Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A group of College Conservatives have sided with the Democrats and demanded climate action – though liberal media outlets are still sneering at them for being Conservative.
Young Republicans Want to Fight Climate Change 30 Years Too Late
College conservatives support a carbon dividend, but what they really need is a time machine.
By Harry Cheadle Dec 13 2019, 5:57am
There’s a climate “debate” in American politics today the same way there’s a debate between a car and the wall it’s driving toward. On one hand you have heated arguments among Democrats about whether radical, capitalism-destroying action is necessary to save the planet. On the other hand Republicans are rigidly opposed to even relatively moderate, market-based attempts to cut emissions—when one such measure was being considered by the Democratic-controlled Oregon state legislature this summer, GOP lawmakers literally fled the state to deny the Democrats a quorum and block the bill.
In that context, any sign of a hint that Republicans might be willing to even consider a compromise that leads to the federal government taking action on climate can be seen as a step in the right direction. So the formation of a group called Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends, a coalition of right-leaning college students, could be justifiably celebrated. The group, Reuters reports, launched this week and “backs a market-based solution, calling for an initial $40-a-ton tax on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, at mines, wells or ports where it is produced.” This money would be paid out directly to Americans at the same time that what YCCD calls “burdensome regulations” would be slashed.
…
Read more: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/k7eep3/young-republicans-want-to-fight-climate-change-30-years-too-late
The original Reuters report includes a quote from one of their leaders;
Young U.S. Republicans defy party to fight climate change
…
Drawn from Republican groups on more than two dozen university campuses, the Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends called for laws to tax oil, natural gas and coal producers of planet-warming greenhouse gases.
The taxation plan would make fossil fuels more costly while the resulting revenues would go to taxpayers.
“We claim to be the party that cares about the future that our children will inherit, and we need climate policy that reflects that,” said Kiera O’Brien, 21, a senior at Harvard University who co-founded the group.
“We are offering up what we see as the common sense solution and the way forward for the party,” O’Brien told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
…
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-politics-trfn/young-us-republicans-defy-party-to-fight-climate-change-idUSKBN1YG00J
The co-founder of Students for Carbon Dividends quoted in the Reuters article is Kiera O’Brien, a student at Harvard and former president of the Harvard Republican Club.
I’m disappointed. Not because Kiera O’Brien is worried about climate change, but because she and her group are not acting like conservatives; she wants to introduce a new tax.
Pretty much everywhere which attempts to introduce a carbon tax eventually abandons it, because carbon taxes don’t work. Energy intensive manufacturing and industry flee the cost of the new tax, manufacturing jobs crash and politicians abandon the tax once voters figure out the cause of their misery.
Kiera, why would any business person in their right mind hang around and pay your carbon tax, when they can cut costs and relocate to a “developing country” beyond the reach of your artificially inflated energy prices?
One of the main reasons so many jobs are returning to the USA right now is President Trump ditched the Paris Agreement. By renouncing the Paris Agreement, President Trump provided a credible assurance to investors that he and the Republican Party intend to stand up to the green bullies, and keep US energy prices affordable and globally competitive.
Your proposed “border carbon adjustments” would not help US exporters. It would still make sense for manufacturers to relocate, pay the border adjustment tax for exports to the USA, but remain globally competitive in other markets. And there would be enormous perverse incentives to misapply the border tax. As P.J. O’Rourke once said, “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
If Kiera wants to campaign for a climate policy, it’s a free country. But Kiera, please put a little thought into it; at least advance a policy idea which makes sense.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But how to conserve the Republican core value of free market democracy while handing over control of both market and governance to the ‘benevolent’ dictatorship necessary to enforce the changes required to get us back to the Stone Age?
I’m disappointed that she is so ill-informed that she thinks such a tax may be necessary. How to implement it and whether it is effective is a secondary issue.
theyre fresh uni grads arent they?
pretty much explains why theyre so daft
When I was a young protester against the Vietnam war, I thought with all my heart, ignoring the conflicts that flourished in my mind. About the time Clinton was impeached, I began to actually use the critical thinking course I had completed in college. Emotion rules for these FOMO kids who want to be included in every single social fad and ignore the political paradox that they exhibit. They just have to look virtuous.
I remember that time, Pop. As a young guy, it never occurred to me that the left would lie, and was lying.
