It's being reported that Theresa Ribera, the Climate Minister for Spain, (Minister for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Change) is not above a little theater.
On her way to the EU Climate Summit, she took a private jet from Spain to Portugal, then hopped in a limousine for the trip (almost) to the venue, then she got on a bike and rode the last hundred yards.
Why do so many of those who demand that massive changes are needed to fight global warming, never quite manage to set the example they demand the others follow.
76 comments:
Should she have bicycled the hundreds (?) of miles from Spain to Portugal, in your estimation?
Do you think environmentalists are saying "Never take planes or cars..."?
Yes, if the facts are as you report it are correct, it was political theater, but it's only hypocrisy if she's saying people should ride bikes or walk everywhere.
I know nothing about this person and she may well be a hypocritical jerk, but the "evidence" of her taking a plane to travel hundreds of miles instead of bicycling is not evidence of it, in and of itself.
Instead, it sounds a bit like political theater on your part to jump on this one instance. Understand?
Oh, and wait, did she actually take a "private jet..."? It appears not.
"They later clarified that she had actually gone by car whilst the rest of the delegation did use the train."
https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20230712/minister-teresa-ribera-jet-plane-climate-bike-valladolid/
Political theater, indeed.
Because they're lefty liars with an agenda.
"Should she have bicycled the hundreds (?) of miles from Spain to Portugal, in your estimation?"
No. She should have flown commercial, and skipped the limo if she was interested in something other than performance. The biggest problem IMO was the performative stunt of biking the last hundred yards.
"Do you think environmentalists are saying "Never take planes or cars..."?"
No. They are saying "reduce your carbon footprint" and a private jet/limo represent a carbon footprint that could be reduced.
What's interesting in the article you linked to is that they never mention exactly how she got from Spain to Portugal. They simply say that she did not arrive on one particular type of private jet. It also doesn't say she didn't do the tiny bike ride as a bit of performative virtue signaling.
As usual, you miss the point. Those who most loudly and publicly shame the rest of us for our "carbon footprint", have a "carbon footprint" exponentially larger than those they try to shame.
But you'll likely ignore that as you usually do.
FYI, I was clear to say that this story was "being reported", I was NOT stating that this particular story was going to be 100% factual, as much as I was pointing out the general hypocrisy of the folx who demand that others do things that they themselves will not do.
A further note. Wouldn't it make more sense to hold an environmental conference is a place that would minimize the travel for all of the attendees? Isn't her travel by car, more of a carbon footprint than if she'd traveled by train with the rest of the delegation?
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-reduce-population-speech-1813149
On a related climate topic. Kamala Harris spoke the other day and said that "reducing the population" was the goal of the climate change movement. The white House later walked this back as a mistake by the VP. I don't know which it really was. What I do know is that the APL had a field day for years with Dan Quayle and his "misspelling" of potato. AT worst, it's disturbing, at best it's one more example of the MSM and APL demonstrating their double standards.
A smaller population would be a good thing... or at least slowing down growth. We are a finite world with an inability to host an ever-growing population.
Having said that, she clearly meant to say reducing pollution.
Disturbing? What's disturbing is the way the far right is constantly looking for conspiracy theories.
Dan
Buttigieg did the same thing. These lefties aren't above a little play acting to posture as something they're definitely not. That's because lefties are liars.
I just say a video of John Kerry, some sort of climate czar or something, being questioned under oath and trying to play semantic games about the private jet owned by his family. He tried to deny the reality by playing semantic games, but ultimately had to admit that he'd been very misleading.
As for Dan, until he actually lives out the "simple" ,"agrarian" lifestyle he touts so frequently, I see no reason to take him any more seriously than the rest of the "do as I say, not as I do." crowd.
"A smaller population would be a good thing... or at least slowing down growth. We are a finite world with an inability to host an ever-growing population."
Other than the fact that a below replacement level birth rate would be a disaster for our economy, and for the alleged "promise" of social security. Thanks for admitting that you agree with the sentiment. How shall we accomplish this? Eugenics? Kill of the useless eaters? Admit millions of undocumented immigrants from societies that have higher birth rates than the US? Force women in the third world to have abortions?
"Having said that, she clearly meant to say reducing pollution."
I addressed this possibility. The fact that she gets a free pass, after years of equally stupid "gaffes", while Quayle got roasted for reading what was on the card he was given? This double standard would be amusing, if it wasn't so serious.
"Disturbing? What's disturbing is the way the far right is constantly looking for conspiracy theories."
1. There is absolutely nothing of a conspiracy theory in this post.
2. It's strange that you're still clinging to this, when so many of the "conspiracy theories" have ended up being proven True.
3. Again, Hillary says virtually the same things about the 2016 election as Trump said after 2020, and y'all didn't say a word.
No offense, but what else is the official spin going to be other than "She misspoke.", like they were going to acknowledge it even if she did mean it.
"How shall we accomplish this? Eugenics? Kill of the useless eaters? Admit millions of undocumented immigrants from societies that have higher birth rates than the US? Force women in the third world to have abortions?"
Yes, all of that. Those are our plans we discuss as we snack on children.
Good Lord, have mercy. You can't possibly be this stupid, but what's the alternative? That you think it's perfectly moral to portray people who disagree with your hunches as monsters?
Dan
When Dan defends his own, I can't help but think of all the heat Trump took for speaking of the loyalty of his followers with the poorly chosen analogy that he could shoot someone and not lose voters (though Snopes at least had integrity enough to put the line in its proper context: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-comment/). Yet, Dan's kind could and does do all manner of evil and Dan won't criticize them unless they murder someone, and no doubt he'd make the effort to defend them until facts got too much in the way.
"Yes, all of that. Those are our plans we discuss as we snack on children."
This is interesting, it's technically an answer, but it is an answer used to dodge an answer that would have been helpful. It ignores the fact that over the years, the left has advocated eugenics, aborting babies who test at a high degree of "birth defects (Down's Syndrome), encouraging African women to abort even when it goes against their cultural or religious norms or beliefs, and the reality that the Hispanic birth rate has been significantly higher then non Hispanic birth rates. I'm not surprised that Dan is unaware of these things, or chooses not to acknowledge them, what does surprise me is his candid admission that population reduction is a goal of the climate change folx. I'm also not surprised that he chose not to answer the underlying question of how we achieve this goal.
Good Lord, have mercy. You can't possibly be this stupid, but what's the alternative? That you think it's perfectly moral to portray people who disagree with your hunches as monsters?
Art,
It's one aspect of the APL double standard. They always hold those on their side to a higher standard than those on the other side. In the case of the climate change folx, it's absolutely hilarious that folx like Dan simply accept and excuse these examples of hypocrisy in those high profile folx who drive the narrative.
To be fair, Trump does have a cadre of followers who will vociferously support him no matter what he says or does. I suspect that his recent admission that his plan in to send more weapons to Ukraine will cause plenty of those folks to endorse his expansion of the Biden policy, while criticizing Biden.
"Good Lord, have mercy. You can't possibly be this stupid, but what's the alternative?"
No, that's not it at all. That's a great question that you could have chosen to answer. What is the "alternative"? How are we going to reduce the population? Why are those things so abhorrent to you when they either are or have been engaged in or supported by the APL?
"That you think it's perfectly moral to portray people who disagree with your hunches as monsters?"
No, I'll leave that bit of histrionic overreaction to you. I'll just point out hypocrisy.
"How shall we accomplish this? Eugenics? Kill of the useless eaters? Admit millions of undocumented immigrants from societies that have higher birth rates than the US? Force women in the third world to have abortions?"
Let me try another way:
Do you HONESTLY think it's reasonable or likely that i/we are advocating ANY of that OR that it's more likely we're talking about reasonable educational efforts encouraging folks to act responsibly with family planning?
Do you think there's something like even a BILLION to one likelihood that I'm talking forced abortions?
No. That would be stupid as shit, wouldn't it? It's the GOP, after all, who are the ones dictating to women what they can and can't do with their pregnancy choices, not progressives.
Don't be obtuse.
No? You don't think it's moral to paint others as monsters?
Then why did you do it?
Dan
"Do you HONESTLY think it's reasonable or likely that i/we are advocating ANY of that OR that it's more likely we're talking about reasonable educational efforts encouraging folks to act responsibly with family planning?"
I can't speak for you, and you certainly can't speak for anyone else. But yes, various US and European government funded initiatives, and ONG's are strongly advocating/coercing women in Africa into making decisions about their own bodies, children, and families that go against their culture. See Target Africa by Obianuju Ekeocha for more details.
