AOC is making a list, checking it twice
And threatening those who’ve been naughty not nice:
After more than two dozen moderate Democrats broke from their party’s progressive wing and sided with Republicans on a legislative amendment Wednesday, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reportedly sounded the alarm in a closed-door meeting Thursday and said those Democrats were “putting themselves on a list.”
The legislation that prompted the infighting was a bill that would expand federal background checks for gun purchases, the Washington Post reported. But a key provision requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified if illegal immigrants attempt to purchase guns saw 26 moderate Democrats side with Republicans.
According to the Post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scolded her wayward center-leaning colleagues, telling them: “We are either a team or we’re not, and we have to make that decision.”
But Ocasio-Cortez reportedly took it a step further. She said she would help progressive activists unseat those moderates in their districts in the 2020 elections, the report said. Her spokesman Corbin Trent told the paper that she made the “list” comment during the meeting.
“She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them,” Trent said, referring to ICE.
There are at least three things about this story that I find of interest. The first is how it illustrates AOC’s sense of her great power. She’s a freshman House member, very freshman. But she’s not the least bit reluctant to threaten her seniors and the people who are supposedly fellow members of a party that would like to present a united front and often does present that front.
But it makes perfect sense that AOC would have no qualms about challenging any of them—and that even includes Pelosi (who on this particular occasion was also chiding the wayward members, but without the explicit threats to primary them). After all, AOC got her political start by primarying a man who was almost as powerful in the House as Pelosi, and winning. She knocked him off his high horse and never looked back. This takes remarkable and overwhelming self-confidence and assertiveness, and AOC has those things to spare. She is unafraid—that is, arrogant and swollen with pride at her accomplishments, as well as her huge popularity. This makes her extra-dangerous to more moderate Democrats, the few relics of that type who happen to remain in office.
It also makes AOC dangerous to the Democratic Party as a whole—if in fact she is miscalculating on the readiness of Democratic voters and of America to make a Great Leap Forward into Our Glorious Socialist Future.
The second thing the story illustrates is her ruthlessness. That’s somewhat related to the first characteristic, but somewhat separate as well. I don’t think any consideration of kindness or restraint would hold AOC back from doing whatever she found necessary politically or otherwise, and she would do it to fellow Democrats without batting an eye.
The third thing I noticed is embedded in this quote by AOC’s spokesperson: “She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them…”. Note the vague mention of “activists.” Who are these activists, and isn’t AOC one of them? Of course she is. But there are plenty more behind the scenes (for example, I have written a post about the Justice Democrats who have been promoting and advising AOC for quite some time). She is fully on board with them (and they with her) and is their telegenic frontwoman. And it is likely that there are other activist groups that she is tight with as well.
If you think about it, though, why would AOC have to give a list of this type to any leftist activist worth his or her salt? It’s not as though the way members of Congress voted on the bill is a secret. The list itself, and the handing over of the list, is just window-dressing. What she is really saying to these people is not about handing over a list; it is a warning that she and the Justice Democrats et al will unleash the activist kraken on them.
In one sense this is good. Who on the right doesn’t want to see the Democrats shoot themselves (metaphorically) in the foot? Only thing is—the damage depends on whether the growing number of leftist officeholders and would-be officeholders in the Party have overestimated the eagerness of the American public to elect them. It also depends on what else those leftist activists may have up their sleeves. I have no doubt that they are not just going to slink off into the sunset if AOC herself is primaried next time, and loses.
NOTE: For those who didn’t get the kraken reference, or just want to watch again:
According to TheHill, Occasional Cortex (aka Occluded Cortex) is none too pleased with the WSJ, which has written that she “leads a generation of young people to take pride in their ignorance– of the laws of nature, of history, of the Constitution, of the eternal battle for freedom– and still succeed.”
You have to wonder if someone isn’t setting her up to be some sort of sacrificial lamb that is hoped will really start the revolution.
If it’s as simple a primarying her out of her seat…her 15 minutes (1 term) will soon enough be over & the D part of the UniParty will return to stasis. But if she & Tlaib & Omar successfully push the Ds into the seriously deranged end of left…something will give and it might get ugly soon after.