Nor did I realize that the conservatives never made a compelling case for why they wanted to stop the spread of the most murderous ideology ever. As they never made the case, I did not know of it.
The combination — not realizing the lies, not understanding the rationale — left me in feelings-land.
I’m disappointed that she thinks AGW is a real thing that even requires action at all.
I’m disappointed that she thinks aGW is a real thing that it’s a bad thing that we even NEED to do anything about it.
I used a small “a” because, as far as I know, Man’s CO2 has only been hypothesized as contributing to any GW. And it’s never been shown just how much Man’s vs Nature’s CO2 is responsible. Let alone just what other things Nature can and does do to overwhelm what this cosmic ant called “man” does.
Everyone has an opinion.
But facts are a different matter. Facts are stubborn little things. It’s difficult for everyone to have his own facts. But some try to — anyway.
WE HAVE A TALE OF TWO FUTURES:
(1) A PESSIMISTIC FUTURE
As the New York Times reports:
“…Yet long before then [2050], the effects of global warming could spin out of control. As the United Nations’ secretary general, António Guterres, warned in opening the meeting:
“The point of no return is no longer over the horizon. It is in sight and hurtling toward us.” “Perhaps nowhere is that more true than in the Arctic. The surface air there is warming at twice the global rate and temperatures over the past five years have exceeded all previous records since 1900. This past week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the extent of Arctic summer sea ice was at its second lowest point since satellite observations began in 1979, and that average temperatures for the year ending in September were the second highest since 1900, when record-keeping began.
What will this mean? A study published in Geophysical Research Letters in June described the catastrophic consequences of losing the Arctic’s reflective summer sea ice. The ice is a great white shield that reflects incoming solar warming back to space during the long summer days of the midnight sun. Otherwise, it would be absorbed by the ocean. Losing this ice, the study explained, would be the warming equivalent of an extra 25 years of emissions at current rates, pushing us more quickly past the threshold of warming that scientists say could lead to catastrophic damage, from more intense heat waves and coastal flooding to extinctions of species and threats to food supplies.
UNQUOTE
That sounds pretty serious. Then we have;
(2) AN OPTIMISTIC FUTURE WHERE WE CAN POLLUTE WITHOUT END AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENS
As my friend Sean Hannity on Fox News likes to repeatedly tell his viewers: do not to pay attention to what Scientists tell us about Climate Change (and its Subset, Global Warming).
My friend Sean says he says that because Scientists made a mistake in the 1970s, when some of them predicted we were heading into another Ice Age and did NOT.
Of course, under the First Amendment, my friend Sean Hannity is free to say whatever he wants. Since he earns $40 million a year (TV & Radio combined) saying it, and has a Real Estate Empire of $90 million, you have to say: “Hey, Sean, you have done alright –for yourself!”
The Reality is that CO2 and Methane do what they ALWAYS have done for over three billion years —WARM the Earth.
And the Oceans will continue to ABSORB over 90% of the Man-Made heat from our burning of Fossil Fuels.
And the Oceans will continue to ABSORB 25% of the CO2 we emit, becoming more Acidic and threatening the creatures we like to eat (Clams and Oysters). Jellyfish are NOT affected. I understand Jellyfish is tasty on a cracker, but would rather not test that Theory.
And the CO2 and Oceans really don’t care if some Scientists made a mistake in the 1970s!
” In the 1820s [the French Scientist Joseph] Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation.
[THAT HE COULD DO THIS 200 YEARS AGO WAS AMAZING -BOBBY]
“He [Fourier] examined various possible sources of the additional observed heat in articles published in 1824
(“Remarques Générales Sur Les Températures Du Globe Terrestre Et Des Espaces Planétaires”. Annales de Chimie et de Physique. 27: 136–167. 1824a.and 1827. [13]
“Mémoire sur la température du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires.” [14]
You don’t have to “parlez-vous Francais” since enough materiel is in English too.
“While he [Fourier] ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier’s consideration of the possibility that the Earth’s atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect, [Weart, S. (2008). “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect”. Retrieved 27 May 2008. [15] ] although Fourier never called it that.