"Do you think there's something like even a BILLION to one likelihood that I'm talking forced abortions?"
Again, I have no idea what you are "talking" because you'd rather ask these idiotic questions instead of plainly tell us what you're "talking". But yes, forced abortions have been a thing for years, and abortion is being touted as a way to eliminate Down's Syndrome in Europe.
"No. That would be stupid as shit, wouldn't it? It's the GOP, after all, who are the ones dictating to women what they can and can't do with their pregnancy choices, not progressives."
What's "stupid as shit", is the fact that you come in here and drop veiled hints about what you are "talking", without actually specifying what you are "talking". Further, your insinuation that you represent, or can speak for the entire climate change movement, is simply absurd. No, liberals are doing it to, just differently.
"Don't be obtuse."
I don't need to, you have that covered.
"No? You don't think it's moral to paint others as monsters?"
Again, you do so frequently, why shouldn't I?
"Then why did you do it?"
By all means, prove that none of the things I've mentioned is happening anywhere in the world.
BTW, if you listen to Harris' speech and her "gaffe", the audience responds with cheers and applause. Do you really think that they were applauding her "gaffe" or was her "gaffe" what they wanted to hear?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/
Hell the APL and DFL regularly canonize and still Margaret Sanger, and until 2015 gave people like Pelosi and Clinton the Margaret Sanger award. Planned Parenthood (founded with the intent of selectively killing off certain "inferior" races) was built on Eugenics.
The Ekeocha book contains ample evidence of what Europe and the US are funding in Africa.
The disparity between the Hispanic and Anglo birth rates has been known for years.
But you keep pretending that you'll just idolize those people who live the "simple" agrarian" lifestyle that you, yourself don't live and telling us how we should adopt that lifestyle.
still Margaret Sanger, and until 2015 gave people like Pelosi and Clinton the Margaret Sanger award.
So, you are saying that people from earlier centuries/times should be measured only by their worst views? That G Washington and Thomas Jefferson, for instance, should have their statues removed and names sullied because they owned slaves and had racist views?
I hold different views for those from different times. I can clearly condemn Washington/Jefferson's racist views and yet, acknowledge their contributions. Same for Sanger (who did not tolerate racist views at her workplace and was esteemed by Coretta Scott and ML King) but who may have also been a product of her times.
But, tell me: DO you think the contributions of racists/sexists, etc from earlier times should be rebuked because of their sexism/racism OR are you just hypocritically singling out the progressive woman?
If you tell me that you believe that Washington/Jefferson - who actually OWNED human slaves in their racism and abuse of human rights - and Sanger, who appeared to at least want to be an ally to black people, but may have had troubling views are equally reprehensible, then at least you won't be a hypocrite.
But I rather doubt that's true.
You listen to too many right wing conspiracy theories and it's polluted your brain. Free your mind, man.
And to remind you of the conversation, I said that slowing down population growth is a morally, rationally good thing to do and YOU responded, TO ME, asking ME:
"How shall we accomplish this? Eugenics? Kill of the useless eaters? Admit millions of undocumented immigrants from societies that have higher birth rates than the US? Force women in the third world to have abortions?"
Now, you'd have to be incredibly daft to think that I (ie, the person you're asking the question to) think ANY of that.
ARE you daft? Stupid? Brainwashed? OR can you reasonably and easily say, "Not that YOU support any of that. A person would have to be too stupid to walk through life to think that! Of course, not YOU..."
So, that's the question I was asking you. NOT what others not involved in this discussion might think (and you have no room to think that modern liberals support eugenics or forced abortions.... Again, you'd have to be daft to think that's an option - or prone to listening to and passing on conspiracy theories that demonize "the liberals!!!")
So, be clear, right here, right now.
State clearly that it is STUPID for anyone to suggest that liberals in general would support eugenics or forced abortions. That ANYONE who made that suggestion is a damned liar.
Clear up your false insinuation. If you want to make the argument that 100 years ago, SOME liberals had bad opinions or that there may be isolated, 1 in 100 million liberals who still hold crazy views, then make that claim and be prepared to support it.
But your insinuation is part of the empty-headed and dangerous conspiracy noodling that has overtaken the modern GOP with their PizzaGate/Q-Anon warnings about cabals of Democrats and Hollywood elites eating babies and shit. The modern GOP - the good ones, if any are left - have GOT to abort (if you will) the indecent and dangerous conspiracy theory wing of their party. They're dangerous and you who ignore it are enabling the idiots.
Before I dig too deep, I need to note that this is pretty impressive of Dan's part. Instead of answering me asking him "How will this be accomplished?", he's choosing to attack me for asking for asking about specific ways to do so that are already being used to some degree or another. This faux anger, intended to draw attention away from his failure (so far) to answer one simple question.
"Now, you'd have to be incredibly daft to think that I (ie, the person you're asking the question to) think ANY of that."
Well then it's presumably good to know that you object to those sorts of measures being used.
"ARE you daft? Stupid? Brainwashed? OR can you reasonably and easily say, "Not that YOU support any of that. A person would have to be too stupid to walk through life to think that! Of course, not YOU...""
No, No, No. I'm just hoping for an answer to the initial question, "How...?", instead of this performative, nonsense.
"So, that's the question I was asking you. NOT what others not involved in this discussion might think (and you have no room to think that modern liberals support eugenics or forced abortions.... Again, you'd have to be daft to think that's an option - or prone to listening to and passing on conspiracy theories that demonize "the liberals!!!")"
Since you wouldn't answer the question that started you on this rant, and since you choose to ignore the reality, then I guess I see no reason to indulge your faux outrage.
"So, be clear, right here, right now."
You won't, why would you demand that I do what you won't. I literally asked you if the tactics used elsewhere by those on the left, are possible tactics that you would consider.
"State clearly that it is STUPID for anyone to suggest that liberals in general would support eugenics or forced abortions. That ANYONE who made that suggestion is a damned liar."
Well done. Instead of actually dealing with the facts and reality, you simply go into attack mode and start the ad hom attacks. Obviously anyone who sees things that you don't see must be a "damned liar", because you speak for all on the left.
"Clear up your false insinuation. If you want to make the argument that 100 years ago, SOME liberals had bad opinions or that there may be isolated, 1 in 100 million liberals who still hold crazy views, then make that claim and be prepared to support it."
as recently as 2015 the liberals at Planned Parenthood were admiringly given other liberals the Margaret Sanger award. I'm sorry if the history of liberal "thought" has such offensive baggage that some of y'all just won't get rid of. Always remember that it's the left who celebrates such wonderful humans as Che, Fidel, and Mao by putting them on T-shirts.
"But your insinuation is part of the empty-headed and dangerous conspiracy noodling that has overtaken the modern GOP with their PizzaGate/Q-Anon warnings about cabals of Democrats and Hollywood elites eating babies and shit. The modern GOP - the good ones, if any are left - have GOT to abort (if you will) the indecent and dangerous conspiracy theory wing of their party. They're dangerous and you who ignore it are enabling the idiots."
Ahhhhhhhhh, the quick retreat to that vacuous, insipid, bullshit, claims of "conspiracy theories". It's hilarious that you choose to ignore that the "pizza-gate" Russia collusion, Steele dossier all came from the Hillary campaign, and have all been proven to be false. I know the idea of any of your sainted liberal icons ever lying is inconceivable to you, but try living in the world of reality for a while.
"So, you are saying that people from earlier centuries/times should be measured only by their worst views? That G Washington and Thomas Jefferson, for instance, should have their statues removed and names sullied because they owned slaves and had racist views?"
No, no.
"I hold different views for those from different times. I can clearly condemn Washington/Jefferson's racist views and yet, acknowledge their contributions. Same for Sanger (who did not tolerate racist views at her workplace and was esteemed by Coretta Scott and ML King) but who may have also been a product of her times."
"Tolerate racist views", nice alternate reality you've chosen to live in. Strangely enough still no answer to the very first question I asked (so far).
"But, tell me: DO you think the contributions of racists/sexists, etc from earlier times should be rebuked because of their sexism/racism OR are you just hypocritically singling out the progressive woman?"
No all of them, surely. I guess I feel like maybe, advocating for the killing of entire races or ethnic groups because she bought Darwinism hook, line, and sinker, is just a special kind of evil.
"If you tell me that you believe that Washington/Jefferson - who actually OWNED human slaves in their racism and abuse of human rights - and Sanger, who appeared to at least want to be an ally to black people, but may have had troubling views are equally reprehensible, then at least you won't be a hypocrite."
