"There’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead, I think, young people, to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?" Ocasio-Cortez said. "Not just financially because people are graduating with 20, 30, $100,000 worth of student loan debt, and so they can’t even afford to have kids and a house, but also just this basic moral question, like, ‘what do we do?’" she continued. "And even if you don’t have kids, there are still children here in the world and we have a moral obligation to leave a better world for them."I'm seeing reactions around the web — mockery, contempt, even some stupid exultation (the kind that says: Ha ha great so the lefties won't have children!). But my questions are:
What did she mean?
There are 2 completely different ideas. One is that the world is going to be so bad that a good person would not choose to cause a new individual to suffer the predicament of having to live in it, that it might be so bad that you should visualize your future child yelling I wish I had never been born and really meaning it. The other idea is that human beings are the cause of climate change, so it's wrong to add to the mass of humanity that is wrecking the world.
I don't think she's clear. She's just throwing her thoughts out there, disorganized, and maybe it's up to the listener to complete the logic. But which way are we supposed to complete AOC's thoughts? She talks about morality but — unless there's more to this video — she doesn't face the difficulty of thinking about whether what she means is that it's bad that there are so many people on this earth or whether life isn't worth living.
There's also a third idea mixed in there, and it's not a moral choice for the would-be parent. It's just personal economics. It's expensive to have children, and a lot of young people, including perhaps herself, realize that the most effective way to economize is not to have children. That could be seen as a moral choice for the country as a whole: It's morally wrong to maintain a system that tends to make young people feel that they can't afford to have children, that it's a big economic sacrifice. It's morally wrong not to welcome and support those who are willing to do the hard work of bearing and rearing children.
Was she saying something new?
Some people are acting as though AOC blurted out some weird new notion, but in fact it's an idea I have heard my whole life. In my head, it plays as a Bob Dylan lyric:
You’ve thrown the worst fearThat's from the early 60s. Dylan isn't inventing the idea. He's citing it as if we're all familiar with it. The great fear at the time was nuclear war, and I remember growing up with that fear and being taught it at school to the point where it caused me, a child, to fear the sound of ordinary planes flying overhead because they could be the bomber and this could be the last minute of life. As a college student, I remember expressing the idea myself. Asked about whether I pictured myself having children some day, I came out with what I knew was a cliché: Maybe it's not right to bring children into this world.
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain’t worth the blood
That runs in your veins
ADDED: There's a fantastic version of Dylan's song — "Masters of War" — by The Staples Singers (in 1964), and it should be familiar to many younger people these days because it was used in this Sony video game commercial in 2010:
पोस्ट्स
२६५ टिप्पण्या:
265 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Trying to ascertain what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez means is a job best left for the experts.
She's the boss - it doesn't matter what she means.
There are 2 completely different ideas. One is that the world is going to be so bad that a good person would not choose to cause a new individual to suffer the predicament of having to live in it, that it might be so bad that you should visualize your future child yelling I wish I had never been born and really meaning it.
It’s the 60s and 70s again.
There's also a third idea mixed in there, and it's not a moral choice for the would-be parent. It's just personal economics.
Then the degreed economist shouldn’t promote policies which make personal economics worse.
She is the perfect "boss" for these times. We deserve her. Get used to it.
I don't think she's clear. She's just throwing her thoughts out there, disorganized, and maybe it's up to the listener to complete the logic.
The problem is she's not talking to us. Her audience isn't people who are familiar with these arguments anyway. I don't think she has to be coherent or logical for her audience, she just has to catch their attention and make them feel a certain way. So no, there's nothing new here in the actual content.
I'm glad I don't live in the 'so bad' world of Ocasio-Cortez and the others that agree with her assessment.
From HumanProgress.org: "Humanity has made enormous progress—especially over the course of the past two centuries. For example, average life expectancy in the world today is almost 72 years. In 2010, global GDP per person stood at $7,814—over 10 times more than two centuries ago (measured in 1990 international dollars)."
I'd recommend she review some of Steven Pinker's recent writings on the topic too.
It’s the 60s and 70s again.
This generation of Dems is forever trying to get back to 1968.
At some point they’ll realize it’s fine to have children who didn’t contribute to the problem, as long as we’re also forcibly removing people from the planet who did.
The idea that life in the near future is going to be so terrible children are going to regret being born can only be expressed by someone very young or totally uneducated about history. Life for children as late as the first half of the 20th century was filled with killer childhood diseases, hard work, world wars, famines, and genocides. My parents' generation grew up during the Depression, but they were glad they were born. Adversity is not a reason for de-populating the earth. AOC is a frivolous, self-centered, spoiled child. I have no problem with her choosing not to have kids herself. I just don't want her and her coterie making the decision for others.
All I have seen is complete insanity delivered with a fake smile and a cute dance. I swear Trump has paid her to destroy the Dem party.
In her remarks I believe she starts to say "should you have children" and then corrects herself to say "is it OK." Two very different concepts - a couple decides the "should" for themselves. "Is it OK" suggests that there is an objective answer that of course is determined by someone else - presumably people like AOC.
The decision to not have children fails to see the long-term effects. You take care of kids when you are young, hopefully, they take care of you when you're old. Lacking that, you are assuming that either you earn enough in your life to leave a large sum to live off, or that the government will care for you. Social Security solvency in the near future is an iffy proposition. Choosing to believe it will be there for you is risky. Failing to have children also ensures it won't be YOUR descendants who carry on the future of this country. But hey, party while you can, right?
It's an old (Malthusian) fear, irrational, based on ignorance of economics and misunderstanding of the awesome human ingenuity for surviving and adapting. Why does everything boil down to a paradox? For the people most likely to have a herd mentality and proclaim faith in Darwinism also don't give their fellow man credit for being adaptable. You know, to give one example, we did not migrate to the deserts and populate AZ fully until a/c was common in housing and automobiles, and without a/c the desert would be inhabitable. This shows that we can use previously unpopulated areas to expand and accommodate more people. We aren't running out of space or resources. The seas aren't rising any faster than they have over the last millennia. And we will adapt as needed to changes.
The real danger, which technology might have a harder time solving is we need future generations to come after us and keep this thing going. Otherwise we will shrink away like Japan and just grow older, smaller and less able to handle change. She's worried about the one thing that will save us.
My mother said that this was a popular sentiment during the Cold War when she and her peers were starting their families.
After the 2016 election, a young couple I know announced they would not be having children, due to the frightening nature of the world and DJT's presidency. They just announced their pregnancy last month.
Big wheel keeps on turnin' apparently.
People with hyphenated last names should be sterilized.