[Fleming, J R (1999). “Joseph Fourier, the “greenhouse effect”, and the quest for a universal theory of terrestrial temperatures”. Endeavour. 23 (2): 72–75. doi:10.1016/s0160-9327(99)01210-7. [16]
Baum, Sr., Rudy M. (2016). “Future Calculations: The first climate change believer”. Distillations. 2 (2): 38–39. Retrieved 22 March 2018.[17]
In his articles, Fourier referred to an experiment by de Saussure, who lined a vase with blackened cork. Into the cork, he inserted several panes of transparent glass, separated by intervals of air. Midday sunlight was allowed to enter at the top of the vase through the glass panes. The temperature became more elevated in the more interior compartments of this device. Fourier concluded that gases in the atmosphere could form a stable barrier like the glass panes. [14]
This conclusion may have contributed to the later use of the metaphor of the “greenhouse effect” to refer to the processes that determine atmospheric temperatures.
[18] Fourier noted that the actual mechanisms that determine the temperatures of the atmosphere included convection, which was not present in de Saussure’s experimental device.”
Fourier, like you and me and everyone else will, eventually passed away. But others built upon the foundation that Fourier had laid.
“College Conservatives” is what, 5 people that ain’t afraid to come out from under the rug?
Too few people, frankly, to influence much of anything. Lefty professors will eviscerate them.
Our esteemed elected officials’ shots are called by lobbyists for multinationals, big banks, big food and pharma, and big tech. The only time they even pay lip service to Us Deplorables is when they need our puny votes to keep their butts in the chair, grifting all the way. And so it goes . . .
Trump is the exception that proves that rule, and why they hate him with irrational passion.
I’d like to know what her college major is that gives any vestige of authority to her proposal.
“Harvard Republican Club”??????
I went to Harvard and I remember one Libertarian and myself. That was about it.
On the other hand my “carbon dividend” should be around $100 million give or take and I will be content. Where do I sign up for that?
Isn’t ‘Harvard” and ‘Republican’ in the same sentence a contradiction in terms?
Anyone who is surprised that a Hahvahd student or graduate calling herself “conservative” would not actually BE conservative, probably hasn’t been paying attention for a few decades.
Conservative means different things to different people. I don’t consider imperialism to be a conservative value, but neo-cons do. Burdensome taxation is not a conservative value, yet we have former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., former secretary of the Treasury (all call themselves conservatives), pushing for a carbon tax (their organization is probably behind and funding this college group), and Rep. Matt Gaetz pushing for a methane tax (he’s a co-sponsor of the 2019 Super Pollutants Act)
To a communist, socialists are conservative.
and “useful idiots”.
Elitists are not conservatives. Elitists would like to reduce the human population to make the Earth more sustainable. How they get there isn’t important, its the goal that is.
Peel back the onion, and I doubt these kids are conservatives. Could be a front group disguised as conservatives to give the appearance that the right wing is buying the hype.
Kiera O’Brien needs to take a few courses in Economic.
Hopefully Harvard still has some great professors which will help.
Is it too late to stop this infectious madness? Will no one stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes, and be supported by other rational people?
I prefer the story of Chicken Little: “The Sky is Falling”.
How dare you!
Would Greta’s face be perfect photoshopped onto the guy in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers video above?
Quite right Loydo, these Young RINOs have had their minds taken over by your ilk.
One word: RINO.
Kindly ask her to join the Democrat Party.
The reason why this is going to crash and burn is because the average young Republican today ISN’T a 4-year college student, DOESN’T relate to Harvard University students or their fellow travelers, and WON’T vote for politicians who will destroy their jobs.
The making of a Climate Alarmist is part DNA and part environment. Several years ago I had the misfortune of attending my nephew’s high school graduation. The valedictorian wasted no time attacking us for “killing the planet”, a Greta-prototype. At that time the public schools had not yet gone full alarmist so I suspect it was in her DNA. Universities are a factor only if the raw material they are given is genetically predisposed. Conservative students self-censure themselves to avoid possible troubles with their professors, the administration, and thugs.
Genetic predisposition could have something to do with the fact that conservatives generally don’t accumulate a hundred thousand dollars of nondischargeable student loan debt. It could have something to do with the fact that conservatives typically leave college with useful work skills or start businesses. The most recent polling data that I’ve seen suggests that people who have more than a Bachelors degree are the most Democrat, but people who have Associates Degrees are the most Republican. The latter is basically America’s skilled workforce.
Unfortunately, this is about as close to a conservative as one gets from Harvard.
How dare the Republican Party be infected with Climate Madness!
President Trump, on Oct 15th, 2018, told 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl that Global Warming was happening, but he was not convinced that Man was causing it. He said “it may reverse itself in millions of years”.