Sanger literally advocated for exterminating certain "races", and literally contributed nothing of lasting value to humanity, being held up as equivalent to Washington and Jefferson is absurd.
"But I rather doubt that's true."
I don't care.
"You listen to too many right wing conspiracy theories and it's polluted your brain. Free your mind, man."
You cling to this notion that everything anyone says that paints y'all in a negative light is a "conspiracy theory", like this ridiculous belief is life itself.
Still haven't answered the very first question, "How would...?".
You see, I can choose to believe a female Nigerian scientist who's done the research, published the evidence, and exposed herself to personal risk-or I can believe you and your vitriolic bullshit.
I've got to say that it's absolutely hilarious to watch Dan avoid the original question of "How...?", ignore his advocating a lifestyle he doesn't actually live, ignore the hypocrisy of John Kerry and the political virtue signaling of this Spanish government official, while prattling on about all sorts of diversions.
Craig...
Instead of answering me asking him "How will this be accomplished?", he's choosing to attack me...
I DID answer, although maybe not clearly enough for you, given your penchant/habit/routine of not reading for understanding but reading for ammunition to make stupidly false attacks. I ANSWERED when I said:
that it's more likely
WE'RE talking about
reasonable educational efforts
encouraging folks to act responsibly with family planning?
THAT is the answer. That's the only answer. We're not going to kill anyone. We're not creating plans to sterilize Africa. We're not acting in ANY way contrary to human rights.
Because of course we're not and only conspiracy theory believing nutjobs would say otherwise.
Which camp are you in? The one that recognizes "OF COURSE, that's what they're talking about..." Or the camp that says, "They're eating children in a pizza joint with the Pope, Bill Clinton, Tom Cruise and Jeff Epstein - who's NOT DEAD, by the way!"...?
You won't, why would you demand that I do what you won't.
I did. You were too obtuse and busy looking for attack ammo to notice it.
I'm just hoping for an answer to the initial question, "How...?",
I did. You were too obtuse and busy looking for attack ammo to notice it. AND, you didn't merely ask, "How would we do this?" Did you? You asked, "How would we do this? Forced abortion? Eugenics? Eating their babies?" and other goofy ass shit.
IF you want to engage in adult conversation, then act like an adult. Don't ask stupid questions where the answer is obvious.
Seriously. Did you NOT know that all the serious talks about limiting population revolve around educational efforts? Did you REALLY think that some people are advocating forced abortions?
IF the answer is you did NOT know the obvious answer, and you suspect that the insane shit might be the answer, then I don't know how to help you: You ARE stupid, if that's what you believe. Or more likely, willingly brain-washed but con men willing to spread stupid false claims and conspiracy theories.
DO you believe in Q-Anon's theories? Do you suspect a secret Hollywood-DC cabal of baby eaters and rapists?
Get help, son. Or, better yet, just open your eyes, recognize the harm you're doing to yourself and your "side" and apologize for stupidly false insinuations.
I've got to say that it's absolutely hilarious to watch Dan avoid the original question of "How...?"
I've got to say how sadly hilarious it is that Craig has been repeating THIS stupidly false claim over and over while ignoring my clear answer in lieu of his strawman idiot.
Read for understanding, son.
"Now, you'd have to be incredibly daft to think that I (ie, the person you're asking the question to) think ANY of that."
...and...
"ARE you daft? Stupid? Brainwashed? OR can you reasonably and easily say, "Not that YOU support any of that. A person would have to be too stupid to walk through life to think that! Of course, not YOU...""
Amazing. These are the very types of objections I've lodged against Dan's more direct insinuations and accusations and he's always whined in response. He has absolutely no problems presuming the worst of us, but now wets himself when more reasonable suspicions are expressed against him. Typical.
ignore his advocating a lifestyle he doesn't actually live
I live as best I can in the context of my real world life and I advocate living as best I know how. You think that's problematic? I don't.
Fortunately, I'm not a legalistic and I believe in grace, where one doesn't have to be one's "perfect" self, recognizing that, as humans, we aren't going to be perfect or have perfect solutions.
But I DO understand how legalists might find this problematic.
Fortunately, I'm not beholden to live up to legalists' human ideas.
Life must be extremely sad and defeating and pathetic for legalists. Another reason to embrace grace.
"You think that's problematic?"
It's not problematic, it is hypocritical to tell others that a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle is the preferred lifestyle and the most desirable lifestyle while not living it, but it is hypocritical.
"I don't."
How shocking. You don't think that living your life in a way that contradicts what you claim is the best lifestyle is a problem. Of course you don't.
"DO you believe in Q-Anon's theories? Do you suspect a secret Hollywood-DC cabal of baby eaters and rapists?"
No. Do I believe that there is a subculture among those who are rich and powerful that is depraved and engages in pedophilia, yes. Obviously the existence if the Epstein island indicates that this is a reality. It may be a relatively small group, but that's immaterial.
Still haven't explained the "How...?". Or pointed to your answer. Still obfuscating with Q and your own conspiracy theories.
"that it's more likely
WE'RE talking about
reasonable educational efforts
encouraging folks to act responsibly with family planning?"
That's a question, not and answer. That's also not a specific, concrete, definitive answer. It's speculation.
"Which camp are you in?"
The one that advocates freedom.
"The one that recognizes "OF COURSE, that's what they're talking about..." Or the camp that says, "They're eating children in a pizza joint with the Pope, Bill Clinton, Tom Cruise and Jeff Epstein - who's NOT DEAD, by the way!"...?"
This is not an actual "camp", it's just you making shit up.
I do love how you are so dismissive of what is actually going on in Africa. Your childish belief that if you don't know about it, then it doesn't exist would be kind of cute if it wasn't so stupid. I'm back to my choice between believing a female, Nigerian, scientist who's done the research or believing Dan who's got nothing more that ridicule and ignorance.
it is hypocritical to tell others that a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle is the preferred lifestyle and the most desirable lifestyle while not living it, but it is hypocritical.
Have I ever one time in all of humanity said that? Think about it (Hint: The answer is no, not ever in all of reality has Dan said this). Recognize reality.
And, thinking that a simple agrarian lifestyle is a good and maybe even a preferred way to live (I'm pretty sure I never said that) doesn't mean that it's the ONLY "preferred" way to live. Of course, not everyone can live an agrarian lifestyle and I'm literally not suggesting that everyone should.
So, just another example of you reading but failing to understand and then preceding to make stupidly false claims.
Do I believe that there is a subculture among those who are rich and powerful that is depraved and engages in pedophilia, yes.
Agreed. The problem you run into is if/when you suggest this is primarily a liberal problem. There are rich and powerful perverts of all political stripes and, at least based upon news reports of conservative preachers and congresspeople/politicians getting caught in abuses of power, I'd be willing to guess that IF there's any group that's more prone to find these sorts of abuses of power, it would be conservatives and here's why:
Conservatives tend to believe in a more patriarchal style of life. Conservatives believe in honoring tradition and elders and tend to place less value in "questioning authority." LISTEN to your elders, we were told, don't question them! Now, of course, there is a spectrum on those generalizations and the VAST majority of conservative types probably don't lean towards a more oppressive version of patriarchy and tradition and eschewing questions, but in that spectrum, there is certainly a portion that leans towards an unhealthy patriarchy.
Liberals, on the other hand, are the ones who tend to be more egalitarian and defensive of human rights especially for women, children, minorities and the traditionally oppressed. So, my guess is that, if anything, oppressive abuses of power by the rich and powerful and perverse (Trump, etc) probably tend to lean more conservative.
Regardless, there is no evidence at all that this is predominantly a liberal problem. It's just a problem.
"Have I ever one time in all of humanity said that?"
Not in those exact words, but yes. Or at least something very similar. Are you now denying that you advocate people living a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle? Are you saying that a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle is not, in your opinion, the most desirable option.
But nice job of avoiding your lack of consistency.
I do love how you are so dismissive of what is actually going on in Africa.
Point to ONE PLACE in ALLLLL THE HISTORY OF WORDS I'VE WRITTEN, here or elsewhere, where I've EVER been "dismissive" of "what is actually going on in Africa."
That's just another bullshit claim, pulled out of your ass and wiped on your blog. Stop it. Read for understanding and just stop making up stupidly false claims.
"Agreed."
Interesting. After your complaints about my buying into some QAnon conspiracy theory, you now actually agree.
"The problem you run into is if/when you suggest this is primarily a liberal problem.'
