Writes Noah Feldman, in "The Court’s Conservative Constitutional Revolution/The bloc of conservative justices on the Supreme Court have dismantled many of the legal precedents on their hit list. What’s in store for the new term?" (NYRB).
In an essay with the salutary goal of blunting some of the most extreme current left-liberal rejectionism, my colleague Laurence H. Tribe, a historic figure in the fight to maintain a liberal court, recently wrote in these pages that “we have never seen a Court so blatantly determined to move the nation in an ideologically predetermined direction without being even slightly constrained by law or logic.”
This is too much of a concession to those who think the Court’s current conservatism discredits the institution. Today’s conservative revolution is very wrong, but it is not worse than [the Lochner Court and the Plessy v. Ferguson Court]....
[L]iberals have mostly failed to do what the Federalist Society does best: getting activist, intellectually creative judges into a pipeline that leads to the Supreme Court. Too many of Obama’s appellate appointees, and Biden’s, are moderates with little taste for the warfare that is constitutional jurisprudence at the Court. Liberal votes aren’t enough. We need liberal ideals, powerfully stated....
পোস্টগুলি
৫২টি মন্তব্য:
…when liberals have a majority on the Court again
Feel good of the day: Larry Tribe is 81 years old…
"... three of whom were appointed by D o n a l d T r u m p."
S.O.S. Come on, Julia, get to work on this fella. Your charm has not yet saved him from the deadly zeitgeist built into his assumptions and biases.
Or maybe she is a bird of the same feather?
Marty Feldman said...
"Liberals can and should criticize the mistakes of conservative decisions. That is a necessary step toward reversing them..."
Poor Feldman is confused about what a liberal is. Per the old adage, a liberal should not be looking backwards for the mistakes of the past. A liberal should be looking forward to making new ones.
remember the Olden Days? back when "liberals" used to talk about stare decisis or something?
me neither, "liberals" have ALWAYS thought the "law" was a malleable piece of tin
I take it Mr. Feldman isn't a big fan of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Screw him.
Always love the intellectual jiujitsu you get from leftist intellectuals. Not the embarrassing, past-his-prime dementia case Laurence Tribe, but the more superficially reasonable Noah Feldman.
Obama’s appointees are “too moderate”? Sure, moderate like Merrick Garland, who is all too happy acting as the Democrat’s attack dog. No, the Democrats need to do more of what the right does—putting “intellectually creative” judges in the pipeline. A very soft pushback against Tribe’s generic smear, but still laying the groundwork of justifying left-wing activists into the highest reaches of the judicial system under the guise of merely doing what the right does.
Once again- while the left owns all of our institutions with a couple of exceptions, owns the schools, owns the media, and now owns the corporate offices and boards, it's not enough. And they always think they are being 'too nice'.
Really? They have literally changed elections with mass balloting, ballot harvesting, and outright censorship. Too nice? Sure, he's talking about the Supreme Court and the slurry of judges being appointed. But I can rest in the knowledge that what he's referring to as judges being "too moderate" are most likely to an actual moderate, pretty freakin' extreme.
Is this Noah Feldman Week? Seems like he keeps appearing.
Larry Tribe is unhinged. So, Feldman is essentially knocking down a strawman with his attack on old Larry.
Let’s look at some liberal ideas, powerfully stated.
1. Trump can be kicked off the ballot because he exercised his free speech rights on January 6.
2. Millions of illegal aliens can move to America. Reasons.
3. Wearing a paper mask will protect you from a microscopic virus.
4. The government can force you to take an unproven vaccine that is now known to be ineffective and harmful for many. And the government can shut down the economy, except for favored businesses.
5. Parents can consent to surgery and powerful drugs so that their children can be physically harmed and become lifelong medical patients as a person of another sex.
6. Discrimination in college admissions is constitutional.
7. Carbon dioxide is pollution.
The above is just a sample. The Left has no good ideas. For the Left it is, 2 + 2 = 5 and War is Peace.
Suck on it, lefties. Not the usual weak suck… suck hard.
Instead of just randomly throwing mud, at the latest rulings(many with help form the liberals). Get specific and debate which rulings violate the Constitution.