So I don’t know why the Dems and Libtards and now the Young Republicans are getting their underwear all bunched up over this Global Warming Hoax.
All they have to wait is millions of years and it may reverse itself. The President said so and he must be right.
I wonder what her qualifications are, or what her subject of study is? Atmospheric physics or economics perhaps – they would be my bets. hahaha.
Her degree might be in “Liberal White Guilt” along with a minor in “Toxic White Masculinity” with special emphasis in “Gender Transition.” She will probably become an advocate for diverting all the donations that normally go to the Salvation Army to instead go to paying reparations for slavery and funding more “Reading of Fairy Tales (is that a pun?) by Transgendered Bearded Men in miniskirts in public libraries”…but she is a CONSERVATIVE.
Taxing carbon is often compared to how we implemented a cap-and-trade on the pollutants emitted by coal plants in I think the early 90s. Things like sulfur-dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc…that could be filtered out via scrubbers (I think they’re called that), were taxed via a cap-and-trade program. This incentivized the power plants to scrub their coal and from what I understand, it actually lowered electricity prices in the end, or made things cheaper ultimately for the power plants. So many climate alarmists say, “Why can’t we do the same thing with carbon? Implement a cap-and-trade program.”
The problem of course is that unlike with the pollutants in the carbon emissions of the plants, there is no way to replace the carbon emissions themselves. Wind and solar and so forth are not technologically nor even financially viable. Electric cars are not viable yet either. So all that happens is that the price of energy gets increased for the everyone. So the carbon tax just serves to create more bureaucrats for no economic benefit.
I also am highly skeptical of claims to tax carbon and then the revenues would “go to taxpayers.” Maybe, maybe not. You introduce a new tax and start producing lots of revenue and politicians become like a group of starved dogs with a pile of fresh steaks placed in front of them. A carbon tax is also highly favored by the Wall Street firms because it would allow them to engage in the trading of carbon credits.
But finally, I would argue that the argument that climate change is going to be harmful is too weakly supported to be doing something like implementing a tax to try to address it. And once you implement a new tax, it can be very hard to get rid of it.
Pure carbon produces 34.08 MJ per kg by burning it to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – it really has little effect what form the carbon is in, Coal, Oil, Gas, wood etc. etc. a given amount of energy produced by combustion must release a given quantity of CO2 .
All carboniferous fuels have approximately the same calorific value per kilogram of carbon content.
Example coal is 32 – 38 MJ per kg.
And 83+% of world energy is generated from Carbon.
Therefore the only way to reduce CO2 is to de-energize the world – that means collapsing our standard of living and with it health and life expectancy.
It is a direct attack on your right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
I’m not going there on the basis of poorly crafted and untested models that fly in the face of physics.
The world has lost its mind – clearly science is in descendancy. That’s the really scary part.
How long before we start burning denialists at the stake ?
Here in Massachusetts, there is a climate initiative encompassing multiple states that will threaten to raise gas to almost $5/gal. And our governor is threatening to impose it via executive order. We already have one of the highest electricity costs because they don’t want to build pipelines to bring in natural gas. And because we have some of the highest costs of living in the US, this will create extreme hardships on average folk who have to commute far distances as well as substantially drive up heating costs.
This ploy is really to promote the UN’s Agenda 30 plan where people are forced to abandon their cars because they can’t afford it anymore and move into urban sustainable apartments which, of course, will have to be very small to limit emissions. They simply want to make our current lifestyle unaffordable except for the rich elites. This might be fine for Europeans but there is no need for the US to commit suicide as well.
The other kicker to this climate initiative is that half of the revenues will go to mass transit but I don’t know where the other half is going to. No doubt, public unions and the favored identity groups of Democrats.
I’m unclear on just how the so-called “carbon tax” is supposed to work. Perhaps one of the trolls who haunts this blog could explain it to me.