The trick in recent times for the Democratic Party, has been to keep increasingly-different base-elements under one roof.
Polling long-term has shown self-identifying “Liberals” as struggling to score 20%. Under certain circumstances – Trump – there can be facultative adoption of an identity that isn’t lasting. (Happens with the GOP too. They & Trump eg are banking on nice Christians who have a strong antipathy for Trump’s behavior … but are thrilled to have an effective champion.)
Can Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (temporarily) entrain a useful block of Democrats, for reasons other than a dedication to socialistic idealogy? Maybe. But probably not by creating a circular firing-squad.
The GOP have a large number of smaller Red states. The Democrats have a small number of larger Blue states. ‘Moderate’ Democrats often have a high level of Trump-support, at home.
Electoral college-wise, Trump figured this out correctly, his very first try … against massively-entrenched & deeply-experienced operatives. That’s how delicate the Democrat ‘balance’ is.
And bear in mind, there are more DEM Moderates than the 26 who stood their ground.
Alexandria -Mao- Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive leap past Stalin et al.
“I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”
— Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy
“I have here in my hand a list of however many people that are known to the Democrat Establishment as being people not buying into the AOC Socialist Utopia and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the Democrat Establishment.”
The woman is a self-absorbed airhead.
But I am very, very afraid of her and of her amen chorus.
Such descriptives as neo employs regarding Rep. Ocasio-C — “her great power”, “winning”, “remarkable and overwhelming self-confidence and assertiveness”, “unafraid”, “arrogant and swollen with pride at her accomplishments, as well as her huge popularity”, “dangerous” — have together the effect to put me in mind of the image of beautiful Alkibiades persuading the Athenians to sail a grand fleet off to conquer the sunny lands of Syracuse and Sicily.
Until of course **zap** the Herms are castrated, defaced, and all their (his) wonderful plans are off to hell and gone.
Damn shame, right? Wasn’t it?
On the other hand, as to this “forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs” reference? I’ve got no clue.
by primarying a man who was almost as powerful in the House as Pelosi, and winning. She knocked him off his high horse and never looked back. This takes remarkable and overwhelming self-confidence and assertiveness, and AOC has those things to spare. She is unafraid
By primarying a man who was napping and didn’t take her seriously. This happens on odd occasions in New York politics. It doesn’t take overwhelming self-confidence to run for Congress in New York, just an understanding of what it takes to mount a successful petition campaign. What was odd is that she won, and it’s a reasonable wager that’s a function of the demographic evolution of the district and complacency by the political pros.
Someone needs to get to work updating this classic for AOC:
https://youtu.be/vw2Tr9xBw1Y?t=166
AOC is scary – and a product of US colleges that have graduated from years of discrimination against Rep professors and thought, to current demonization.
The PC-Klan stands ready to e-lynch those who disagree; and sometimes even those who don’t agree loudly enough.
The tribal hatreds being promoted by the Dems are terrible. I suspect most moderates will be turned off and vote Trump in 2020 — but the Dems who get elected will be terrible, and the Trump-hate will very easily become hate for Republicans.
Democrat Derangement Syndrome — unjustified hate and demonization against Reps and those who disagree.
ArtDeco,
I’m afraid so; there was no professional reason to lose to AOC. It happens periodically, everywhere. He was powerful, but she won on his negligence, not genius.
So the DEMs are drunk tonight. The socialists are ugly, and irrational. Tomorrow the DEMs will be sober, but the socialists will still be ugly, and irrational.
Interesting article — “Data Suggest That Gentrifying Neighborhoods Powered Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Victory“; an excerpt:
Art Deco:
It takes over whelming self-confidence to believe in yourself and decide that while in your 20s you can run for the House with no experience whatsoever, as well as succeeding in unseating one of the biggest powers in that House. We look back and say “well, he was napping,” and he probably was. But she didn’t know that in advance. She had the drive and the chutzpah and the arrogance.