Babylon Bee headline : "Nation breathes sigh of relief as Ocasio-Cortez comes out against having children!"
What did she mean?
"I want to control your life."
It’s only a small step to “is it right to allow humans who are past their physical and intellectual peak to continue to suffer the depredations of life”. And of course from there it becomes obvious that the only way to truly end all human suffering is to end all human existence.
When it is impossible to tell exactly what a policy-maker like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or President Donald Trump is saying, that's a big problem.
But sadly, it seems to be less of a problem for them, than everyone else. Their metier is attention-seeking and controversy and base-playing. Vague and inflammatory things work for them in their worlds.
Althouse you have exceptional skills in the analysis of rhetoric; but you seem to want to use them on New York Times columnists instead of policy makers.
I think she needs to be taken seriously. It does seem though that there is a failure to recognize that our problems, that make this a potentially bad time to have children, will only be solved by the people who start out as children. Fewer children, fewer problem-solvers.
Maybe it isn't right for "YOU" (generic you. not anyone in particular) to bring children into the world. That is a personal decision and you are welcome to make that decision for yourself. You and yourself only.
The option, to have or not have children, is a relatively new ability. Birth Control. Voluntary sterilization. Abortion. Things that can guarantee (almost) that you will not have children. Of course, your DEATH is the absolute guarantor of not procreating.
If you are so worried about the earth and the impact that your hypothetical children are going to make on the earth.....why aren't you concerned about the impact that you are making now? Put down those IPhones, Tablets, and just kill yourself already. It is for Mother Earth. (anyone see the irony in the label of Mother Earth in a cult of death??). It can't be for the children because they are already dead by prevention.
Those like AOC, and her zombie like ilk, never consider doing what they encourage others to do. Never think that the new rules should apply to themselves.
If YOU don't want to have children. Fine. Don't.
We won't miss you. We might miss your children and their potential though.
@Nonapod
^This^
Her base aren't paying attention to anything she's actually saying, nor much anything else for that matter. Despite this I've been reading even among her own base she's generating a lot of animosity, especially since the Amazon thing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, as a congresswoman she will be short-lived, which is saying something especially for that district. She is left of left of left-of-center. She is on the moon for all practical purposes and the Unions and business community are royally pissed.
Regarding the kids thing? Watch as she pops one out in 24 months. Follow your own example AOC...you first sweetie you first.
I would say a conscious decision not to have children because the world is such a horrible place is to condemn your own existence.
She's a woman. She doesn't exactly mean anything but something's wrong and other people have to figure out what it is and fix it.
What is the average student debt? $100K that AOC quotes seems high.
(returns from google)
In 2016, the average debt for graduating seniors was $37K. (Link. So another thing that AOC got wrong.
Women are comfortable with more-complex situations than men are. The complexity is handled in feelings.
When it is impossible to tell exactly what a policy-maker like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or President Donald Trump is saying, that's a big problem.
He got his message across pretty clearly to 160 million of us Chuck. You understood enough to vote for him. Why so obtuse now?
Wasn't there an episode on All in the Family about not having children? I don't think anybody thinks this is new. I think they think it is absurd, and especially for a Congresswoman to be saying.
She's in love with the spotlight and talking. She needs someone to tell her that even though she's pretty, she can still have bad ideas.
In the late 50s I was flying over little girls just to cause them to duck and cover. Good times.
Don't have kids - "because student loan debt" is a dead giveaway that her reasons are = "yo tax payer, we want you to cover all the student loan debt. In fact we will be demanding it very soon."
Population control isn't a big problem in advanced western cultures. Other that around the edges where we should be encouraging other methods of birth control other than the New York-CA- Virginia governor way. -- All the abortion you want and wholesale murder of infants after birth.
AOC actually spins around a genuine philosophical problem.
Is the point of life to maximize human potential? That's where the environmental and economic ideas come together.
One assumption is that less population allows the living to do better.
The second is that the living should be given opportunity to maximize their potential.
The ethic that results is essentially the ethic of the Western middle class: invest more money in fewer children.
There’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children used to be much, much worse.
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality
Option 1: I love my children so much, I refuse to allow them to exist.
Option 2: These new children are going to ruin it for the rest of us.
I don't think she's clear. She's just throwing her thoughts out there, disorganized, and maybe it's up to the listener to complete the logic.
Good on Ann to noodle but this statement is the extent of analysis of AOC deserves. Observable evidence of economics and the environment are overwhelmingly positive for global humanity in both direction and magnitude. More people around the globe are being led out of poverty and there is no observable evidence severe weather events are becoming either more severe or more frequent, according to experts.
I'll side with the AOC mockery and contempt crowd.
This is decidedly not a new sentiment. I mean, like you said, it was a trope of the Cold War, of WWII, of the Depression, WWI, etc, etc, etc. It has ancient roots, more ancient even than this:
Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then ‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ’ For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" Luke 23:28-31
So, the decision to bring a new life into this fallen world is always fraught, on some level. However, possible climate catastrophe in X-years isn't any more horrible than bringing a child into the midst of any other shitty part of history. Untold generations of parents bore children were destined to be mercilessly borne off by cholera, scarlet fever or diphtheria. God knows how many generations of poor Indian and Bangladeshi mothers watched their children starve when the monsoons failed. In the last century how many parents had to dig their child's broken body out of bombed out buildings, or watch them march off to cannon fodder? When you think of the suffering that is a natural part of existence, you do have to wonder why we continue. But we do. Because humans do make things better. And without them, nothing gets better. The child you don't have might be spared from dying in some climate disaster, but they also might be climate change equivalent of Edward Jenner, Alexander Fleming, or Norman Borlaug.
Judges see criminals move in and out of the prison system. They see crime and drugs and when the perps get out - they go out and impregnate women and create dependency and babies with major problems due to drug and alcohol abuse. One idea (crazy!) is to offer (offer! - it's only an offer) the prisoners a vasectomy at no cost and in return a shortened sentence.
I like the idea.
3rd world nations with booming populations, poor sanitation, no environmental controls and poverty - these nations should be interested in the least cruel way to slow it down. NO - not one child policies (a total disaster in China) but perhaps state funded options for those who don't want to have children anyway. Nothing forced. all 100% voluntary. but we cannot talk about this - because killing the baby after pregnancy is the preferred left-wing option.
For AOC and those that identify with her, this is nothing but pure selfishness.
None of them have a grounded world view.
You can nuance the hell out of it, but it boils down to straight forward Marxist ideology-
The family unit is a detriment to the collective.
I love it when politicians get all rhetorical, get all "like what if..."