The problem you run into is if/when you suggest that I suggested something that I did not suggest. I don't recall even bringing up the topic of trafficking, nor is it particularly relevant to this conversation. While Epstein certainly had a fair amount of prominent left wing politicians and powerful people visit his island, I've never indicated that it is only/primarily a liberal problem. You must have jumped to that conclusion all on your own.
I'm not going to dignify your vague, generalized, characterizations with a response. I would say that while it's rare to see conservatives walking around with dictators, and perpetrators of genocide on their t-shirts, the left frequently uses Mao, Stalin, Fidel, and Che as fashion statements.
Craig, who was caught in a stupidly false claim, now asks:
Are you now denying that you advocate people living a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle?
I support people living a simple life wherever they live. I support people making their own decisions about whether or not they want to do so or how simply to live.
I support people living a simple agrarian lifestyle if they want.
I've never once in all of history said that I think that a simple agrarian lifestyle is "THE preferred" way to live or suggested that most or all people should strive for that. IF I THOUGHT THAT, son, I'D LIVE THAT. But I don't think that. You can tell by the way I never once SAID that.
Are you saying that a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle is not, in your opinion, the most desirable option.
Yes, that is what I'm saying. I've never said that a "simple agrarian lifestyle is the most desirable option" and I do not think that. Again, you can tell by the way I never said that.
IF one sees the value in that, THEN I support them doing it. A simple agrarian lifestyle can be a beautiful, wholesome, healthy, holistic way to live. I've seen it in practice. But I haven't said that it's the ONLY beautiful, wholesome, healthy, holistic way to live. I don't live that way myself, in part, because I recognize the simple, beautiful, healthy way of living in urban communities that are made/designed to be more healthy and communal, for instance. I love living in a neighborhood surrounding by people of all races, from a wide range of nations, of all ages and wealth ranges, housed and unhoused. I love walking the streets to get to places without a car. I love urban lots that have replaced their lawns with wildflowers and vegetable gardens. I love the dog park behind my house, where all the neighbors bring their dogs to play together... where there's an open water spigot where our unhoused friends can clean off and get some water. I love my church made up of a wide range of people and traditions that we often don't find in more rural areas.
Whatever made you think that I ONLY value simple agrarian lifestyles, seeing as how I've never said that?
I DO love nature and simplicity and value those things in my life and embrace them as much as I can to the degree I can that works for me and my family. But I've never said my choices and preferences should be everyone else's.
"Point to ONE PLACE in ALLLLL THE HISTORY OF WORDS I'VE WRITTEN, here or elsewhere, where I've EVER been "dismissive" of "what is actually going on in Africa.""
Earlier in this thread where you lumped in what's happening in Africa with all of your other "conspiracy theories", for starters. I suspect that you are just ignorant of what ONG's, and Various European and American governmental groups are doing and advocating in Africa. You tend to cover your ignorance with dismissiveness.
But nice job of avoiding your lack of consistency.
It's not a "lack of consistency" if I don't advocate what you falsely claimed I advocate.
But nice job of avoiding a simple apology for what is clearly a mistake on your part. ONE of the nice things about simple, gracious living is... well, it's simple! Look, you made a mistake. You misunderstood what I've said when I've never said it. NO PROBLEM. It's a mistake. Mistakes happen. We all make mistakes and truly, I can't tell you how little of a problem it is that you made this mistake.
But when you are corrected and dig in and STILL insist on making the same false accusation, well, that's just unnecessarily complicated. Why not just apologize and be done with it?
Earlier in this thread where you lumped in what's happening in Africa with all of your other "conspiracy theories",
Quote where I did this, please. You won't cite the quote because it didn't happen.
You read but fail to understand. You read INTO my words what's not there and jump on that false understanding. Why not just admit your error and apologize and be done?
"Why not just apologize and be done with it?"
1. Why would I do what you won't?
2. Look, you can use all the weasel words, and equivocate, all you want. The reality is that you (to whatever degree) have advocated that a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle is preferred/better/a goal/whatever, yet you don't actually live the lifestyle you claim is the better option.
"Quote where I did this, please. You won't cite the quote because it didn't happen."
Again, why would I do something that you rarely do?
"(and you have no room to think that modern liberals support eugenics or forced abortions...."
This is quite a claim. That zero modern liberals support either of those things. As usual, all I need is one example to prove you wrong.
"It's the GOP, after all, who are the ones dictating to women what they can and can't do with their pregnancy choices, not progressives."
Again, not exactly True, and misleading. This is quite the claim, again, that "progressives" are in no way at all (anywhere in the world" dictating/coercing/pressuring etc women regarding their pregnancy choices.
THAT is the answer. That's the only answer. We're not going to kill anyone. We're not creating plans to sterilize Africa. We're not acting in ANY way contrary to human rights.
Because of course we're not and only conspiracy theory believing nutjobs would say otherwise.
"Did you NOT know that all the serious talks about limiting population revolve around educational efforts? Did you REALLY think that some people are advocating forced abortions?
IF the answer is you did NOT know the obvious answer, and you suspect that the insane shit might be the answer, then I don't know how to help you: You ARE stupid, if that's what you believe. Or more likely, willingly brain-washed but con men willing to spread stupid false claims and conspiracy theories.
DO you believe in Q-Anon's theories? Do you suspect a secret Hollywood-DC cabal of baby eaters and rapists?"
This is the most obvious attempt where you link what's happening in Africa to your "conspiracy theories/Q" go to bogie man. I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some explanation where you claim that you really didn't say something or didn't mean what you said or that you'll pick some tiny semantic fig leaf to hide behind as your way of maintaining your perfection.
The reality is that you (to whatever degree) have advocated that a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle is preferred/better/a goal/whatever, yet you don't actually live the lifestyle you claim is the better option.
???!!
HOW clear can I make this for you?
I LITERALLY DID NOT CLAIM THAT IS THE BETTER OR ONLY MORAL OPTION.
A SIMPLE, LIVING OFF THE LAND lifestyle is A GOOD OPTION for those who want to embrace it. It is ONE example of a potentially healthy, good lifestyle. And agrarianism, in contrast with hyper-consumptive, hedonistic, industrialized pollution-based lifestyle IS NOT a good option (which is sort of the point of agrarianism.)
That is, it's not saying that simple agrarian living is the only moral option or the best moral option. It's saying pollution and hyper-consumption/over-consumption is not good or sustainable.
But one need not embrace simplicity or agrarianism in total to also not be hyper-consumptive and promoting polluting.
ALSO, since agrarianism is a philosophy of responsible living, of living within one's means and not destroying the land, who SAYS I'm not a lifestyle that I'm living? I think one mistake you're making is that agrarianism means living on a farm. It doesn't. It's a philosophy, not a location.
And that is NOT saying that ALL people should aspire to living on a farm and simply. There are other ways of living.
And to be clear, "agrarian" is a movement/philosophy that I have written about a few times. Like here:
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2023/03/environmental-simple-living-and.html
Where I stated:
Concern for nature and simple living and healthy rural communities is a common theme amongst progressives.
That does NOT mean that all progressives want to live in the country.
And here:
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-simplicity-complex-answer-part-i.html
Where I quote Wendell Berry who says...
In any consideration of agrarianism, this issue of limitation is critical. Agrarian farmers see, accept, and live within their limits. They understand and agree to the proposition that there is “this much and no more...”
And he's contrasting that with a more industrial/hyper-consumptive model. But neither Berry nor I said or are saying that simple agrarian lifestyles are the only good option. Just that living within our means IS our responsibility.
I think part of the problem is that agrarianism probably isn't what you think it is. I think another part of the problem is that you, like many conservatives, have a more legalistic mindset... that if "Dan is saying that living simply and sustainably is good, then he MUST mean that one must live like the Amish on a farm and every other model is BAD..." That you're reading INTO my preferences and philosophy a legalism that I do not promote.
This is the most obvious attempt where you link what's happening in Africa to your "conspiracy theories/Q" go to bogie man. I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some explanation where you claim that you really didn't say something or didn't mean what you said or that you'll pick some tiny semantic fig leaf to hide behind
You mean like the "semantic fig leaf" that I LITERALLY DID NOT SAY THAT. I LITERALLY made no connection to "what's happening in Africa" to conspiracy theories? But that's the reality. Words matter. I didn't say that. Period. You're READING INTO my words meaning and content that is literally not there.
I hadn't commented specifically on your one woman from Africa and her opinions and her book because I literally do not know her or what claims she has and hasn't made and I don't comment on stuff I haven't read. I'm strange, that way. I did do a quick search to see that she's a conservative pro-life person who appears to be arguing that western nations are doing bad stuff. But as to whether or not she's correct, I don't know. I don't know her or her credentials/research/opinions to choose to give credence/doubt to her one way or the other. I'm not willing to accept it on your word that she knows what she's talking about or what she has and hasn't proven.