And I’m not just talking about her arrogance prior to her win. I’m talking about her self-confidence and arrogance as a result of her win. If she was self-confident and arrogant before her win, after it she was many times more self-confident and arrogant. Why not? She won! And not only that. She has a tremendous following and is in the news almost daily. She is, IMHO, swollen with self-importance right now, combined with the fervor of a True Believer.
sdferr:
I don’t know what the forcible drugs part is, either. But it’s probably some meme on the left. I can’t find much when I Google it except for the Ocasio-Cortez quote (which she now denies, at least somewhat).
I was amazed at AOCinDC’s statement about the Berlin Wall and out Southern Border of the USA being the same thing. I have a son in his mid-40’s and I called him and asked him what he knew about the Berlin Wall. His answer started with the Allies partition of both Germany and Berlin at the end of WWII, then he went on to discuss the 1947 Berlin Air Lift, a big deal standing up to the Russians. He knew that as time went by too many people in East Germany were making their way West through Berlin so the Wall went up in the early 1960’s and it came down when he was in High School in 1989. Then he went on to tell me that AOC was not born when the wall came down and she was about ten years old when 9-11 occurred.
AOC has a very shallow life experience that appears to have occurred in a bubble of East Coast left wing existence. My son told me that he has made it through two recessions, 9-11 when he was getting finished with college and then in 2008 when the financial stuff imploded and good old Obama the WonderPres was elected. Eight years of positive press for the top executive who appeared to be a real cool dude who could do no wrong if you can try to put yourself in AOC’s shoes and perspective which my son does better than I.
Son’s take on the whole thing is that AOC has no idea how all the fine folk living in states that voted for Trump feel about anything except that she is on a mission, she is right and she has no idea about real life stuff for real people. My response is that I hope she is a flash in the pan and burns herself out but I also think she is being fed the hard core, go for broke, left platform just to break the ice and test the waters. If enough get on board and follow she will be a leader, if they don’t she is expendable and I find the reaction of the press giving her positive coverage scary since she is kind of bat crap crazy.
She needs to be on a little list and she never will be missed.
I know that she is starting to scare me. She almost seems to be the kind of person, that if given the powrr, would open up camps for those she does not approve of.
AOC is no Churchill. She is full of herself and will wither in the absurdity of her 15 minutes.
Scott,
She does sound that way, doesn’t she? The Trotskyites are restless so she will have a purge to get rid of them.
She supposedly graduated from a top university in Economics and International Relations but AOC is remarkably ignorant on both subjects. She is also an airhead. Black-haired AOC has redeemed the blondes.
If I recall correctly, about ten percent of the voters in her district voted either for her or for her opponent. Someone who could mobilize a fair percentage of the others could win handily next time. With some more triumphs like killing the Amazon deal under her belt, she’ll be back to tending bar soon. Let us hope.
neo on March 1, 2019 at 6:26 pm at 6:26 pm said:
sdferr:
I don’t know what the forcible drugs part is, either. But it’s probably some meme on the left. I can’t find much when I Google it except for the Ocasio-Cortez quote (which she now denies, at least somewhat).
* * *
Thanks for saving me the trouble of trying to find out what that was all about; it really seemed to come out of, ahem, left field.
The phrasing was odd too — “She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill… ” — almost as if AOC was saying SHE had voted for the bill?!? — (I don’t buy her roll-back “what I was really saying” comments either).
And people talk about Trump’s incomprehensible Tweets …
Stupid and ignorant women are not irritating me, if they are humble enough to accept their stupidity and ignorance. That is what I readily expect. They still have their uses in the complexity of human existence. But stupid, ignorant, uppity and arrogant women are.
This feeble attempt to revive Obama’s Attack Watch will fail.
AOC is a text-book example of Dunning–Kruger effect: incompetent people can’t properly assess their incompetence and have ridiculously inflated self-esteem.
A fine meditation on Rep O-Cortez’s cooking video lecture: “Where did AOC get her sweet potatoes?”
https://www.aier.org/article/where-did-aoc-get-her-sweet-potatoes
AOC brings to my mind a comment from Babylon 5 character Londo Mollari: “Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you!”
She supposedly graduated from a top university in Economics and International Relations but AOC is remarkably ignorant on both subjects.