Like what if AOC stopped talking in rhetoricals…
Like what if AOC told her consituents directly that "maybe they should stop having kids"
Like what if AOC told attendees at the DNC convention "maybe they should stop having kids"
Like what if AOC told Africans that "maybe they should stop having kids"
Like what if AOC told poor refugees that their lives would be better if "maybe they should stop having kids"
AOC is the Durian fruit in the 'marketplace of ideals'. She's stinky, prickly, smells like a dead body (apt) and tastes like molded cheese and rotten onions. But like Durian it is an "acquired taste". A taste that those who have acquired it simply must have more of. They are and should be a small minority, and her fruit stand should be relegated to the corner lot where the stench doesn't affect the other vendors.
Ann and I are of the same generation. When young, I questioned the morality of having children. Fortunately for me, I changed my mind and had children. Now I have a grandson who brings me more joy than I ever could have imsgined.
The world doesn't have to go to hell. If it does, it will be because we drove it so following policies such as those espoused by AOC.
i guess i should have waited, and put my link to Oregon's Governor demanding Free Abortions For ALL on this post instead of the Trump one; sorry!
But, Let's Review:
We Americans should practice Planned Parenthood
We Americans should get Free Abortions For ALL!
We Americans should wonder; "Is it OK to still have children?"
Oh, and We Americans should abolish ICE, tear down our border walls, and allow EVERYONE in!!
"This Isn't Rock and Roll; this is... GENOCIDE"
Maybe she’d be interested in a modest proposal?
I don't think she's clear. She's just throwing her thoughts out there, disorganized, and maybe it's up to the listener to complete the logic.
We have moved from a blank slate to a disorganized slate. Progress.
"The other idea is that human beings are the cause of climate change"
She may believe it, but it's not in the quoted passage.
It's a small step from it's not right to bring kids into the world to it's not right for you to bring kids into the world to if you bring kids into the world you don't deserve to live to the kids you wrongly brought into the world don't deserve to live, plus it's better for them not to live since life is hard anyway that we'll do them a favor by shortening their life.
Prog ideas may be disorganized, but prog repression never is.
It is a horrible thing to put hopelessness into young people, though. Especially false hopelessness. Especially under the false title of "scientific consensus".
How about the possibility that she is simply incapable of thinking past the surface of anything? Don't pay too much attention to what you imagine to be her thoughts. She hasn't got any. What buttons is she pushing?
I'm with her on the student loan thing. That we continue to allow wealthy, sophisticated adults to seek out gullible and naive young people and trade them a handful of magic beans for the family cow is outrageous. It is a fundamental ethical principle that the party with greater resources and better information should assume most of the risk. The universities should be required to underwrite student loans, and they should only get paid back if their students are financially successful. That would align their incentives with their supposed social function, which is, after all, the reason they don't pay taxes.
I don't think she was saying something new. But she was saying something stupid. So stupid that even most politicians don't say it.
It's sort of the opposite of Reagan's Morning in America theme.
"MadisonMan said...
What is the average student debt? $100K that AOC quotes seems high.
(returns from google)
In 2016, the average debt for graduating seniors was $37K. (Link. So another thing that AOC got wrong."
Well to be fair she didn't say the average student loan debt was 100k, she said this "because people are graduating with 20, 30, $100,000 worth of student loan debt" which is not an incorrect statement.
But the issue here is not "don't have kids" or even "free college" but to go after this Big Education" scam of ever rising tuition and getting kids to finance they're future.
In medieval Europe, some areas swept by plague reverted to wilderness. But in others, the survivors actually had it better.
In truly awful times the problem of maximizing human potential was collective. Some of this was fate: a whole lot of children were simply not going to live. But of those that survived, culture picked winners. Primogeniture, for example, is a collective approach: you maximize human potential by concentrating wealth.
Again, the genuine philosophical problem that AOC is dealing with derives from individualism. The Western ethic is to maximize the potential of individuals. In such a culture, more people stress the economic capacity of the ideal.
I don't even think it is worth asking, but wasn't it totally worth it to bring John and Chris into this world?
AOC serves a very useful purpose. Her insane idea are representative of today's Dem party and what is taught in most colleges today. The rest of America listens to her and thinks, "More Trump."
This scientific consensus BS has got to stop. She's using the appeal to authority. As I have written many times here CAGW is a scam. It is a prediction about events in the far distant future based upon bad models and corrupt data. It is not science at all.
I'm glad that lefties don't and won't have children. I exult over that.
In fact, most people shouldn't have children. According to the US Agriculture Dept., it costs $233,610 to raise a child, so no couple should reproduce unless they can fund a child support account of at least that amount. That's my idea of a Green New Deal.
Steve Bannon struck some of these same notes at Oxford
""There’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead, I think, young people, to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?""
That there is a "scientific consensus" is certainly BS. If you follow trends, the US and the World are becoming cleaner and wealthier over time. Our kids will have better lives than we had.
She is a product of "participation trophy" culture.
She equates "trying", by way of putting forth horrible/laughable proposals, as forwarding the agenda.
"Hitler didn't have no kids, he had a police dog."
Yeah, yeah. My SIL told us when we decided to have kids 20 years ago "how dare you", citing the same reasons as AOC. Now she's a premenopausal harpy who harangues me about Trump.
"This is decidedly not a new sentiment."
Yep. She's probably going to have kids in the next five years.
In contrast to the sophists that Dylan opposes, Joe Purdy offers the ethic of collective survival:
And when you grow up don't you hate your momma and daddy
cause they gave you everything that you ever had
and it ain't no wonder that most don't make it
no wonder so many die,
it ain't easy to be a pioneer
when the land that you move to is dry
Who in the heck does she think will pay for all her world-changing social programs if future generations are too self-centered to have children for the good of their fellow citizens?
Thank Gaia we have illegal immigrants to do the distasteful jobs Americans won't do.
It is a slow news day, so we speculate about the sophomoric natterings of a political neophyte who has, shall we say, been over-promoted.
Is she the Voice of Her Generation like, say, Lena Dunham? Or Amy Winehouse? Or Keke Palmer? Or Yara Shahidi? Or Taylor Swift? Or Emma Gonzalez? Or Rupi Kaur? Or Amandla Stenberg? Or Halsey? Or Miley Cyrus? Or Tschabalala Self? Or Hillary Clinton?
Give us more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes! One of America's most fascinating women! The voice of her generation!
Who cares what she meant? Can we please ignore this unserious person so that she is not empowered to ruin our country?
One other thought: I'm mystified as to why people pay attention to her. She's a typical attention-seeker. Her only power comes from her ability to draw attention and amplify her twitter feed.