It appears that she's objecting to western groups working with African groups to encourage family planning efforts and birth control. But that's not the same as forced abortions or "killing off useless eaters" or any of your other crazy and stupidly false claims.
So, when you falsely claim, "I do love how you are so dismissive of what is actually going on in Africa." ...that false claim is just NOT supported by my words. That I don't comment on a woman and her opinions when I don't know them is not being "dismissive" of "what is actually going on in Africa..." Do you understand that?
Again, you simply made a mistake. You misinterpreted what I have and haven't said and jumped to conclusion that reality doesn't support. That's not a problem. HANGING ON to the false claims and not just admitting you were wrong and apologizing, THAT's the problem.
Question: Do you think this one conservative pro-life activist is speaking for all Africans? If so, why?
Again, why would I do something that you rarely do?
Because you made a false claim, were called on it and corrected and I expect you to do the right thing and admit your mistake. It's quite a charge to say I'm "dismissive" of what's "really going on in Africa..." and it's quite a slanderous suggestion to say that liberals are considering forced abortions, eugenics and killing off useless eaters. Get past your brainwashing or whatever it is that enables you to make such false and slanderous remarks. Be a better man.
"Question: Do you think this one conservative pro-life activist is speaking for all Africans? If so, why?"
No, I never claimed that she was. What I do claim is that she has done extensive research, documented it very well, presented it in a compelling and logical fashion. And that you'll ignore it because she doesn't agree with you on the topic of abortion.
And yes, you did pretty much what I thought you'd do, and throw enough crap and weasel words up against the wall hoping that something would stick. Your way of demeaning people who disagree with you and their research, while trying to make it sound like you're being fair and open minded is impressive in it's disingenuousness.
Dan:
"(and you have no room to think that modern liberals support eugenics or forced abortions...."
Craig:
This is quite a claim. That zero modern liberals support either of those things. As usual, all I need is one example to prove you wrong.
I have always been clear that there are outliers in any partisan group. There are crazy folk who may believe in eugenics and forced abortions amongst both liberals and conservatives. We KNOW that there are conservatives who believe that gay people should be put in jail and perhaps even executed, "as the Bible teaches," they would say.
I'm speaking CLEARLY about progressives/liberals in general, NOT the crazy outliers. You can't be an adult reader and not understand that distinction. I did not say (look at my words, it's not there), "THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE LIBERAL IN ALL THE WORLD IN ALL OF HISTORY who supports forced abortions." You can see that, right?
Do you think it would be fair to say, "Well hell, the GOP supports putting gay people in prison and executing them..." because some on their side literally advocate that? (I can show you the quotes if you're not familiar with them... There are nations in Africa that have enacted laws like this with the encouragement and support of conservative Christians - you know this, right?)
With conservatives and their response to gay folk, it's not theoretical, it's really happening and at a state level. So, given that reality, is it fair to suggest that this is a common sentiment in conservative circles?
I don't think so and I wouldn't say that and, so far as I know, it's a much closer reality than any theoretical liberals who support forced abortions (which, as far as I know, is not a real world effort under way to make that as a policy).
Do you see/understand, now?
you did pretty much what I thought you'd do, and throw enough crap and weasel words up against the wall hoping that something would stick.
It's really quite sad that ME citing reality and the facts is something YOU consider "crap and weasel words..." Man, facts, data and reality are VITAL. LOVE THEM. Accept them. Embrace them. Facts and reality are not crap for you to just ignore and make up "alternative facts." Quit kicking against the goads, boy.
What I do claim is that she has done extensive research, documented it very well, presented it in a compelling and logical fashion. And that you'll ignore it because she doesn't agree with you on the topic of abortion.
You cite to me ONE person who, as it turns out, is a pro-life activist and her alleged research she did about what is "really happening in Africa..." 24 hours ago. Before that, I'd never heard of her or her book. I've "ignored it" so far because I've never heard of her or her book. I don't know if you think that's strange but it's really not. Will I seek out some pro-life activist to see what she has to say about Africa because you personally find it interesting or meaningful? No. Just no. I don't read every book out there and I certainly don't read whole books from an activist because a conservative recommends it. For better and worse, conservatives have largely burned those bridges too often.
Now, cite someone who is NOT an issue activist who is peer-reviewed and has something more than their say-so or the support of a bunch of other activists and I will probably read an article or more on it, if it's compelling.
But I don't know if you know this or not, but there's just a lot of disinformation out there on all sides, and especially being spread by conservative extremists. If you find it hard to believe I won't consider reading such writings based on your say so strange, well, so be it.
How about this: Talk with me about information from BBC, NPR, Reuters, AMA or other trusted source of information, cite to me their articles and I would be more than glad to read it.
HOW clear can I make this for you? "
I doubt you can, making things clear is not how you roll.
I don't know how to help you, little man. Saying, "I DID NOT SAY THAT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT." IS a direct and clear way of talking. That you don't understand that is part of your problem, not mine.
that your failure to adopt the lifestyle you claim is "good", speaks volumes.
Another damned lie. Prove it. HOW have I not embraced the lifestyle/philosophy that I claim is good? SUPPORT YOUR DAMNED LIE and when you can't because it's a stupidly false damned lie, have the decency to admit you were wrong and you misspoke.
Look, do you even UNDERSTAND agrarianism? Can you define it? Ignorance is never a good starting point. And your comments belie the legalism at the root of your shaky philosophy. Not everyone embraces the legalism that you appear to embrace, nor do we live lives of legalism, but shoot more for the grace side of things.
When you fail to support your stupidly false claims, one after the other, I won't be surprised - it's how you roll - but it will be obvious, I'm certain, to some part or the other of your brain and you'll know you're making these ridiculous false claims but never acknowledging them or apologizing for them and you'll just have to live with that, hardening your heart, over and over again.
For your sake, dear one, I hope you don't go that path.
It's amazing how you regularly offer single issue advocacy groups as proof of things, but turn around and dismiss the extensive research done simply because you can categorize someone as a "pro life activist". It's an excellent way to protect yourself from things you might not want to confront, engaged in by folks on your side of the aisle. It's hilarious that you are referring to Bill and Melinda Gates as "outliers", in your willful ignorance.
Look, I understand that you silo yourself off and zealously protect yourself from things that might challenge your personal hunches about how all of the liberals in the world do things. I get that by excluding certain people from consideration, without regards to the accuracy of their reporting or the quality of their research because of your personal biases, is hypocritical in light of your incessant demands that we "listen to" the specific "black voices" that are approved by you, who spout the narrative you are committed to, regardless of their being single issue advocates. So, go right ahead. Ignore, dismiss, and minimize the voice of an educated black woman simply because she doesn't meet your arbitrary "qualifications".
The hypocrisy is truly stunning. The fact that you try to disguise your bias and prejudice behind your lofty language is disgusting. The reality is that you could, but you won't, do the research and prove her objectively and totally wrong. You could look at her evidence, and counter it. You could objectively win. Instead, you'll do exactly what I expect and simply claim victory over a straw man ignoring one more "black voice" because she doesn't accept your version of black orthodoxy.
Your insistence that only your pet sources are worthy of "trust", rings hollow as you revel in your ignorance of the sources she cites or the research she's done. It's always easier to summarily dismiss the unknown as untrustworthy, than to approach things with an open mind.
I'll say that you've done an excellent job of moving this discussion away from Harris, Kerry, and the Spanish climate czar. You still haven't answered the "How...?", question. I know you think that some random, vague, buzz words phrased as a question is somehow an answer, but it's not.
Again, well done.
"HOW have I not embraced the lifestyle/philosophy that I claim is good?"
Well, that's a good question, although just a way to drive the focus further off topic. My answer is that if you really did 100% commit to your "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle, that you would (just like you do about your church) be quick to tout your achievements. You'd be vocal about the wonderfulness of your "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle. Instead you take walks through the woods and take a few pictures with your cell hone or digital camera, created by environmentally harmful mining fueled by the labor of child slaves.
I understand that you might exaggerate of outright lie about the details of your "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle knowing that it would be virtually impossible to prove. But the fact that you put so much effort into justifying all of the honorable alternatives to this "good" life, tells me that you aren't living the "good" lifestyle you espouse.
Again, your ability to move things so far off topic, ignore the on topic questions, and points made is impressive.