Boston University is a research institution, but it’s a satisfactory institution, not a ‘top’ institution. Her degree was in international relations with a minor in economics. IR generally requires you take a menu of economics courses (e.g. the introductory sequence in the department and the specialized courses in international trade and international monetary economics). I’ll wager she took a couple of extra courses and was permitted to declare a minor. You can really waste your time majoring in IR, even when the poli sci faculty aren’t bozos.
I think she is an ignorant fool but somebody recruited her and ran her campaign. That probably is the “chief of staff” who wears a tee shirt with a picture of Chandra Bose, an Indian radical in WWII who cooperated with the Japanese and the Nazis.
I would like to know who is behind him. Somebody ran this and funded it. There are lots of shadowy figures in leftist politics these days. Not just openly leftist as one is funding Bill Kristol and his crew of alleged “conservatives.”
It takes over whelming self-confidence to believe in yourself and decide that while in your 20s you can run for the House with no experience whatsoever,
I’ve twice participated in campaigns for Congress where the candidate was anything but a person of overwhelming self-confidence. One candidate was over 60 and the other under 30.
One other thing, you have closed primaries in New York. Per the state Board of Elections, there were in April 2018 215,000 registered Democrats in the 14th District of New York who hadn’t been placed on the ‘inactive’ list. About 13% of these participated in the primary. Her plurality amounted to < 2% of the active Democratic registrants in the district. About 3/4 of the people who might participate in a presidential primary or caucus in a vigorously competitive year did not shlep to the polls.
Not just openly leftist as one is funding Bill Kristol and his crew of alleged “conservatives.”
The muh-principles crowd at The Bulwark say they’re resisting the descent of the Republican Party into “a dark hole of nativism, protectionism, isolationism, and fabulism.” Trump’s ‘isolationism’ amounts to some incremental changes in our foreign policy stance that bear little resemblance to inter-war isolationism (but perhaps some to the Nixon-Kissinger era). His ‘protectionism’ consists of a more combative strategy in trade negotiations. (Keep in mind that people who babble about ‘free trade’ seem completely unaware that trade treaties nowadays are volumnious compilations of special-interest carve-outs that no one understands in toto). Trump’s ‘nativism’ consists of actually attempting to channel migrants through designated points-of-entry where they may be interviewed and vetted. Trump’s ‘fabulism’ consists of speaking in the idiom of late-night advertisements for local car dealers while actually attempting to implement the salient points of his campaign pitch.
Here’s a hypothesis about the NeverTrump residue: they’re articulate idiots.
About 3/4 of the people who might participate in a presidential primary or caucus in a vigorously competitive year did not shlep to the polls.
Much the same is true of Chicago where two angry black women are in a runoff for Mayor. My sister, who still lives there, and who always votes, plans to skip this election .
Mike K.,
Like you, I have a hunch there are string pullers. Not sure if Saikat Chakrabarti is the puppeteer (I believe he has deep pockets unto himself), or if there are others above him, pulling his strings, but there is no question some or all of her activities are being orchestrated by someone(s) with a long-range plan.
It seems like an effort to minimize or unseat party leaders like Pelosi, Feinstein and Schumer. She’s openly challenging and attacking entrenched political figures in her own party in D.C. and New York City and state. No question those folks will counter attack, if possible. I think we will learn soon how clever and powerful her puppetmaster(s) is/are. If the DNC is unable to reign her in, we’ll know that her backers are very powerful, indeed.
My money’s on Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein, but I also thought the Clinton machine and the DNC would knock Obama down a peg when he started challenging them directly.
What is it Nancy’s daughter recently said? “She’ll cut your head off and you won’t even know you’re bleeding.”
Coincidentally, like Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy’s daughter is also named after the Macedonian King who conquered the known world.
Huzzah!
The edit function works!
Thanks, Neo!
I still have suspicions the possible scandals over AOC’s income from shadow PACs and regarding her actual, legal address and whether she resided in her district when filing her campaign paperwork may be DNC initiated leaks. There is no question there are some furious union bosses, ward captains, developers and contractors who are out A LOT of money due to Amazon’s pull out. Those types of folks don’t like to lose contests and they really don’t like missing out on graft.