I get that she's "blogable" because she tries to make scenes. But as for anyone who is not her constituent -- ??? People must enjoy paying attention to her.
If she's still a representative in 5 years, she's gonna bring her babies onto the House floor and make a BIG deal about breastfeeding them in public.
Yeah, kids will have a tough time; worse than say
..Sparta in 400 B.C.
..Russia in 1920's
..
Another place where the idea of not bringing a child into a horrible world shows up is the Godfather Part 2 (1974) when Kay Adams-Corleone (aka Diane Keaton) drops the "It was an abortion!!" bomb on Michael.
In the early 60s an officemate was stalking around muttering about his wife becoming pregnant ("I know just when that happened."). Went on, a week later, it costs $800,000 to raise an 18-year-old. Do you know how great an 18-year-old you could buy for $800,000?
According to the US Agriculture Dept., it costs $233,610 to raise a child,
Bullshit.
She sounds like Trump, “An American Carnage”, except she asks if things are so bad should we have children, what Trump meant, who the hell knows. She also doesn’t finish her sentences, like Trump. She leaves the listener to try to figure it out, like Trump. She’s a film flammer, like Trump. I predict she’ll keep a solid 30% base of Americans, no matter what nonsense she says, like Trump and she’ll be stuck there, like Trump.
The media are covering AOC like a women's magazine would.
Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein are feeling the edge of the carving knife and studying AOC's neck.
rhhardin said...
"She's a woman. She doesn't exactly mean anything but something's wrong and other people have to figure out what it is and fix it."
Precisely this, and certainly not just because she's a woman. Paradoxically, she's one of the Opinionated Helpless so typical of her particular age group at this time. I know a bunch of them. Outraged but laughably incapable.
Do you know how great an 18-year-old you could buy for $800,000?
Probably not a very good one. $800,000 is bargain basement. Great 18-year-olds are like pitchers that throw 100 mph. The market can't pay enough.
Plenty of kids and parents are still dying to get here for a better life. AOC could mean that it's OK for "heritage" Americans to stop reproducing because her preferred flavor will replace them all the faster-- the same people she declared have an indigenous right to move here.
The left have no interest in ending any suffering. They are interested in power and control.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
According to the US Agriculture Dept., it costs $233,610 to raise a child,
Bullshit.
* * *
Sounds way too low to me.
“One other thought: I'm mystified as to why people pay attention to her. She's a typical attention-seeker. Her only power comes from her ability to draw attention and amplify her twitter feed.”
Exactly. You’re not going to see the majority of liberals mindlessly getting behind her, like the majority of conservatives got behind Trump...for now.
I don't think she's clear. She's just throwing her thoughts out there, disorganized, and maybe it's up to the listener to complete the logic.
Nobody can complete the logic since it isn't logical. She claims "scientific consensus " for non-scientific assertions as if the opinions of physicists outweigh all others when considering how school debt burdens people.
What did she mean?
She's asserting things are bad and relying the best appeal to authority she knows. She's not even bright enough to understand that authority is irrelevant to the current discussion. This is what happens when people think they're smart because they parrot back what other ideologues want to hear. Dunning-Kruger.
AOC should be concerned about having *enough* young workers to support her into old age. Think of our Social Security program, or Japan, as demographics tip toward an increasingly larger older portion of population. We oldsters live off the excess production capacity of our grandchildren, whether they be finding food outside the clan cave 6,000 B.C. or working 3,000 miles away now and paying taxes.
Nobody can complete the logic since it isn't logical.
See, I disagree. There's a fundamental logic behind her assertions, as I've described above.
Where she falls down is on rhetoric. Her rhetoric is inane.
The correct logical response to fear of coming hard times is to have MORE children, to increase the odds of survival.
That is, if ones goals are other than purely selfish.
Personally I don't see the point in personal survival, or even personal happiness.
We are ammunition. We are personally expendable. If we are not expended, we are simply bullets stored away and spoiling in some mouldering bunker.
She is saying "I am a true believer. You will be forced to follow. I am the boss."
Like so many power hungry, would-be totalitarians before her, she is self-righteous.
She is a poor thinker and a bad person.
"According to the US Agriculture Dept., it costs $233,610 to raise a child,
Bullshit."
well, it depends what you want to spend $$ on. Family meals and board is cheap. Other stuff can add up. Parents can choose to pay for stuff like dental work, acne medicine, tuition, private K-12 or undergrad, wedding, summer camps, sports...
buwaya said...
The correct logical response to fear of coming hard times is to have MORE children, to increase the odds of survival.
No no no. That's a collectivist ethic where you let fate pick winners.
The individualistic idea is to have fewer children and invest more in them.
Inga/Chuck: "But Truuuuummmmppppp!!! Truuuummmmppppp!"
“Steve Bannon struck some of these same notes at Oxford.”
Yes Steve Bannon, who was Trump’s right hand man until he took the spotlight away from Trump. Steve Bannon and Steve Miller (who is still speaking in Trump’s ear) the “American Carnage” guys. Things are so bad that America needs people like Trump and Cortez...NOT.
I don't think she knows what she means. She is a wonderful example of the current state of US higher education. K-12 is just as bad or college students would laugh these professors out of the classroom.
Walter, if you can’t thread the needle, get better spectacles, or wipe yours off.
Blogger Birkel said...She is saying "I am a true believer.
--
Yes..she embodies the logical extension of an illogical foundation.
And she is more than ready to put your money where her mouth is.
The pro-child debate tends to center around things like: future workers, taxpayers, labor.
Words you won't hear: Love, fulfillment, joy, legacy, sense of purpose.
Blogger alanc709 said...
Social Security solvency in the near future is an iffy proposition.
Bullshit.
Social Security can no more be solvent or insolvent than the Army, or Food Stamps, or the National Park Service or most anything else the govt does.
Congress can provide more or less funding for any of this, including SS. They can't become "insolvent" in any meaningful sense of the word.
SS, like everything else, is funded out of general funds. It is the only way it is Constitutional.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax (that's the 15% or so you pay in SS taxes each week)
It also gives Congress the power to provide welfare payments "Provide for the general welfare". That is what the SS payments that people get are.
The two are NOT connected except in people's minds.
See https://www.ssa.gov/history/tea.htm
for the story of how FDR's crew, with the connivance of a Supreme finagled the basic unconstitutionality of the SS scheme.
John Henry
It looks like what she meant was that the lives of our children would be so horrible (what with the world ending in 12 years and all) that it would be cruel to put them through the coming catastrophe. But the context surrounding the comment is so large and the comment so fragmentary that it's certainly possible to speculate about other meanings.