As I understand it, the desired goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. So, the idea is to make the use of fossil fuels more expensive, by adding a surcharge, to encourage conservation or substitution. The taxes collected are to be returned to the consumers in the form of a tax rebate — obviously, minus governmental handling charges. So, if the consumer pays a tax of X dollars, and then receives a rebate of X dollars, there is really no cost to the consumer and therefore no incentive to do anything differently, except perhaps, budget differently to account for having to wait for an annual rebate. It seems to me that the most probable outcome of such a scheme would the creation of yet another bureaucratic agency to monitor sales, collect taxes, rebate taxes, and pay the salaries of the employees working for the agency. What have I missed here? The potential for the “handling charges” to increase over time to where the taxpayers receive little or nothing? The potential for it being a regressive tax that falls most heavily on the shoulders of those least able to pay it? Then, the creation of yet another bureaucracy to assist the disadvantaged? The potential for Congress to siphon off funds for other social welfare projects unrelated to the supposed reduction in global warming?
“As I understand it, the desired goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. So, the idea is to make the use of fossil fuels more expensive, by adding a surcharge, to encourage conservation or substitution. The taxes collected are to be returned to the consumers in the form of a tax rebate — obviously, minus governmental handling charges. So, if the consumer pays a tax of X dollars, and then receives a rebate of X dollars…”
Well, as I understand it 🙂 there’s your error. The government charges you (indirectly) an amount for your carbon usage, but amount you get handed back is independent of that. SO you have an incentive to reduce your consumption of carbon-producing things.
Carbon taxes make sense if you believe CO2 production is a major issue (I don’t) and yes, they hurt industry, but then so do a lot of taxes, regulations, and things like minimum wage legislation.
I’d be ok with it if the carbon taxes were used to raise revenue and other taxes were eliminated, but how often does that happen?
Another thing, but on that Oregon bill’s defeat, while I don’t know if I agree with the GOP’s tactics of actually fleeing to avoid voting to kill it, the claims that it was a modest measure or that the GOP are wrong to fight for the “minority rural voters” I think are wrong as well. Cap-and-trade is virtually never a moderate measure, and as for the rural voters, those almost always are outnumbered by the urban voters. But policy should not work solely based on pure democracy. Here in New York state, it is like a dictatorship where we the rural people are dictated to by the people in New York City and Albany. In theory this is supposed to be checked by the existence of our state legislature, but it doesn’t really work out that way.
Making the world a colder place for everyone isn’t exactly a winning strategy, fake or otherwise, is it.
That this scam is still twitching in its death throes after so long is unfathomable. Someone put it out of its misery please …. Boris??
The centre left has been destroyed by toxic carbon-dioxide-flavoured emissions (verbal emissions, that is; we hear such AGW rubbish emitted through the media daily).
The centre-right is now following suit, with the hard left cheering on, wildly. The latter hates the idea of a more rational centre.
Amazing what the young will fall for. It is if the control knob were CO2 and science did not matter then I would agree. But it does, and being a Republican, residing in California I resist those efforts to control CO2. Please look at science as the tall pole in the tent as being valid and choose your starting points carefully and not just a convenient place to prove your point. Facts don’t matter anymore I suppose.
Their greenness about Green and green, can be attributed to a youthful state of innocence, imagination, and consensus.
This is how conservatives become RINOs.
Such gumint proposals are commonly sold on benefiting most of the people. And whilst salivating over my own prospective windfall, I missed any enumeration of how much of that carbon tax (drained away from industries that has been essential for my elevated living standard, if not survival) is headed my way so that I can continue to afford the very products they provide.
Oh never mind. Just let me off this carousel forthwith!
The youth, as they say, has the future. When ‘progressive and conservatives’ blend in with alarmists climate ideas, dark clouds will appear based on group control methods and what we know as a democracy will suffer.
propaganda and indoctrination works.
They crawled in bed with a snake, thinking if the snake likes them, it won’t bite.
Surprisingly, the BBC (an experienced reporter) have an article warming the US Democrats to pay attention to the British election result, where the move to the far left of the Labour Party was severely punished:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50785442
The stupid is spreading.
In the sixties my Dad (who was a rabid communist) used to tell me:
‘ Just you wait, Len one day the filthy capitalists will discover a way to bottle and sell the air so we will have to buy it just to live!”
Well he was right about that except he didn’t have the right perpetrators. It is the filthy communists who want to do it.
He died long before this carbon tax nonsense surfaced though.
We’re doing that in Aus right now, and selling to China, we we were before the bushfires!
I guess these Young Republicans don’t have a BS meter like I did when I was in college…
And I was in an Art College in Philly where just about all the professors were liberals…
JPP
Because there are far more middle class
than rich, the bulk of the dividend revenue collected will come from them.