It was OK when the great majority of our citizens and the people working in government–top to bottom–were faithful to our Constitution and to the general American ethos, were patriots–all generally knowledgeable about and playing from the same page, people who believed in and who were proud of our country, and who tried to do their best to advance it.
Given that solid patriotic majority, this country, our government, could afford to have, could withstand a radical, an ignoramous, a dangerous, power hungry nut, here and there.
Today, our situation is entirely different, our decadence far advanced, patriotism increasingly a dirty word–supposedly the province of the credulous and the uninformed, those who are not “woke,” division is everywhere and increasing, and, as we have seen, many on the Left–in our government and out–no longer agree with the peaceful transfer of power–and are seeking to overthrow our legitimately elected President.
Against a background of declining morality and general ignorance of the cautionary examples from history–and especially our History–many of our deliberately made ignorant, intellectually disarmed, inexperienced but heavily propagandized young–having been taught that our country is corrupt, “racist ” and evil–are convinced that we have to advance towards some form of what they have been told is a “fairer” Socialism/Communism.
And besides, lots of people want more free stuff, and are open to the highest bidder.
To quote Benjamin Franklin, ” When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.”
This is a much more unstable, precarious situation for our country and, in this situation, even one apparently charismatic, power hungry leftist radical—a Pied Piper—can be a grave threat to our Republic, and should in no wise be taken lightly.
Much the same is true of Chicago
Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I think the share of the eligible electorate participating in the primary in Chicago is about 4x that of the share participating in the Ocasio-Crowley primary.
The interesting thing about Chicago is that the black share of the population is lower than it was in 1983, but the city is facing a run-off with two black candidates.
Harold Washington et al traded in ethnic particularlism, as did their opposition. The black mediocrities in his cabinet and on the city council were so addicted to it that they forgot that he was in office because a critical mass of Chicanos and bourgeois whites (‘lakefront liberals’) were fed up with the Democratic ward clubs who had run the city since 1931. (An aside, the city’s last Republican mayor was a more odious character than any of the Democrats who succeeded him). After Washington died, they did a series of doltish and petty-vicious things which induced about 1/2 the white liberal voters to defect to Richard Daley. They haven’t won the mayor’s chair in 30 years.
Washington was an ethnic particularist operating at a time when it was the general assumption of various parties that you couldn’t do much about public disorder. The experience of the last 35 years in loci like New York and Washington has demonstrated that tolerance of disorder is a policy choice. Chicago has an amply staffed police force, but they’re suboptimally deployed because they know bloody well the politicians do not have their back, so Chicago had a homicide rate 3x New York’s even before the Ferguson lallapalooza. Now it’s poised to put in the mayor’s chair one of two women who fancy it’s more important that black hoodlums not feel ‘dissed’ by skepitcal and inquisitive police officers than it is to enforce the law and provide public security of a sort which is the state’s most basic function. Chicago’s voters are doing this to themselves. I’m inclined to just wall the place off and let the residents therein stew in their own juices.
And besides, lots of people want more free stuff, and are open to the highest bidder.
Again, the ratio of public expenditure to domestic product has since 1974 fluctuated within a narrow band. People like Paul Krugman had ambitions in 2009 to jack it up to a higher baseline, but they ultimately did not succeed. And, again, the bulk of our welfare expenditure is in the form of benefits for the elderly and disabled. (The definition of disability has grown increasingly lax over the last sixty years, to be sure; the primary beneficiaries of that are not the young but those in late middle age; the median age of those awarded disability benefits de novo is 49). The subsidy programs which have disproportionately benefited the young over the years have been student loans and grants, AFDC / TANF, public defenders and legal aid societies, the foster care system, subsidized mass transit, and (in a qualified way) that portion of Medicaid devoted to financing medical expenses. Except for student loans and Medicaid, these are contextually small programs and have been for ever. The number of people on the TANF rolls today is about 1/3 the number on the AFDC rolls 25 years ago, in spite of our larger population. Federal student aid has been part and parcel of a labor market sorting system which has proved to be a hamster wheel for the young. And while Medicaid is helpful to young people in low-level service jobs, keep in mind that half the population accounts for just 3% of all expenditures on medical care and long-term care. Those young workers are generally to be found in that segment.