It raises a theoretical question. Politicians complain, often justly, about being taken out of context, but is considering the wider context - not just what they say, but what ideas are in the air at the time and circulating in society - legitimate in interpreting their words? Where is the line to be drawn between distorting their words and giving it a richer, fuller interpretation?
That the world is so horrible that it would be cruel to bring children into it occurred to people at other times and is a frequent meme in film and television. I wonder how much of that accurately reflects what people were thinking at the time and how much was created by the media at the time or later. How legitimate are those representations and how much are they projections of what writers were thinking themselves?
You can find an article in last month's New York magazine that may have inspired AOC: Parenting the Climate Change Generation. Another current meme is environmentalist anti-natalists countering pro-natalist arguments that those who refuse to have children are selfish by declaring that bringing a child into the world now is extremely selfish and cruel.
I think it's a huge waste of time trying to arrive at some deep meaning in AOC's comments. She likes to talk, blurts out anything that appears in her thoughts, and is usually clueless of how her ignorance is not something to relish.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
She also doesn’t finish her sentences, like Trump.
Examples, please. This VOX article making the same assertion, among others, but is short on examples, which you'd think are plentiful.
Indeed, Trump's informal style is discursive and digresses. Maybe his sentences are cut short, but not his thoughts. And it seems to me when he does, there's an obvious inference for the audience to draw that completes the logic.
What I've noticed a lot of TV pundits who do not complete their sentence nor their arguments before moving on to the next with no obvious inference and thus not completing their logic.
“She is a poor thinker and a bad person.”
Like Trump. Trump said he was...”like a smart person”, he has words, good words...and you people still voted for him and support him yet.
“I think it's a huge waste of time trying to arrive at some deep meaning in AOC's comments. She likes to talk, blurts out anything that appears in her thoughts, and is usually clueless of how her ignorance is not something to relish.”
Exactly what I think when I hear Trump speak.
Heh! Anyone who thinks Trump to be a fount of wisdom has no business smirking at Ocasio-Cortez's clumsy rhetorical gaucheries.
"Personally I don't see the point in personal survival, or even personal happiness.We are ammunition. We are personally expendable. If we are not expended, we are simply bullets stored away and spoiling in some mouldering bunker."
I wouldn't use the ammunition metaphor myself, but, put another way: for those who ask, "What is the purpose of life?", the answer is and only this: "To make more life." Our only function is to create the next generation, to ensure as best we can, that our species survives into the future. That is all. There is no meaning to it, no superior being who planned or ordained it, no ultimate result beyond just continuing.
Wasn't there a Flintstones episode that took on this moral dilemma?
I seem to recall Fred and Wilma fretting about Pebbles having to subsist on the flesh of mammals when the dinosaurs died off and agonizing about whether to conceive another child. The vasectomy scene with the snapping-turtlesaurus still makes me cringe.
And frigging Barney was a die-off denier. No surprise then that young Bam Bam was already showing signs of toxic masculinity.
“Indeed, Trump's informal style is discursive and digresses. Maybe his sentences are cut short, but not his thoughts. And it seems to me when he does, there's an obvious inference for the audience to draw that completes the logic.”
I bet Ocasio-Cortez’s followers think the same way about what she spews.
“She is a poor thinker and a bad person.”
I'm curious what signifies to you that she is a bad person?
The left prefer articulate criminals - like Hillary Clinton.
Blogger Sebastian said...
Prog ideas may be disorganized,
Not always. Read Mussolini. A pretty good and cogent writer singing the praises of progressivism/Fascism.
He captivated many of the modern thinkers of America in the 20s and 30s.
After all, he made the trains run on time!
Less famously, but more importantly from the point of relieving human misery, he drained the Pontine Marshes.
John Henry
For many young folks the future does not look so bright that the need to wear shades. Among the few young folks I know, they talk with trepidation about the future generation.
"She likes to talk, blurts out anything that appears in her thoughts, and is usually clueless of how her ignorance is not something to relish."
Sounds like a White House resident we all know. Maybe she's actually crafty and has decided to emulate what worked for another!
“Yes..she embodies the logical extension of an illogical foundation.
And she is more than ready to put your money where her mouth is.”
Just like Trump. Who is going to pay for Trump’s wall? No, not the Mexicans...
Yes, I’d like a jack and coke please.
"I'm seeing reactions around the web — mockery, contempt, even some stupid exultation (the kind that says: Ha ha great so the lefties won't have children!)."
Why is that "stupid exultation"? If there is an arc of history, it's that the future belongs to those who show up for it. It is not lost on the rest of us that the Left favors abortion, contraception, homosexuality, euthanasia and Death Camps. Really, they won't be missed.
"But Truuuuummmmppppp!!! Truuuummmmppppp!"
Annie C. wrote" "Trying to ascertain what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez means is a job best left for the experts."
I am one of those experts (retired) and all I can say about AOC is that she is remarkably arrogant in her remarkable degree of ignorance.
She was obviously indoctrinated in college to repeat back what her professors told her, but never to think critically or to collect facts.
Here's the thing. Illegal aliens have tons of kids once in America. Insurance from deportation.
Ocasio-Cortez doesn't have a clear thought in her head.
Here's probably the single greatest example of the media's dishonest manipulation of Trump's words. Both in elocution and context it's clear Trump is talking about a subgroup (sex offenders) within a subgroup (illegal immigrants) of Mexicans. He is saying "there are", and not "they are" with respect to either all Mexicans or illegal immigrants.
Media's Version (for example, see above link)
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Actual
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. There’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
I think AOC's parents definitely screwed up by having her.
I think the more power AOC gets, the worse it will be for everyone's children.
I think the world would be a better place if AOC doesn't have any kids.
I also think the world would be a better place if AOC, and everyone who agrees with her, decided "it would be better if I was never born", and rectified the problem immediately.
AOC's relevance is increased to the extent Dem primary contenders position themselves as AOC Lite.
*THEIR rapists.
Having kids has always been expensive. Parents from the beginning of time have sacrificed their own material wants in order to give their children the best possible opportunities. If you are a selfish, materialistic person you look at the cost of raising kids as spending money on someone other than yourself and, therefore, diminishing your lifestyle.
I am currently raising three kids and, while the process is expensive and physically and emotionally challenging, there is no reward greater than when you put other lives above your own.
My hope is that my kids grow up to, not only solve the problems of the future, but be a living rebuke to the likes of AOC.
Ann Althouse said...
"What did she mean?