I'm done indulging your continued attempts to move further off topic. If you want to deal with the points made about Harris, Kerry, and the Spanish climate climate minister, that'd be awesome. I'll gladly respond to those. I'm done responding to the rest, although I'll post your rambling, self justifying, screeds to continue to make my point.
It's hilarious that you are referring to Bill and Melinda Gates as "outliers", in your willful ignorance.
BY EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS, cite the quote to me where the Gates are forcing abortions on people and I will join hands with you in calling for them to go to prison and singing Hallelujah as their hauled away.
I'll wait while you once again ignore the reasonable request for you to support your perverted claim. (Not that I'm a fan or have an opinion one way or the other about the Gates - although I do believe they actually donate their wealth regularly unlike the pervert king of the GOP... just that I'm certain this is just another in a long line of conspiracy theory crazy claims that the GOP has embraced.
My answer is that if you really did 100% commit to your "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle, that you would (just like you do about your church) be quick to tout your achievements. You'd be vocal about the wonderfulness of your "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle. Instead you take walks through the woods and take a few pictures with your cell hone or digital camera, created by environmentally harmful mining fueled by the labor of child slaves...
the fact that you put so much effort into justifying all of the honorable alternatives to this "good" life, tells me that you aren't living the "good" lifestyle you espouse.
So, you've got nothing. No support, no quotes from me, nothing to prove your stupid and unsupported claim about a claim that I DIDN'T EVEN MAKE.
And yet, no apology for the stupidly false claims and attacks.
You're only hurting yourself with this deadly legalism and embrace of perverse slander.
It would be so much more honest and honorable for Dan to cease speaking for "most" liberals or any other unnamed group of people he claims validates his unjustifiable opinions and instead speak only for himself. Let's pretend that Dan is not typical of the progressive left. Let's pretend that he is more or less radical than they about their indefensible positions on the issues of the day. I would be far more impressed with the dude (a low bar to overcome for him) if he would simply say that he speaks only for himself and then provide factual reasons and evidence for why he believes what stupid things he believes. He never provides any data to affirm his speaking for all of lefty world is accurate at all. He simply asserts that lefty word doesn't believe or act the way you've presented. Every piece of evidence, every example of leftists...those are always outliers. At the same time, he cherry-picks center-right outliers and ties them to all of "modern" conservatism. Far more troubling and dangerous to our culture and the American way of life is the modern progressive.
"BY EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS, cite the quote to me where the Gates are forcing abortions on people and I will join hands with you in calling for them to go to prison and singing Hallelujah as their hauled away."
I've given you a resource that extensively delves into the types of initiatives that Gate's are involved in. The fact that you've chosen to reject that resource isn't my problem.
Art,
One of the most honest things Dan could do would be to stop using the term "we" (unless he has specific proof), and to substitute the word "I". It would be the most honest, but it would also deprive him of the "support" he feels when he uses the term "we". I'd even buy "we" if he was only referring to his small community of like minded folx in Louisville, but not when he's trying to refer of the entirety of liberals/progressives.
Speaking of your legalism, I'm noticing this...
"if you really did
100%
commit to your "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle, that you would (just like you do about your church) be quick to tout your achievements."
Is it your theory that someone can only align as an agrarian IF they are 100% PERFECT? Well, if so, you got me there. I'm not perfect. I'm not a perfect agrarianism advocate, not a 100% perfect Christian, not a 100% perfect husband, father or neighbor.
But I'm also not a legalist. I don't think one has to be a 100% perfect anything to be a believer or adherent to a philosophy.
Do you hold a different opinion? Is the fact that you are not a 100% perfect believer in Jesus' teachings, for instance, mean you're not a Christian?
Dan
My answer is that if you really did 100% commit to your "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle, that you would (just like you do about your church) be quick to tout your achievements.
and...
It's my experience with you over a number of years that if you are significantly engaged in an activity, that you are very likely to talk about that activity. You've talked a lot about how your church does this and that, or about how you help people in your job.
I've very rarely spoke about my current work or past work of which I'm quite proud on my blog. That is, I've rarely written blog posts about it. I've rarely written blog posts about my beloved community at church. I've rarely had posts about my marriage or family and parenting.
When someone is asking for examples in comments, THEN sometimes I provide examples from my life, because they're asking for examples (in one way or another) and my life is where my examples come from.
I haven't talked about being a member of a CSA (supporting farmers) in the past, nor about the intentional communities I've been part of, or the community farm where I spent a lot of my time working over the last ~15 years, or of supporting and promoting farmers markets. I have talked some about my riding bike and walking in lieu of driving for ~20 years fairly solidly. And I do go to my church, which honors and promotes agrarianism in a variety of ways. My attempts at gardening (i'm not much of a green thumb, unfortunately) and my support for and work with other gardeners and naturalists... My support I've lent to immigrants and immigrant causes over the last ~35 years have often involved agrarian ideals.
And on it goes.
Two things, then:
1. That I don't mention stuff or that you don't see everything I've mentioned is not an indication that I'm not doing stuff.
2. The church I attend, the walks through the woods, the art and photography and poetry I do, the hobbies I take part in, the communities I'm engaged with... ALL of these are an acting out of my agrarian beliefs. While I don't talk about it all the time, you've surely seen me talk about it (the hikes, the church, you mentioned)... these ARE acting out agrarian ideals.
Did you not realize that?
What is it that you think makes one an agrarian? What is it that makes one NOT a good agrarian adherent/promoter?
I suspect that part of the problem is, to be honest, agrarian can mean a lot and has been talked about in a lot of ways. But the other part of the problem, I'm guessing, is that you don't know that much about agrarian beliefs. Is it, to you, simply being Amish (ish)?
Have you read Wendell Berry? You should. He's a national treasure and a wise person and one who doesn't willingly accept the label of "liberal" and has taken some un-liberal positions (or at least, less-than-liberal), so you may find much to honor in his wisdom.
Here he is talking about Agrarianism...
But agrarianism begins with givens: land, plants, animals, weather, hunger, and the birthright knowledge of agriculture. Industrialists are always ready to ignore, sell, or destroy the past in order to gain the entirely unprecedented wealth, comfort, and happiness supposedly to be found in the future. Agrarian farmers know that their very identity depends on their willingness to receive gratefully, use responsibly, and hand down intact an inheritance, both natural and cultural, from the past.
https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-agrarian-standard/
Berry, continued...
If we believed that the existence of the world is rooted in mystery and in sanctity, then we would have a different economy. It would still be an economy of use, necessarily, but it would be an economy also of return. The economy would have to accommodate the need to be worthy of the gifts we receive and use, and this would involve a return of propitiation, praise, gratitude, responsibility, good use, good care, and a proper regard for the unborn. What is most conspicuously absent from the industrial economy and industrial culture is this idea of return. Industrial humans relate themselves to the world and its creatures by fairly direct acts of violence. Mostly we take without asking, use without respect or gratitude, and give nothing in return.
To perceive the world and our life in it as gifts originating in sanctity is to see our human economy as a continuing moral crisis. Our life of need and work forces us inescapably to use in time things belonging to eternity, and to assign finite values to things already recognized as infinitely valuable. This is a fearful predicament. It calls for prudence, humility, good work, propriety of scale. It calls for the complex responsibilities of caretaking and giving-back that we mean by “stewardship.” To all of this the idea of the immeasurable value of the resource is central...
Thomas Jefferson, who knew all these things, obviously was thinking of them when he wrote in 1785 that “it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state. . .” He was saying, two years before the adoption of our constitution, that a democratic state and democratic liberties depend upon democratic ownership of the land. He was already anticipating and fearing the division of our people into settlers, the people who wanted “a little portion of land” as a home, and, virtually opposite to those, the consolidators and exploiters of the land and the land’s wealth, who would not be restrained by what Jefferson called “the natural affection of the human mind.” He wrote as he did in 1785 because he feared exactly the political theory that we now have: the idea that government exists to guarantee the right of the most wealthy to own or control the land without limit.
In any consideration of agrarianism, this issue of limitation is critical. Agrarian farmers see, accept, and live within their limits. They understand and agree to the proposition that there is “this much and no more.” Everything that happens on an agrarian farm is determined or conditioned by the understanding that there is only so much land, so much water in the cistern, so much hay in the barn, so much corn in the crib, so much firewood in the shed, so much food in the cellar or freezer, so much strength in the back and arms — and no more.
Amen and amen.
"I've very rarely spoke about my current work or past work of which I'm quite proud on my blog. That is, I've rarely written blog posts about it. I've rarely written blog posts about my beloved community at church."
Yet you have a whole section at your blog devoted to your church, you've described specific ministries, and the things you focus on. You may not have written a large volume, but you've been quite pleased with what you've done when you have mentioned it. Similarly, with your work.
1. I've never claimed otherwise.
2. If you say so. I'll simply point out that it's pretty easy to define "agrarian" in ways that just happen to include all of the things you do, and to cast your actions as "agrarian" based on your personal definition.
"Did you not realize that?"
Yes, I realize that you are adept at defining things to suit your needs.
"What is it that you think makes one an agrarian?"
1: of or relating to fields or lands or their tenure
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of farmers or their way of life
3: organized or designed to promote agricultural interests
The adjective agrarian comes from the Latin root word ager, meaning a field, but the word's meaning has expanded to include anything rural or farm-related.
"What is it that makes one NOT a good agrarian adherent/promoter?"
Based on the definition, it seems like anyone who lives in an urban or suburban environment or who doesn't engage in farming as their primary focus would not be considered "agrarian".
"I'm guessing, is that you don't know that much about agrarian beliefs. Is it, to you, simply being Amish (ish)?"
No, although the Amish are an excellent example of a group committed to living an exclusively agrarian lifestyle. But hey, my kid has a degree in agronomy, works for the USDA, and spends most of his days with grain. My immediate family currently owns and farms a significant amount of farm land, growing wheat, soybeans, corn, and also grazing land. I spent much of my childhood on the various farms my dad's side of the family owned. So, I think I can say I'm familiar with an "agrarian" lifestyle.
"Have you read Wendell Berry?"
No. Although it's hilarious that you'd ask if I've read any works by him, given your excuses for not reading anything I've ever suggested you read.
The fact that you've chosen to reject that resource isn't my problem.
So, no. You can not provide any support for the slanderous claim that the Gates are forcing women to have abortions. You know, if this was really happening, it would be in the news. Forcing people to have abortions is something that is universally reviled (sigh, again, accept for the outliers). That you're making this INCREDIBLE claim and yet, can not point to a single news source that is covering this shocking scandal tells me everything I need to know.
Anyone can write a book and put all kinds of tales and stories in it. I'm interested in something more objective and fact-driven. Hell, if you have the book, you can cite her sources for her support which, presumably you're suggesting "proves" that the gates are forcing abortions on women.
But you're not even trying. This is the story of the century about alleged monsters allegedly forcing destruction upon poor people, but you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to even TRY to support it with anything beyond your say so.
I suspect what might be happening is that the Gates have given money to groups to encourage family planning and that you and your "source" are reading into that, "HE'S FORCING ABORTIONS ON UNSUSPECTING WOMEN!!!" Because, well again, if it were REALLY happening, it would be in the news.
In other words, I suspect that you all are starting with some data source found in reality and then READING INTO it all kinds of monstrous evil, just like you regularly do, including here on this post. But that you read into other people's words and actions something that isn't there, doesn't mean your straw man is made of anything other than straw.
I'll simply leave Dan's relatively extensive Berry quote alone. It's clear that Dan holds him in high regard and has allowed Berry to shape his personal hunches about what "agrarian" means. It's clear that Berry is a single issue advocate, and is not in any way unbiased. The fact that you only offer one pro agrarian activist, and not peer reviewed scientific studies or the work of CNN, NPR, NYT, or some other MSM is absolutely freaking uproariously hilarious. The complete lack of self awareness as you literally do the exact thing you used as an excuse to dismiss the work of Ekeocha, is brazen, I'll give you that.
3: organized or designed to promote agricultural interests
And one who supports local farmers, they can't be considered agrarians?
And one who dabbles in gardening, they can't be considered agrarians?
And one who encourages and lives out a more sustainable lifestyle, including living in smaller circles, they can't be considered agrarians?
I realize that you are adept at defining things to suit your needs.
Do you know how tone deaf and ironic this is? You are LITERALLY redefining agrarianism in a way to try to minimize anything that doesn't suit your needs, to attack someone you don't know for actions you don't know about because you suspect, in your ignorance, that I don't live out agrarian ideals.
Did you know that supporting local farmers and buying locally in general is an agrarian act?
Did you know that living in smaller circles and driving less and striving to be more sustainable in your consumption choices is an agrarian act?
Seriously: How much do you know about agrarianism or how many agrarians have you read?
Are you just lifting a very limited definition that you think supports your slander and that's the sum total you know of agrarian ideals? Then stop and read up on it. Don't embarrass yourself by speaking out in ignorance.
t's clear that Berry is a single issue advocate, and is not in any way unbiased. The fact that you only offer one pro agrarian activist, and not peer reviewed scientific studies or the work of CNN, NPR, NYT, or some other MSM is absolutely freaking uproariously hilarious.
Wendell Berry is one of the leading agrarian advocates in the world today. Did you know that? He is respected and read world-round and is recognized for his wisdom and the wisdom of others that he brings to light. Did you know that?
Why WOULDN'T I cite the/a preeminent living agrarian on the topic? One who has researched, lived and wrote about the topic and interconnected topics (hardly a "single issue advocate" for wise folk who recognize that all of life and all aspects of life are interconnected) for over sixty years and his expertise is the hard-won expertise of having to actually live it out in his various ways over decades.. why WOULDN'T I cite him? He IS an expert on the topic.
And here, I should point out that I'm not speaking of simple agrarian lifestyle (as in a farming lifestyle), but of modern agrarianism, as a philosophy of living smaller and more sustainably and more wisely. Which should be clear if you read my words for understanding.
And Berry's long expertise and exceptional wisdom on the topic DOES make him an accepted expert on the topic. This one woman you cite? Who is she? I don't know her from Eve. What are her bonafides? That she's a pro-life activist?
Apples and oranges. AND, I should be clear: I don't know this woman. She may well be an expert in neonatal healthcare, poverty and social concerns in Africa and medical expertise in areas around contraception and pregnancy. I just don't know that. Your single citation in support of her (and I see she has the support of other pro-life activists) does not, in and of itself, make her credentialed.
Based on the definition, it seems like anyone who lives in an urban or suburban environment or who doesn't engage in farming as their primary focus would not be considered "agrarian".
Well, see, that's where your ignorance has undone you.
Read first. THEN let's talk. And certainly, we can talk about definitions. IF you are saying that you think agrarians are ONLY those who live on a rural farm by farming for a living, then I'm not that. But then, that has NEVER BEEN WHAT I'VE ADVOCATED, has it?
Again, you read, misunderstand, and then read into others' words meaning that simply isn't there. That's on you.
Read first, then we can talk.
I understand now. Because Dan has said that Berry is some sort of expert in this one single issue, I should just accept Dan's conclusion on this because he said so. Because this guy has shaped Dan's opinions, and the opinions of others, he must absolutely be considered the preeminent expert in this one very narrowly specialized area. But, since Dan doesn't "know" Ekeocha as well as Berry, he's able to summarily dismiss her. Well, I don't know who Berry is, so by Dan's standard I have no reason to blindly accept Dan's hunches about him.
"And one who supports local farmers, they can't be considered agrarians?"
According to the definition, I'd say it's questionable, but I'm not trying to legalistically define the term.
"And one who dabbles in gardening, they can't be considered agrarians?"
According to the definition, it seems unlikely.
"And one who encourages and lives out a more sustainable lifestyle, including living in smaller circles, they can't be considered agrarians?"
Possibly, I guess that would depend on specifics as opposed to the vague undefined generalities.
"Do you know how tone deaf and ironic this is?"
I'm just calling things like I see them. Although your attempts to continue to drive this further off topic are quite impressive.
" You are LITERALLY redefining agrarianism in a way to try to minimize anything that doesn't suit your needs, to attack someone you don't know for actions you don't know about because you suspect, in your ignorance, that I don't live out agrarian ideals."
No, I'm not.
"Did you know that supporting local farmers and buying locally in general is an agrarian act?"
According to your hunch, I'd assume you think it is, but I see no actual proof.
"Did you know that living in smaller circles and driving less and striving to be more sustainable in your consumption choices is an agrarian act?"
According to your hunch, I'd assume you think it is, but I see no actual proof.
"Seriously: How much do you know about agrarianism or how many agrarians have you read?"
This is irrelevant. What we're talking about here is you and your personal hunches about what constitutes a simple agrarian lifestyle. What others have said on the topic isn't relevant to how you live out your lifestyle. If you were to compare your lifestyle to Berry's, how well (expressed as a percentage) does your lifestyle align with his? If he is the expert, then wouldn't it make sense that you would try to align your lifestyle with his to a very high percentage?