(You might call public schooling a benefit program which disproportionately benefits the young, but I think it would be more precise to refer to it as one which benefits families with children generally).
the primary beneficiaries of that are not the young but those in late middle age;
A few years ago, 25% of the children in Kentucky were on disability for “learning disability.”
A few years ago, 25% of the children in Kentucky were on disability for “learning disability.”
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2017/ky.pdf
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2017/sect01d.pdf
(scroll down to table 29)
If I’m understanding correctly, the number of juveniles receiving Supplemental Security Income in Kentucky was 25,300 in 2017.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_sc/2017/ky.pdf
If you scroll to table 2 here, it indicates that 37,600 juveniles are receiving Social Security Disability in their capacity as children of disabled workers. I don’t believe it is possible for juveniles to receive Disability any other way.
(The Social Security Administration maintains that fewer than 2% of all disabled workers are under 30. See here, scrolling down to table 19: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2017/sect01c.pdf )
So, the sum of youths receiving SSI and SSDI would be about 63,000. The Census Bureau reports that there are just north of 1 million juveniles in Kentucky. As far as I can see, all this means that 6.3% are receiving disability benefits through some avenue. Of these, about 60% are receiving them because they are the children or wards of disabled workers.
Those are current numbers. The article I saw was a few years ago, as I said. I can’t find older data,.
Mike K (and Art Deco):
Did Mike K perhaps mean they were “coded” in school, which means they qualify for special programs or special accommodations in the public school system? Then that 25% figure might make more sense.
One thing I notice with AOC, almost any post featuring her, on any subject, garners a plethora of comments. In other words, to the media she’s good for business. Eyeballs and clicks means more advertising revenue.
Donald Trump had a similar affect.
Did Mike K perhaps mean they were “coded” in school, which means they qualify for special programs or special accommodations in the public school system?
I’m remembering Ann Coulter’s speculation that the multiplication of ‘fancy learning disabilities’ was to please bourgeois parents who didn’t want to be told in plain language that their children were crummy students.
It may be “anecdotal,” but how about all of those people in the prime of life–and in apparent good health–who showed up on Judge Judy for 20 plus years and, when asked what work they did–said that they were on SSDI, and mumbled something about “back problems,” or some such.
It seemed to me that there were a hell of a lot of apparently healthy men and women–not in a wheel chair, not walking with a cane, or using a walker, with good vision, well-fed, and moving around in what appeared to be ordinary fashion–who weren’t working, but whose non-working “lifestyle” those of us who did work were supporting with our tax dollars.
It wasn’t much, but it seemed as if a lot of people were able to live on what SSDI paid them and not work.
P.S.–I also note the articles reporting on the huge increase there had been in people requesting and being put on the SSDI rolls during the Obama Administration.
P.S.–I also note the articles reporting on the huge increase there had been in people requesting and being put on the SSDI rolls during the Obama Administration.
That the term ‘disability’ has morphed into an insider’s term-of-art an ordinary person wouldn’t recognize has been a complaint about the program for 40 years. I think the problem has gotten incrementally worse over the years, but the problem’s been there for decades.
The cross-sectional assessment the Social Security Administration currently offers has it that the majority of beneficiaries are over the age of 55 and 80% are over the age of 45. It’s been some years, but IIRC, the median duration of benefit streams (longitudinally assessed) is 8 years. Some people age out of the program, some people voluntarily depart, and some people are cut from the rolls. The ratio of ‘disabled workers’ in the program to the working population is currently about 0.05.
I think AOC is her own worst enemy. I wish the media would ignore her and Maxzine Waters too. However, the more they speak and receive attention, the more foolish they look. The baffling part is how the more experienced elected officials that are running for president are agreeing with her platforms. This is not a winning strategy.
GatewayPundit reports that Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, has lowered the boom on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/03/co-founder-of-greenpeace-rips-ocasio-cortez-pompous-little-twit-you-would-bring-about-mass-death/
===
Neo,
For sure, nothing succeeds like success. What AOC had going for herself, before beating Crowley, is not that clear, though. We can see her basic traits & temperament, and she is indeed well-suited to this role.