There are 2 completely different ideas. One is that the world is going to be so bad that a good person would not choose to cause a new individual to suffer the predicament of having to live in it, that it might be so bad that you should visualize your future child yelling I wish I had never been born and really meaning it. The other idea is that human beings are the cause of climate change, so it's wrong to add to the mass of humanity that is wrecking the world.
I don't think she's clear. She's just throwing her thoughts out there, disorganized, and maybe it's up to the listener..."
Embrace the power of "both." The fear-mongering in the first premise is designed to lead the hearer to the second, which is an article of faith for the hard left - I.e., having too many people is bad for the earth; therefore abortion, birth control, and if necessary a pogrom now and then to cull the herd.
Walter, I’m sorry that you can’t seem to make the connection, it’s very plain to see if you’re not wearing blinders. Try to take some responsibility for who you foisted upon the US.
Liberals aren’t going to just follow Ocasio-Cortez the way you followed Trump. As you see, even here in this thread, liberals are questioning her, not taking everything she says and internalizing it. Why does Trump still have such a large percentage of conservatives who support him? Because you folks are followers.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Except bat shit crazy.
Lets stop having children. That usually works out well. Economically speaking.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"What is the purpose of life?", the answer is and only this: "To make more life."
In other words:
“A chicken is an egg’s way of making another egg.” - Varga
On a bit more meta level, James Gleick in his book on information theory ("The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood) has a chapter on DNA and the information contained therein. He posits that humans only exist as a way for DNA to reproduce itself, move around, mix and so on.
Very interesting book that discusses information theory from very simple to very complex in terms a layperson can understand. It is very readable. (Via the portal, of course)
John Henry
Nobody says THERE'RE. Trump was saying they are sending THEIR rapists, not saying THEY (all of them) are rapists.
Robert Cook said...
"I'm curious what signifies to you that she is a bad person?"
Her oft-expressed intention to rob people at gunpoint is what did it for me. But I forgot, you are on board with that, aren't you?
Exactly. You’re not going to see the majority of liberals mindlessly getting behind her, like the majority of conservatives got behind Trump...for now.
A counterfactual statement since every one of the Dems presidential candidates supports her idiotic Green New Deal.
_______
A spokesperson for Klobuchar told The Associated Press last week that she would sign on to support the Green New Deal.
_______
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) co-sponsored the Green New Deal, but had made clear her support for the idea roughly two weeks before it was formally introduced.
_____________
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D), who has said he will decide soon on a 2020 bid, last month expressed support for the "concept" of a Green New Deal.
______________
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution, which she touted as a "bold plan" to address an "existential threat to our nation."
______________
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who on Saturday officially declared her candidacy for president weeks after forming an exploratory committee, signed on as a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal after her office initially said she supported the "idea" of such a proposal.
________________
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is another Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, and made his support for the measure clear during a recent campaign stop in Iowa.
______________________
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429342-what-key-2020-candidates-are-saying-about-the-green-new-deal
But then Inga's assertions have always been based on what she wished were true rather than what is true.
Hang onto that TDS, Inga.
(Jill Stein was thiiiiiiis close)
The justice Democrats represents the leading edge of progressive thought, Michael manns fraud has abetted this structure, James Hansen the great evangelize of this skydragon cult.
She's still pretty hot. Once her political career craters, she will be a prime slot on MSNBC
Supposedly Australian scientists are fudging the climate numbers to make it seem worse than it is.
Blogger Jupiter said...
It is not lost on the rest of us that the Left favors abortion, contraception, homosexuality, euthanasia and Death Camps.
Socialism is basically a death cult. Sometimes actively killing (Cambodia, Germany, Russia, China, others) sometimes passively (see Venezuela for example) but it is about death.
Marx explains why it must be so on about page 4 (depending on edition) of Capital.
Socialism/Marxism/communism kills by design. It is baked into the system. It will not work without large scale killing.
John Henry
“The fear-mongering in the first premise is designed to lead the hearer...”
Trump used fear mongering from day one. He made his followers irrationally afraid of illegal immigrants.
Looking for profound, hidden meanings from AOC or Bob Dylan is like looking for truth in the NYT.
Until I see China and India’s plan working, they can stuff it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, as a congresswoman she will be short-lived, which is saying something especially for that district.
I agree with this. But she's a short timer not because she has no idea what she's doing - there are plenty of those in congress. She's a short timer because she's using her influence against the establishment instead of being a team player.
But it's not like she's going to go away. After congress she'll end up with an MSNBC show where she'll continue to make fantastic assertions that utopia is outside our grasp only because we lack the political will to make it happen. It'll be like having Robert Cook on TV.
Which isnt happening, with miss Cortez who feed her with mind arson, she wont understand the world beyond the cave.
Gee Rick,
Getting all factual and stuff.
That ain't gonna play well with Inga's theory.
Liberals are already tiring of Ocasio-Cortez’s schtick. What is taking you conservatives so long in tiring of Trump’s shtick?
I’m curious as to why some of you are blind to the similarities between Ocasio-Cortez and Trump. I think I know, but I’d get a kick out of hearing your rationalizations and seeing just how irrational they are.
For those who have not read it yet:
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Should be required reading in every year of school from about 6th grade on.
John Henry
Henry observes: In medieval Europe, some areas swept by plague reverted to wilderness. But in others, the survivors actually had it better.
For example, laborers were scarce so they could demand higher wages, as could artisans and merchants.
You're overcomplicating this. She's dumb and she says dumb things.
If AOC takes over the Democrat Party, that will be very bad for the party. It will adopt full-board, new-age socialism.
If a new-age, Socialist Democrat Party takes over the government, it will be real bad for the country. They will implement high income and high wealth taxes, will implement post-birth abortions, and will enact some green new deal that restructures (and destroys) large segments of our private sector industries.
Many elected Republicans are weak accomodationists, and won't fight hard enough to resist this steamroller. Thankfully, Trump is not. He fights. Hopefully, he will have enough political allies to guard his flanks. Lindsey Graham is stepping up. He will need more, though.
She also said that we can see proof of climate change by going outside and noticing that it is both cooler and hotter than usual. How does that work?
Why does Trump still have such a large percentage of conservatives who support him? Because you folks are followers.
Says the person who has been parroting the piss-the-bed dossier from day one.
Howard: re AOC She's still pretty hot.
In a bug eyed toothy animated blow up doll sort of way.
My husband's opinion. :-D
This is why we're going to actually have to draft women to have babies, though. People like AOC are going to make it necessary. ;-)
Blogger Rick said...