Writing op eds without specifics is really lazy
"Liberals can and should criticize the mistakes of conservative decisions. That is a necessary step toward reversing them..."
Agreed.
But you must do so using the text of the Constitution.
Larry Tribe is 81 years old…
The founders are way older than that, their ideas still no less liberal and no closer to the theocratic Evangelical-Sedevacantism that conservatism is based on.
Conservatism is a pernicious ideology of social control that values authoritarianism, theocracy and ethno-nationalism. That’s why it had no place in the founding and Americans lusting after it nowadays feel marginalized in the country that has always rejected their alien philosophy. They should move to other countries, maybe to places where losing 7 out of 8 national popular votes does not showcase the illegitimacy of their minority rule.
Hey Dave! Have you ever tried breathing carbon dioxide? You know, if you hold your nose and mouth closed it’s possible to let this “non-pollutant” build up to very safe levels in your body.
Thank goodness that a person like this has no power to dictate that states have to keep a multiply indicted felon leading a violent overthrow of the United States on their ballots. There is no 1st amendment right to communicate your coup, or even verbally direct the commission of any other crime for that matter. Hell, even lawyers like Michael Cohen have had to learn that their sacred work product can’t be used to coordinate their clients’ crimes. And the number of lawyers indicted along with Trump just shows how corruptible they are in their adulation of a criminal client that they just happen to find charismatic or powerful enough. It will stand as a case study in the miseducation and ethical feebleness of American lawyers for centuries to come.
Am I missing something or is hpudding just wrong about founding fathers' ages, older than 81-year-old Lawrence Tribe: "What makes this Constitutional Convention remarkable is that the delegates were both young and experienced. The average age of the delegates was 42 and four of the most influential delegates—Alexander Hamilton, Edmund Randolph, Gouvernor Morris, and James Madison—were in their thirties." Wiki source "Teaching American History." Or does hpudding mean that in the years after 1787 they have become a lot older, though dead?
Hpudding.
In the atmosphere, and at 4 millionths, carbon dioxide is not pollution.
Indictments are not the equivalent of guilt. See, The Constitution.
…in the years after 1787 they have become a lot older, though dead?
Yep, that’s usually how chronology works. Their hundreds of years old ideas are still about as defensible as just about any old living liberal’s nowadays. It’s conservative thought that keeps staying wrong.
And it’s not really relevant how young they were at the time, though. Vivek Ramasmarmy is trying to say that his youth is a plus, as well. If that’s the case maybe he should just have a baby to nominate to run in his place! The kid’s quality of thought would be just about as sound.
People should learn with experience. Not stay wedded to bad ways of thinking. Some people figure this out earlier in life, some never.
Hpudding-
By your definition, oxygen is a pollutant. Breathing pure oxygen will kill you.
Wow, just wow. There is a liberal bloc in the Supreme Court that votes in the same unison as blacks. They can always be counted on to support any and all democrat party policies, without fail.
Yet the democrats (like the good comrade propagandists they are ) will never stop accusing the other side of what they themselves are ACTUALLY DOING.
Hpudding - Nitrogen, 80% of the atmosphere, must be pollution too, right?
Dave Begley has a list of leftie ideas above. Hpudding, do the lefties have any good policies worth your support?
You might try to discuss and persuade with your ideas...
That used-car salesman talk might work in Omaha, Dave. But in the real world where the big industries are located and home insurance is a real thing, you have to convince people who actually learned skills in life beyond just driving combines and doing whatever the rich, new carpetbagging agribusiness chief told them as he swooped into the cornfields.
The evidence on Trump that will be presented at trial will be much stronger than what his defenders have been saying as they watched him lose 60 election lawsuits and the defamation suit in New York that found him to be a “sexual abuser.” These juries won’t be as gullible as the crowd-going cult members who attend his rallies.
So you can keep talking up his presumption of innocence until the overwhelming evidence of his guilt is finally heard in a non-political venue. The warranty on it is about to expire. Time to get out while the getting’s good.