Was she a bartender for some years, and a successful one? Or was this a gig that came & went, without a lot to it? How big a role, for how long, has this network of (various?) activist entities (and key persons?) been behind AOC, and guiding/preparing her? [These entities often specialize in rapidly instilling some basic training & ‘conditioning’ in raw recruits … so they can for example stuff the gallery in Congress and pull off an orchestrated series of disruptions.]
But here’s the rub, Neo. Heavy drugs like stunning, sudden success, are HEAVY.
People lose control of themselves, spin out, crash, burn and ruin everything. Yes, she is supremely confident … it’s the drugs! In conjunction with a basically-suitable personality…
We know from way back, that you can take the Omega rooster in a flock, inject him with testosterone, and he quickly becomes the Alpha. It’s not quite that ‘mechanical’ in humans … but humans are still very much animals, too. [In fact, the Omega can be kept separated briefly while the transformation ‘works’, and upon reintroduction to the yard he can subjugate the Alpha, merely by walking toward him. There’s your AOC, “exuding”.]
Returning conquering Roman generals making their Triumphal procession into Rome, hired Late Night entertainment hosts to precede them, cracking wise to the crowds to encourage laughter in the face of the Great One … at his often extremely personal expense. Some of these jesters did not survive long to enjoy their excellent pay.
2,000 years ago, it was ancient knowledge that the natural exhilaration & ‘mania’ of great success, was often more than the individual could handle … and they had techniques (you know, before Therapists!) to attempt to deal with it.
Alexandria is obviously riding extremely high … and it can be an awful long ways down.
It is certainly fascinating to watch, isn’t it?
Ted Clayton on March 2, 2019 at 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm said:
GatewayPundit reports that Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, has lowered the boom on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/03/co-founder-of-greenpeace-rips-ocasio-cortez-pompous-little-twit-you-would-bring-about-mass-death/
* * *
Patrick Moore left Greenpeace, when (he said) “the “peace” disappeared and the “green” was all there was left.”
This is an old article, but it tells you something about where he is now, ideologically.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/12/05/greenpeace-co-founder-patrick-moore-skeptics-are-the-new-thin-green-line/
“But things have changed a lot since then. The good guys these days, Moore noted, aren’t to be found among the 40,000 eco-fascist zealots at the COP21 conference but rather among the handful of climate skeptics who have braved obloquy, loss of income and career death to speak the truth about “climate change.” ..”
IIRC, Occasional-Cortex has said in her promotional materials that she founded this business and that philanthropy. Stacy Abrams is another one who supposedly founded a number of enterprises. Cory Booker back in the day claimed to have founded a social work agency. Noodling around a bit, I cannot find any indication that Booker’s agency ever existed. At least one of Abrams’ businesses is still a going concern with employees who have resumes on LinkedIn. Not sure about those of Occasional-Cortex. What I notice about her is:
1. No discrete employer over the last seven years, nor any series of employers in related or adjacent fields.
2. No marriage nor any children. Evidently, she’s been acquainted with Riley Roberts for ~10 years, though it’s not clear they’ve been an item all that time. Time to piss or get off the pot, guys. The two of them are past the median age for a 1st marriage and she in particular is past the median age when a woman gives birth to her first child.
3. No occupational schooling of any kind. She got an academic degree at a private research university, then nada. If she wasn’t learning by doing, she should have been collecting a post-baccalaureate degree or certificate: business, teaching, counseling, public administration, public health, nursing, whatever. Or gotten a lesser degree just to earn a living. (I’ve broken my pick trying to interest a youth in my family to study respiratory therapy).
AesopFan,
Thanks for the Patrick Moore link at Breitbart! I have to admit, I only learned of & started reading Breitbart, during Trump’s campaign.
But I had been reading bits by Moore fairly regular when Paul Watson and his Sea Shepard crew were in the news with their whaling-activism, and TV program (no TV). Which has been out of the news now for awhile.