I agree with this. But she's a short timer not because she has no idea what she's doing
I think she is one and done because she will have served her purposes:
1) Knock out an established, party faithful, dem (Crowly). Crowly could not have been beaten by any Republican.
2) Provide an over the top example of Demmie stupidity. Take all the stupid demmie ideas and take them to maximum absurdity where even people who normally support them start questioning.
In 2020 a republican will take her seat.
If she is not on PDJT's payroll, she certainly should be. I seriously think that he helped her win. Behind the scenes, of course. Probably without her knowledge.
John Henry
What is taking you conservatives so long in tiring of Trump’s shtick?
Because we like results.
John Henry suggests: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Should be required reading in every year of school from about 6th grade on.
The idea that law should protect one's life, liberty and property rather than depriving one of same. What a revolutionary idea!
AOC is too callow to realize how dishonestly she's being used by her party.
The ground is thick with women the left "empowered" and discarded in the last 10 years.
Trump’s shtick = winning.
Blogger mockturtle said...
For example, laborers were scarce so they could demand higher wages, as could artisans and merchants.
Also, the rags from the dead people made great raw material for paper. An abundance of paper meant more books. More books meant more literacy and more demand for books. More demand led to the invention of the practical printing press.
And so on...
It's an ill wind that doesn't blow somebody.
John Henry
DBQ, I think the Left is more interested in form than in function. Or process over product.
Althouse is being way too kind to give the benefit of the doubt to AOC who is just the latest maroon to join Congress.
Blogger johnhenry100 said...
Take all the stupid demmie ideas and take them to maximum absurdity where even people who normally support them start questioning.
--
One would hope..
I'm tired of Trump's schtick but I'm not tired of his policies. I don't like anything about AOC's policies.
@ Mockturtle.
Yes. The Left and the Never Trumpers are more concerned with form over function.
That form over function preference is why the Never Trumpers just couldn't wrap their heads around why Trump was ever elected.
Sarcasm alert----> How could he possibly be elected. I mean look at his long ties. How gauche His weirdo hair. He didn't speak elegantly like the well educated people that they (sniff sniff) associated with. He doesn't even complete his sentences!!!! Quelle Horreur.
Trump gets things done....but he just isn't OUR type my dear.
'God gave them up' (to themselves) explains the left completely.
I think she is one and done because she will have served her purposes...In 2020 a republican will take her seat.
I don't believe a Republican will take this seat. She's going to suffer from buyer's remorse.
AOC is someone who internalized the left's mythology. While the left asserts what she believes they expect everyone to understand they are lies they are only pretending to believe. If they try to implement them the disaster will be so obvious it will completely discredit the party. The better plan is to keep your own plans entirely hypothetical because hypotheticals can never be proven false.
'God gave them up' (to themselves) explains the left completely.
Amen!
I think Democrats should definitely stop having children.
The question is whether this insanity by all the Democrat candidates is part of a plan to revive Hillary.
The left gave AOC all of the oxygen in the room. She's taking it.
AOC is trying to get white people not to show up for the future. She knows that POC will continue to have large families.
It's part of the Left's new "the future isn't white" campaign. Witness Hollywood telling white men to stay home for Captain Marvel. "It's not for you!"
"Her oft-expressed intention to rob people at gunpoint is what did it for me."
When has she ever expressed this intention?
Birkel said...
She is saying "I am a true believer. You will be forced to follow. I am the boss."
Is she a true believer, though? I haven't seen the hospital bill for her own sterilization.
The other two statements are true. (Two out of three ain't bad.)
"Beto" is also doing his part in demonstrating the logical extension of illogical Dem policy when after Pelo-Si's "Walls are immoral" proclamation he offers to tear down existing walls.
Char Char Binks said...
Nobody says THERE'RE. Trump was saying they are sending THEIR rapists, not saying THEY (all of them) are rapists.
Perhaps, Trump's pronunciation and context is susceptible to the "their" versus "there're". People do use "there're" is informal speech, however.
But what is clear from the tape is that unlike the multiple prior "they" contractions Trump used immediately before when he pronounced the long "ā" in the "they" (t͟hā) contraction, he replaced it with a "t͟hər" pronunciation.
That is completely at odds with the "they're" contraction used in every media transcript I've seen.
“Because we like results.”
Yeah like his fix for health care and the Mexicans paying for the wall, lol.
Modern higher education often leaves you broke, in debt, and unemployable. At the same time, the people who are profiting off of it keep making it more expensive and less valuable while they keep telling you how important it is. This is a fraud of unprecedented cruelty and immorality, and it's perpetrated upon children. Is there any shame out there, but more importantly is there any courage or character among those able to fix it?
"AOC is someone who internalized the left's mythology."
Unfortunately, between the media and the education system, that applies to a LOT of Americans.
"Yeah like his fix for health care and the Mexicans paying for the wall, lol."
Neither problem was created by him, but we know who did, and who prefers it to stay fucked up.
Remember when the Dems won the midterms talking about healthcare, then followed AOC off a cliff talking about how she'd remake the economy in 10 years using everyone else's money and questioning their choice to have kids?
Good times.
Brie Larson, the star of Captain Marvel, would have been read the riot act if her words weren't part of an approved publicity campaign.
The Left's entertainment division in the Anglophone world--the US, UK, Australia--has been holding a re-education camp for us over the past few years. It has to be an intentional effort because it is costing them big time.
"She's still pretty hot"
On the crazy/hot graph, she's well within the "no go zone"!
The Democrats are in a real pickle here.
They can either tell AOC's true believers they never had any intention of taking control of the economy and destroying the country.
Or they can tell independent swing voters they actually do.
“...but we know who did, and who prefers it to stay fucked up.”
Republicans and... Trump.
Trying to ascertain what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez means is a job best left for the experts.
The very first comment pegged it. What a waste of time trying to find meaning in the effluent discharges of AOC. One can argue that she's influential, so it's important to understand her, but her words are not amenable to analysis, just ridicule.
The columnist Ellen Goodman in the 1980s wrote that for the first time we have to raise our children in defiance of what the culture teaches us.
It's been spreading ever since, to the point where we have to ignore just about everything the culture tells us.
We don't have to go to college to get a good paying job. Most of them don't exist anyway.
You don't need two-incomes to raise a family or to buy a house, but you have to be creative.
You can get financial independence, but you have to ignore the bad advice they feed you, and say no to every new gadget that comes along.
It's not easy, but it's possible.
Yeah like his fix for health care and the Mexicans paying for the wall, lol.
The key fact is that Trump made neither of these policies worse. By contrast Democratic policies make just about everything worse even when they accurately diagnose the problem (admittedly not a large population). This is largely because their solution to literally everything they dislike is to empower more government control which is both costly and not just ineffective but usually counterproductive.