When it gets ‘evenly’ redistributed, the bulk of the
revenue going to the poor will be from the middle class, not the rich as it should be.
I believe this is why many rich people support the dividend tax. It gets them off the hook of helping the poor and instead, puts it on the middle class.
Shared responsibility. The terms of the compromise(d) have become progressively clear.
And thus the value of propaganda and power of peers.
I believe that carbon taxes are inherently flawed. Because a global program is impractical, it is likely that emissions will just move to where there is not tax rather than get reduced. The carbon price has to be set such that revenues over time increase significantly because it gets harder and harder to implement emissions reductions. The economists who support this theory seem to be blissfully unaware of the reality of the energy market and assume everyone will act like they think they should. Based on observed results I think that indirect market signals are going to lead to less cost-effective reductions in the time frame necessary for the aggressive reduction rules. Finally, no supporters seem to understand the very real problems of actually tracking who is emitting what where.
More at: http://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2019/12/14/generic-carbon-pricing-issues/
You would think these supposed conservatives would figure out that practical reduction of carbon requires technology, as in small modular molten salt nuclear reactors buring either uranium or Thorium.
+1 for molten salt reactors
… “We claim to be the party that cares about the future that our children will inherit, and we need climate policy that reflects that,” said Kiera O’Brien, 21, a senior at Harvard University who co-founded the group. …
_______
A bunk pretext and a false premise, from a 21-year-old.
OK Kiera, except people do care about the future. Contrary to your implied smears and arrogant dismissal. Which is why an EPA was setup, long before you were borne, by these older generations. And stringent air, water, soil quality and pollution standards were implemented which practically eliminated most industrial pollution which existed. And has been doing to ever since.
Until a bunch of proto-communist progressives with rhetoric just like yours tried to use the EPA under Obama, to trash the US economy and business.
Do you care about that? For you should as it’s critically important if you claim to ‘care’ about the “future of children”, instead of merely aimlessly gas-bagging about things which you are far from familiar with, enough to say much that’s actually constructive.
You are borne ignorant and stupid Keira. That’s the basic human starting condition, a fact for everyone. And you are a lot closer to that condition than almost everyone you see around you. People become less ignorant and less stupid via increasing experience with life lived and increasing age. You never stop learning the most important of things Keira.
But you still have not even realized that much yet? So at 21 years you think people who are much more knowledgeable, experienced and wise, know nothing very useful, and that you, who are closest to the starting-conditions of a human life, know so much better, and can make the best choices? And formulate the smartest ideas? And act in the wisest ways? And presume that others before you haven’t been constantly doing that?
Do you think we want to hear a stream of ignorant upstarts and twerps fresh out of some brainwashing ‘school’, for a year of two, arrogantly pretend to inform those who know much more that you about such things? Those who have seen so much more of life, and experienced much that you have not the faintest inkling about yet?
Can you really be that arrogant and silly? Or is it that you’re so conceited and selfish that you know it, and have simply abandoned intelligence at age 21, and are no longer able to learn due to an overwhelming surge of personal egotism and blind political ambition? To what end?
Certainly not to do what you so speedily claim.
Do you think anyone will be impressed by that? Do you think they don’t see naked opportunism here? Do you think your peers will forget what a fool you’ve been, even if sincere? You are dishonest with your motives. And your rhetoric has been heard a thousand times. We know the words that shysters use. And we’re familiar with grandstanding phony politicians who aren’t performing in their job-description’s tasks.
Some anecdotal evidence from a New York City metropolitan resident:
I grew up in a New Jersey suburb. In the late 1960s my father traveled to Manhattan on the weekends to rent computer time. Sometimes I would ride along. The Holland Tunnel joins New Jersey and midtown Manhattan. As we would emerge from the tunnel on the New York side my eyes would tear from the thick blue car exhaust. You could see it. It was like a blanket suspended midair between the tall buildings. Today, I challenge you to go there. The air quality is so much better.
The Hudson River was once polluted. Today fisherman and boaters enjoy the river’s bounty. That is my first-hand experience. America is a good steward of the environment. Not perfect but not the terrible ogre that some believe.
It is my impression that educational establishments, with exceptions, no longer educate their students to think rationally and with logic and have replaced it with politically correct box ticking methods which can digitised. The result being the media compliant generation we see today.
EXCOMMUNICATION.
Ok, to be fair, even for older people… persons, a consensus is hard to resist.