… Though I do find his incidental defamation of protozoa somewhat regrettable. 😉
The climate-folly is going to be a tough one for science. The short half-life of C14 means they cannot – never could – discern petroleum/coal (‘fossil’) carbon from deep/upwell ocean-released CO2. Or even old soil/tundra/permafrost release. All post-carbonated beverage humans know that warming drives-off the dissolved gas.
It’s not an exact match for Eugenics, but it’s a far better match than most realize, since that was actually much more a matter of “politics” than the modern portrayal conveys, and less a matter of (‘anyone can make a mistake’, misguided) applied-science.
Or as we used to reply to bums when I was a runaway kid working at the old Seneca Hotel flop-house: “We have a deal with the Banks. They don’t rent rooms, and we don’t lend money.” Science has no business in politics.
And it’s not like the high-minded moralization of Darwin’s cousin is easy to miss. The same doomsday, think of the children amateurish head-tripping…
Mr. Clayton,alitarian state.
The Warmist hysteria reminds me of Lysenkoism in the USSR; a politically approved, crackpot pseudoscience whose opponents are persecuted. So far it has not gone as far as in the USSR, but that is owing to the US not being a totalitarian state.
Dr. Richard Lindzen (Prof. Emeritus, Atmospheric Physics, MIT): “Global Warming, Lysenkoism & Eugenics.” 2013 lecture, I think. 56 interesting minutes, but then his talks tend to be interesting. :>) He’s also a Cato Fellow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RLPdEMjphM
Mr. Lonie,
There is a fairly recent technical treatment of Lysenkoism, which among other matters examines the recovery of science, once the aberration was abandoned. It is quite possible that this is Prof. Lindzen’s work. The basic conclusion was that they bounced back surprisingly well & quickly, institutionally & as a societal subculture. I’m not completely convinced there wasn’t a thumb on the pan in this assessment, but it’s a good study.
Julie,
‘Unfortunately’ I live in rough, sparsely-populated country, and barely have 256k DSL … while neighbors are still on dialup. But I have certainly heard of Dr Lindzen, seen him discussed, and think I have downloaded some of his text/PDF materials … which may be where I saw the Lysenkoism-recovery treatment. Certainly his main theme – the pairing of their Lysenkoism with our Eugenics is valuable
I will search for Lindzen reading-matter, after I do the morning chores…
Lysenkoism refs. Hmm.
There’s good news and bad news on the Lysenkoism front.
There are a lot more hits on the topic now than when I earlier looked into it … probably following Prof. Lindzen’s trail, which I also recommend.
The Left is now using Lysenkoism, now that the Government under Trump is pursuing policies contrary to their aims. ‘Lysenkoism’ is now an alternative for ‘Denier’ or denialism.
More on-topic, is a rich array of links trying to hang a Lysenkoism-interpretation around contemporary Russia’ neck. At a glance it is not going to be resolved whether this is just normal anti-Russia sentiment finding a new cudgel, or there is actually a case. I will say 2 things about science in Russia: 1.) it is a more “distributed” institution … while they have a high-and-mighty, elite caste, they also have many positions filled by individuals who are not as “institutionalized” as official scientists in the West. They are more like normal people, and tend to ‘pop-off’ colorfully, and to the delight of the Media.
2.) Russian science is not shy about ‘playing’ to popular/populist applause. While these factors make Russian science look less Officious or stuffy … I hestitate to say it is degraded by it.
====
The best thing about the current picture viz Lysenkoism and Eugenics topics, is that is no longer semi-taboo or ‘conspiratorial’ to bring these topics into discussion and contrast them with modern science in various ways … which Big Science would prefer did not happen. And that’s a good thing.
Can’t find it now, but yesterday, skimming through a lot of information on the Web, I ran across an article that mentioned Lysenko’s main idea, and saying that some new research results were emerging that seem to say, that some specific part of our genetic endowment–I don’t recall the exact term they called this part by–was impacted by our experiences–and seemingly recorded them, was changed by them–in a way that it might be able to transfer these impacts, and the changes they created in us in reaction to those impacts, to the next generation.
It all seemed fairly–what can I call it–elusive, etherial, and “mystical” perhaps, to me.