This is Inga threading the needle..descending into TDS Tourettes.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Her oft-expressed intention to rob people at gunpoint is what did it for me."
When has she ever expressed this intention?
Do you pay taxes voluntarily? If so, do you add something on top of what the govt says you "should" pay?
Or do you pay your taxes because, if you don't men will show up with guns to make you pay them and, ultimately kill you if you do not? Sometimes women, but mostly men.
See Eric Garner who was killed by govt employees with guns for not paying taxes. (He was selling untaxed cigarettes, police tried to take him into custody for doing so, he resisted and was killed/died during the struggle) No guns were used but they were present and would have been used if necessary.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2014-12-04/law-puts-us-all-in-same-danger-as-eric-garner
And, as I suggested elsewhere, read "The Law" by Bastiat.
I suspect that you would think it immoral for you to take my wallet at gunpoint.
Yet you have no problem with someone else doing it for you. ie; the government.
That is what Bastiat was writing about 180 years ago.
Like we need advice on the most important decisions in life from this horse-toothed lefty bimbo, whose chief qualification for public office is the ability to mix a margarita without smudging her lipstick.
William F. Buckley once said (as nearly as I can remember) "A liberal is someone who wants to reach behind the curtain when you are in the shower to adjust the water temperature."
There is no end to their presumption.
DBQ, I think the Left is more interested in form than in function. Or process over product.
It’s always about the process. More opportunities for graft.
Gotta keep it going and get the stupid Americans to pay for it. Otherwise, they’re out of a job and the real world expects results.
Look at Brexit.
With Cruz' proposal, the wall could be paid for by Mexican.
Look at Bre it about the process.
, not getting US to pay for it. But Trump should have offered BRAFTA, imho. As long as we get the head or heads who approved the Zbrits involvement in the attempted coup.
Today's Democrats flush the toilet or start the washer when we are in the shower. Because they can.
"That the world is so horrible that it would be cruel to bring children into it occurred to people at other times and is a frequent meme in film and television"
Having children requires an optimistic perception of the world.
Climate change alarmism requires a pessimistic perception of the world.
As such, it is not surprising that those who believe that the world is doomed would not have children.
The problem is when they attempt to force others not to have children out of their pessimistic frame.
“Having children requires an optimistic perception of the world.
Climate change alarmism requires a pessimistic perception of the world.
As such, it is not surprising that those who believe that the world is doomed would not have children.
The problem is when they attempt to force others not to have children out of their pessimistic frame.”
American Carnage=Irrational fear of illegal immigrants.
Howard said...
She's still pretty hot.
No, she's not.
Because stupid makes everything ugly
Human creativity is the most important resource society has.
And it is a renewable resource.
Anybody who says anything contrary to those truths is misinformed or a liar.
Anybody who believes fewer people in the future means a better life for those who are alive, misunderstands the value of human ingenuity.
[AOC is someone who internalized the left's mythology.]
Unfortunately, between the media and the education system, that applies to a LOT of Americans.
Yes. Our education system teaches a fantasy which people reject as they learn reality through experience. That's why the left is so invested in accusations of racism. This prevents left wingers from defecting as the fantasy economics lose their allure.
"The individualistic idea is to have fewer children and invest more in them."
I used to think along similar lines, but experience with children has shown me otherwise.
No offense meant, but that "investment" mainly amounts to vanity. Nothing that matters is affected by anything we cannot provide to just one, to any humanly-achievable number of children.
We married late (in our mid-30's) and with great good luck we had three, but if we had married even ten years earlier we could have had six or seven, and I don't think the "quality" would have suffered at all.
Yeah like his fix for health care and the Mexicans paying for the wall,
You seem to think that the President of the United States is able to make laws. He can make suggestions and try to get Congress to act. He can veto the bills that are presented by Congress. He can't make new laws.
The health care fix is on Congress, not the President. They made this mess with their pass the bill to see what is in it stunt.
As to The Wall, we haven't got one yet. We shall see what Congress will do about that. Plus Trump already said several ways we can recoup the costs. Charges for remittances being sent out of the country by illegal immigrants is one way.
"Remittances, or wire transfers, are commonly used by illegal immigrants to move money from the U.S. to their home countries," Rogers said. "In 2014, Mexico alone received over $24 billion in remittances sent from the U.S., while other South and Central American countries received over 15 percent of their GDPs in the form of remittances."
A 2% fee on 24 Billion would fund a hella lot of wall and security to patrol the border.
Why are you analyzing the middle school mall-chick tripe that comes out of this dingbat's mouth as if it merits any serious consideration?
"Why are you analyzing the middle school mall-chick tripe that comes out of this dingbat's mouth as if it merits any serious consideration?"
Because in a polity like this one, with democratic forms at least, even what "middle school mall-chicks" think matters.
“You seem to think that the President of the United States is able to make laws. He can make suggestions and try to get Congress to act. He can veto the bills that are presented by Congress. He can't make new laws.”
So you don’t blame Obama for Obama Care?
Ann, you're quite charitable in your gentle attempt to make sense of AOC's soliloquy on Periscope. Nevertheless, her rambling is only a few steps removed from word salad. I've met a lot of bartenders in my day who with very few exceptions, had more common sense and spoke more coherently than AOC.
“Nevertheless, her rambling is only a few steps removed from word salad.”
Covfefe goes well with word salad.
Yes. Our education system teaches a fantasy which people reject as they learn reality through experience.
Which is why the second element is so important, That is, to reject any facts, data, life experiences, or personal observations that run counter to what is being propagated.
Case in point:
"I'm announcing that if the Trump administration moves forward with this fake climate panel, we'll be introducing legislation to defund it. …It is long past time for President Trump and Republican leaders to admit that climate change is real, that human activity contributes to it and Congress must take action," Schumer said from the Senate floor.
It is apparently that AOC's thought processes, such as they are, are confused. She has very strong, passionate opinions on a variety of matters, but very little understanding of why she feels that way. She comes across as a religious fanatic who knows very little about her religion.
So what does she mean about not having children? I doubt AOC knows herself. If you did an interview, you could probably get any and all of the answers you listed just by slanting the questions to get the answer(s) desired. There are plenty of boogeymen to be blamed, and she will produce the answer most effective to battle the one presented before her.
In the end, does it really matter? AOC does seem to understand what she wants as her end goals. There is no grasp of why she wants those end goals, what the best path is to get there, or what the consequences will be, but those are minor details in perfecting humanity.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा