it ignores a large body of evidence collected over decades that shows fossil fuel burning as the main factor in climate change.
“We can’t afford to reject this clear and compelling scientific evidence when we make public policy. Embracing ignorance is not an option,” Ben Santer, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said in a statement.
The Supreme Court unleashed a fury of regulation and litigation when it ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Two years later, the EPA declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants.
Pruitt said the Supreme Court’s decision should not have been viewed as permission for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
“Decisions were made at the executive branch level that didn’t respect the rule of law,” Pruitt said in his Houston speech.
Pruitt has previously said the EPA should not regulate CO2 without a law passed by Congress authorizing it to do so. The Republican-controlled Congress could potentially issue a strong signal to the EPA that carbon dioxide should not be regulated by the agency, a move that would undermine many Obama-era rules aimed at curbing emissions.”
When Florida is mostly underwater, then – maybe – these people will understand what AGW is.
Happy Lemmings Day! a.k.a Black Friday
Should we besmirch this plucky rodent’s escutcheon by associating Lemmings as the embodiment of greed and feral-consumerism known to a good chunk of the western world as ‘Black Friday’? It isn’t really fair (hey, just like capitalism) to play on the misunderstood ‘suicidal tendencies’ of the much maligned lemming. For the record:
“Lemmings have become the subject of a widely popular misconception that they commit mass suicide when they migrate, by jumping off cliffs. It is in fact not a mass suicide but the result of their migratory behavior. Driven by strong biological urges, some species of lemmings may migrate in large groups when population density becomes too great. Lemmings can swim and may choose to cross a body of water in search of a new habitat. In such cases, many may drown if the body of water is so wide as to stretch their physical capability to the limit. This fact, combined with the unexplained fluctuations in the population of Norwegian lemmings, gave rise to the misconception.[6]“
The answer, dear friends, is of course we should – appropriating and exploiting nature is a zesty analog for capitalism and the consumer culture that feeds the satanic mills that are grinding our planet into dust. (Not enough sleep and too much coffee during this particular writing stint.)
It’s hard to believe, but sometimes your dear host finds it necessary to perch upon a perfectly precarious high horse in order to dispense the needed wisdom to the unwashed massess, the hoi polloi, the basket of deplorables, et cetera. I remember making a post about Black Friday expressing my disgust with scenes that seem to happen around this time of year.
As noted in the video above – we’re still mired in this terrible consumerist extravaganza. The problem is that, I’m not disgusted, but rather saddened by the whole, often gory, spectacle. The lengths people will go to, to get stuff, that they think will bring them happiness in their life.
Their association of “happiness = stuff” is no mere coincidence, but rather the endgame of a society, while drunk on capitalism, that measures success, status, and happiness with the amount of material goods acquired. Of course, the needs are manufactured (followed by the goods to meet those ‘needs’) so that the prospect of new shiny baubles will be the next ‘true’ indicator of having ‘made it’ in life. The process of chasing after material goods in the vainglorious pursuit of happiness is a nasty positive feedback loop that reduces citizens in a democratic state to mere consumers always hungry for their next fix and thus justifying the exploitative system that feeds them their drug.
I can’t help thinking that if we had a guaranteed minimum income and housing for everyone people might start to stray from the consumption paradigm. People might start renewing connections with others and engaging in pursuits that they actually want to do instead of what they have to do in their struggle to avoid the depredations of abject poverty.
We’ve lost reverence for the security and connectedness a strong community provides – and it is only way back from the abyss that we continue to create for ourselves.
Make no mistake – capitalism in its current incarnation requires the exploitation of people and resources to make it work. Exploiting people and natural resources inevitably leads to war (see Iraq for instance) and this in this zeal for feeding our doom-systems we often forget that eventually
Start with lemmings and end with Lord of the Rings references, you’ll only see it here at DWR (for better or worse).
I’m fond of a good rant. :)
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…