"Are you just lifting a very limited definition that you think supports your slander and that's the sum total you know of agrarian ideals?"
No.
" Then stop and read up on it. Don't embarrass yourself by speaking out in ignorance."
Oh, I so love it when the double standard is so blatant as we see here.
I truly appreciate the effort you are going to in order to keep this thread off topic, and to ignore much of what's been pointed out about those who are allegedly in positions of power regarding environmental policy. You ability to try to make this about me, instead of Harris, Kerry, or the Spanish minister and their hypocrisy is very impressive.
I've played along with Dan and his attempt to drive this thread off topic long enough. This notion that I absolutely MUST read his single, one topic, advocate in order to really understand, as he comes up with excuse after excuse to not even attempt to read one simple book, written by a well educated African woman, with a background in scientific research, and deep roots in African culture. There is no possible way she is capable of offering accurate, well documented, data, simply because Dan has labeled her "pro life" which disqualifies her from even an attempt to read her work.
I'm done playing this game of pushing this post further off topic. I'll post your bullshit, because that's how I roll. But I'm done with the one sided demands, the acting as if crap you made up is anything I actually said, or playing your credentialism game. I'll respond to on topic comments, I'll approve the rest so that your off topic drift will be plain.
It's clear that Dan holds him in high regard and has allowed Berry to shape his personal hunches about what "agrarian" means.
Agrarian can have many meanings. Initially, it was simply speaking of whether one lives on and by farming or not. We're not limiting to that definition. That IS a definition, but it's not what we're talking about.
Then there were the Southern Agrarians, which was a movement/philosophy from the 1930s. They may have touched on some of what Berry and modern environmentalists talk about, but they also had some racism and other negative aspects. I'm not talking about that, either.
Instead, what any reasonable reading of my writings and of Berry's writings will show is that we're talking about an environmentally concerned, agrarian, small living, responsible living set of ideals. This can be clearly understood by reading Berry or by my one most direct mention of agrarianism post on my blog, where I cited Berry and the Wikipedia definition of agrarian.
Agrarianism is a political and social philosophy that has promoted subsistence agriculture, smallholdings and egalitarianism, with agrarian political parties normally supporting the rights and sustainability of small farmers and poor peasants against the wealthy in society. In highly developed and industrial nations or regions, it can denote use of financial and social incentives for self-sustainability, more community involvement in food production (such as allotment gardens) and smart growth that avoids urban sprawl, and also what many of its advocates contend are risks of human overpopulation; when overpopulation occurs, the available resources become too limited for the entire population to survive comfortably or at all in the long term.
THAT is what I've always been talking about. Living responsibly. Living sustainably. Living in such a way as to promote enough for all, not a limited few.
I've never been talking about, "What I really want to do is live on a farm in the country and raise food." I've never said that. Those are not my words. Those are not my ideals.
SO, any attempt by you to force me into YOUR definition of what "Dan believes" is undone by the reality of what I actually believe and have been quite clear about if you just read my words for understanding. I encourage that.
And given that THIS environmentally-concerned agrarian philosophy is all about personal responsibility and living within reasonable limits in respect with nature and humanity, it's really something that we all should be able to agree with. There's nothing wild or radical or dangerous in these beliefs UNLESS you are committed to exploiting and exploding the earth for the benefit of a few. THIS agrarianism stands opposed to THAT exploitation.
But again, this is such a simple thing to agree with, that IF you just read what people like Berry and me are actually saying, you SHOULD be able to find a huge amount of common ground and community. Why, then, dost thou kick against the goads?
It's clear that Berry is a single issue advocate, and is not in any way unbiased.
Berry would be the first to say and I would agree that he IS biased in opposition to exploitation and harm and abuse and in favor of living reasonably and sustainably. But those are good biases to hold, can't you agree?
This is irrelevant. What we're talking about here is you and your personal hunches about what constitutes a simple agrarian lifestyle.
YES. It IS (that is, you have made it about) what I am and am not advocating. And I'm not advocating simply everyone living on a farm in the country. I never have and am not advocating that. At all. Period.
That you read my words and read INTO them something that is not there does not make your mistake a reality. I get to speak for myself, thank you.
read one simple book, written by a well educated African woman, with a background in scientific research, and deep roots in African culture. There is no possible way she is capable of offering accurate, well documented, data, simply because Dan has labeled her "pro life"
1. I have never said that she isn't intelligent or has not written a well-documented book. I've said clearly ONLY that I know nothing about her. Given that, why would I pursue reading something from someone I know nothing about? Because you REALLLLLLY think I should? Bullshit.
2. SHE labels herself as a pro-life advocate, I noted. I merely cited her words she said about herself. It has nothing to do with me labelling her anything AND it has nothing to do with her labelling herself pro-life, other than, that in and of itself does not make a compelling case as to why I should read her book.
What IS the compelling case? That you REALLLLLY think she's a smart black woman (careful there, boy, that's bordering on racism) and you REALLLLLY think everyone should read people who support causes you believe in?
Again, IF it were the case that the Gates were forcing abortions on women, that would be news. Where is the news? And, as I gather from what I've read about your "source," this is related to stories from ten years ago or so... so it's not like it hasn't had time to make the news, these monsters reaching up into women's wombs and ripping babies out piece by piece.
BOOOGEYMAN!!!!!!!
Yeah, we've heard these sick conspiracy theories before. Part of the problem of being the gang that likes to Cry Wolf is that, after a while, no one cares what you say. You've discredited yourselves.
"The fact that you only offer one pro agrarian activist, and not peer reviewed scientific studies or the work of CNN, NPR, NYT, or some other MSM is absolutely freaking uproariously hilarious."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣!!!!!
"the work of CNN, NPR, NYT, or some other MSM is absolutely freaking uproariously hilarious."
Oh my gosh! I just about spit up my Pinot Noir when I read that! Why would any sane person cite any of those leftist rags so routinely proven to be unreliable. And peer review??? We've gone round and round about the low value of that as well, yet Dan still regards it as gospel more than he does the actual Gospel!! What a loon!!
In any case...I don't even know what this thread is about anymore, so I'm going to bail entirely. I'm so far behind at this point, and with the added problem of the italics issue, it's just too much work to get up to speed only to find Dan's drooling again.
Art,
Dan's obvious double standard when it comes to acceptable sources is on full display here.
I think that the fact the this thread has gone so far off topic, and has become convoluted is that it's Dan's way of exerting control, since he can't just delete whatever he wants. It's something I've noticed over the past couple of months. He'll start to drift the thread away from the topic, and toward whatever he thinks the topic should be. I'm probably too indulgent in responding to him when he does this, but I usually am fine when things go in different directions. But, when it goes so far off the rails, it's time to just post Dan's comments and stop responding.
"is that it's Dan's way of exerting control..."
Good Lord, your paranoia is only matched by your delusions of grandeur. As if I have time or inclination to try to take over other people's blogs!
It couldn't POSSIBLY be that I respond to YOUR false claims and misrepresentations of what I have and haven't said just to set the record straight, right?
For instance, WHO brought up agrarianism? ...and what I do and don't believe? I guess that was me, looking for a way to derail your little blog, right?
Oh, wait! That was YOU doing that, not me.
You said...
"As for Dan, until he actually lives out the "simple" ,"agrarian" lifestyle he touts so frequently"
Which led me to eventually addressing YOUR silly little false claims and off topic attacks.
You are that man, to borrow from the prophet, Nathan.
Dan
Dan,
I've just posted your other recent comments without reading them, but I skimmed this one. It raises a couple of simple, direct questions.
Are you currently living a "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle where your live according to the lifestyle guidelines espoused by Berry? Are you living the most "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle you possibly can?
One more thought. I guess it's possible that you simply don't understand how your moving threads way off topic, and belaboring your off topic rantings does take over the threads you engage with. In this case, you've ignored so much that I've said which IS on topic in order to pursue a semantic argument about whether or not you live an appropriately "simple" "agrarian" lifestyle.
I take part of the blame. In my efforts to not run my blog like you run yours, I allow my commenters a lot of leeway. I clearly allow you too much leeway, and make the mistake of indulging your off topic forays by engaging with you.
"I'm probably too indulgent in responding to him when he does this,"
He's really good at it. I fall prey as well. The focus should be on simply ignoring everything not related to what we're trying to convey or discover. His tap-dancing, deflections, equivocating and obfuscations have no power if we don't pay attention to what he DOESN'T provide. Intentionally or not, we let him run while he purposely censors and cancels that which is too difficult for him to overcome.
Post a Comment