The present Republican majority on SCOTUS will last until the Democrats don't need Joe Manchin's vote any longer- so probably no later than 2027. Then SCOTUS will become 13-15 justices with Democrat majority.
Breathing pure oxygen will kill you.
And keeping atmospheric CO2 a third lower than it is now keeps fires, floods and droughts much more manageable and tropical pests that wreak havoc on our forests and health at bay. The dose always makes the poison. The problem is that the right wingers are serfs who believe that the oil companies aren’t lying to them now but I guess were lying in the internal documents they hid from the public 60 years ago.
Atmospheric carbon is a heat pollutant that keeps us 60 degrees warmer than the surrounding space at the levels prevailing while civilization formed. You can play the same game with blood alcohol levels. But then, no one’s dumb enough to say that high blood alcohol levels are good. But they would if the distillers told them that and didn’t have to deal with things like car accidents and worker productivity. And now the oil and gas companies have to deal with fires, flood, droughts, 100 degree ocean temps and North American malaria rates.
The fossil fuel companies are lying to you. Stop being their serfs.
“That’s not pudding!”
—- Steve Martin as Neal Page in “Planes, Trains and Automobiles”
Puddinghead,
You probably should move to the Rockies to escape the ocean because CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to rise for at least the next 100 years. That is the way to bet on what happens going forward. The only way this doesn't happen is if we destroy ourselves in a nuclear war in the next 20 years. So, maybe hope for nuclear war to save us from global warming.
Atmospheric carbon is a heat pollutant
It is fertilizer that is producing a much greener Earth. The effect that carbon has on heat retention compared to water vapor is negligible.
Cite one climate change doomsday prediction from the last fifty years that has actually happened.
Why do the "we have to go back to the stone age in the next five years or everyone will die" deadlines keep passing and nothing changes? Hasn't St. Greta told us it's already too late?
There are more people living on the planet today, with a higher standard of living, then at any other point in history, and for some reason, the Left hates that.
Poor puddin'.
It takes a lot of petroleum to go green. Those windmills and solar panels aren't made of unicorn farts.
Come to think of it. One part of the green movement is environmentally friendly. In a way. All those rare earths needed to make those environmentall friendly electric vehicles are mined by hand by extremely poor people in hellishly dangerous conditions.
But that's OK. Right puddin'? It's not like they vote Democrat or anything.
"... three of whom were appointed by Donald Trump."
It'll be pretty funny if he gets in again and appoints three more. (Or six more.)
Liberals shouldn't have too much trouble with the Court's decisions. Lefties, OTOH, are troubled. Unfortunately, too many of the latter among today's "legal scholars" believe they are the former.
Liberals have concerns about the diminution of the Constitution, lawfare, and the destabilization of the republic. Lefties promote all three. They have nothing to do with classic liberalism.
CO2 is greening the Sahara. We are at least two orders of magnitude below historic levels, with the stable or lower levels of natural disasters and temperature. Anthropogenic disasters (e.g. New Orleans, East Palestine, Maui, etc have progressed.
Any chance that Netanyahu's machinations with the Israeli Supreme Court is the subtext to Feldman's observations?
The Green blight has devasted the environment (e.g. clear cutting, soil pollution) and ecosystems (e.g. bird wacking) from recovery to operation to reclamation. The hydrocarbon and nuclear industries have filled in the energy gaps left behind, greened the environment, and provided widely used resources needed in diverse applications (e.g. medical).
hpudding: "So you can keep talking up his presumption of innocence until the overwhelming evidence of his guilt is finally heard in a non-political venue."
Non-political like DC or Atlanta? Really?
The country has a whole cadre of Trump-hating nincompoops who think it's all about Trump and who fail to understand the threat to the Republic of selective, politically motivated prosecution. I mean the real Republic, not the Biden Banana Republic.
Or worse, they do understand and don't give a shit.
BTW, pud, this blog is, in part, a law blog. Your blather about "60 election lawsuits" and the "defamation suit in New York" is better suited to the WaPo comment section where folks don't get what happened in NY and are unfamiliar, for example, with Article One, Section Four of the Constitution.
hpudding, some fire extinguishers use CO2 to PUT OUT fires. CO2 is a fire *suppressant*, not an accelerant.
CO2 is plant food, without which we will die. Agricultral yields worldwide have improved as CO2 levels have increased. Yes, better fertilizers, pesticides and hardier plant species have helped, but CO2 is essential. Forest acreage has INCREASED worlldwide.
Droughts, floods and forest fires are not caused by a tiny increase (about 0.05% in the last 120 years) in atmospheric temperatures.
The "hottest year on record" claims are bullshit, as we've only had data on the entire world for about 45 years. All prior claims were based on very sparse data collected haphazardly, if at all.
There are no increases in the frequency or severity of forest fires, floods or droughts. Instant worldwide communications of such events makes them LOOK more frequent. The witless attribution of climate change to them leads fools like you to wet your pants in fear.
The oil companies didn't hide knowledge that CO2 causes climate change , because NO ONE has offered scientific PROOOF of that claim. ALL the claims of future harm come from multiple computer models (which are not experiments and yield no data) that have themselves proven to be several times "too hot".
You are a veritable multi-volume encyclopedia of idiocy when it comes to science----and everything else, for that matter.
Your comments deserve to be assiduously ignored.
Non-political like DC or Atlanta? Really?
Well yeah. I mean, I know you think black people or urbanites should either be excluded from politics or are somehow less capable of objectively deciding the facts of a case than the white rural rednecks whom you find to be superior in every way. Maybe since you hide behind appeals to your own educational/professional authority you can clarify if there’s some high-minded legal reason for that - like opposing the equal protection clause or the jury selection process. In any event, your contempt for the people of those jurisdictions and their government is clear. And anti-American.
…who fail to understand the threat to the Republic of selective, politically motivated prosecution..
What dramatic phrasing! I’m hearing shades of “the threat to Germany posed by the unfair Versailles treaty!” Keep it up, and make sure you write Jack Smith about the “selective, politically motivated prosecution” of Hunter Biden and Melendez, too!
…are unfamiliar, for example, with Article One, Section Four of the Constitution.
More dramatizing appeals to authority by someone who’s starting to sound more and more like the QAnon shaman, who talked an equally good game about things he couldn’t care less about. All these appeals to superior law knowledge didn’t help Michael Cohen, it’s not helped Giuliani. It won’t help Sidney Powell or Jenna Ellis. It won’t help any lawyer who has no regard for the law, but you are free to keep slithering around this need you have to elevate your leader and his lame party to a position where he is effectively above it, which is exactly where you think he should be. Everyone still sees through it, though.
It is fertilizer that is producing a much greener Earth.
Speaking of fertilizer (apart from the kind you’re spreading), it’s producing huge blobs of algae blooms in the ocean that choke off the other life there, if that’s what you mean. And as for life on land, it’s also greatly increasing the number of fires, floods and droughts that you apparently find to be part of your vision for “a much greener Earth.” ;-)
The effect that carbon has on heat retention compared to water vapor is negligible.
Oh? Then since combustion produces one molecule of H2O for every molecule of CO2 produced I’m guessing you’re very much opposed to the industrial burning of carbon for that reason alone. Or you would be if you could get your story straight. (Which you can’t. The fossil companies who feed you your thoughts on the subject rely on your loyalty to them as a good serf which means not being able to critically think about how to evaluate their propaganda).
Cite one climate change doomsday prediction from the last fifty years that has actually happened.
Since it’s impossible to argue reality with the minority of Americans who would pretend away the actual existence of climate extremes up to and including fires, flood, drought, changes to growing seasons (oh wait, that one you and n.n. will actually change your story for and talk about more GREENING, including in the Sahara!), disease and pest spread, all that can be done is for you to take your fight on behalf of the oil and gas companies to the insurance industries who actually have to protect against these growing threats. So you are basically expanding your war on behalf of Big Carbon to a war against the insurance industries, homeowners of America and the businesses also damaged by these rapidly growing threats to their property. Good luck with that.
“Black people” he says. Now THAT is a bad faith actor right there.
CO2 is plant food, without which we will die.
Good thing that no one proposes a carbon-free atmosphere.
Except up at 30,000 feet where, for some reason, the temperature is about 50 degrees below freezing. Have you ever been in an airplane before? Or is the aviation industry also in on the conspiracy to deprive Big Carbon of its propaganda success? ;-)
Yes, better fertilizers, pesticides and hardier plant species have helped, but CO2 is essential. Forest acreage has INCREASED worlldwide.
That happened because this thing called “planting trees” happened. Ever hear of Johnny Appleseed? Lol. He didn’t need to burn any carbon to drop seeds in the ground. Funny.
And don’t you worry about the pesticide industry, either! With all the pests moving northward as you shorten their winters and increase their breeding seasons you’ll need plenty more pesticide to kill them off too. Unfortunately, they also act as toxins to humans and pollinator species as well, so I’m sure you’ll come up with a reason for arguing why that’s a good thing, too.
Droughts, floods and forest fires are not caused by a tiny increase (about 0.05% in the last 120 years) in atmospheric temperatures.
Poor math education however does cause Fossil Fuel Serfs to not understand the difference between changes in absolute percent and relative percent, though. It’s the latter that matters in this case.
The oil companies didn't hide knowledge that CO2 causes climate change , because NO ONE has offered scientific PROOOF of that claim. ALL the claims of future harm come from multiple computer models (which are not experiments and yield no data) that have themselves proven to be several times "too hot".
It’s ok to just tell one lie in your denial of hundreds of internal documents produced by Exxon’s own research staff attesting to how “the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” according to their own James Black in 1977.
Since then they’ve hired the same PR/media manipulation firms employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to deny that tobacco caused cancer. Why not question the credibility of that link, too?
You are a veritable multi-volume encyclopedia of idiocy when it comes to science----and everything else, for that matter.
Your comments deserve to be assiduously ignored.
The reason you didn’t ignore them is because you are rightly insecure about your attempts to BS the American and global public out of successfully petitioning for action against threats to their property, habitation and security.
You want to convince them that the same lobbying firms and tactics behind the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) are credible authorities now that their clients shifted from tobacco companies to oil and gas interests.
You use their same talking points while knowing that every time a block of houses go up in flame or are washed away by flood, a few thousand more Americans realize that people like you are part of the problem and that they will not stand for it.
This is your legacy and why you are so angry.
"Cite one climate change doomsday prediction from the last fifty years that has actually happened.
Since it’s impossible to argue reality with the minority of Americans who would pretend away the actual existence of climate extremes up to and including fires, flood, drought, changes to growing seasons (oh wait, that one you and n.n. will actually change your story for and talk about more GREENING, including in the Sahara!), disease and pest spread, all that can be done is for you to take your fight on behalf of the oil and gas companies to the insurance industries who actually have to protect against these growing threats. So you are basically expanding your war on behalf of Big Carbon to a war against the insurance industries, homeowners of America and the businesses also damaged by these rapidly growing threats to their property. Good luck with that."
That's a lot of words to say you go nothin'. Even uber-liberal Bill Gates isn't buying the bullshit any longer.
: )
Conservatism is a pernicious ideology of social control that values authoritarianism, theocracy and ethno-nationalism.
Todays winner of Buzz Word Soup. indefinable words delivering a meaningless message.
Am I missing something or is hpudding just wrong about founding fathers' ages,
All of his posts are just mindless trolling. nothing based on fact.
You have to be exceedingly stupid to think many men lived into their mid 70's in the late 1700's
Your comments deserve to be assiduously ignored.
Much like the dog that barks just to hear itself bark.
This ongoing chant about CO2 drives me crazy. It's absolutely true that the world is greener because of it, and if there is any temperature consequence, it is unmeasureable within the noise. Photosynthesis stops at a bit less than 300 ppm. Who's up for that one? We presently stand at around 430 ppm. What is the historical range, across geological time? About 300 ppm to 4,000 ppm. Yes, 4,000 ppm. And the planetary temperatures at the time were within approximate ranges of today's, yes that's right, according to the fossil record - Science !!, thrilling, eh? The Earth did not burn to a cinder, way back when, when we had 4,000 ppm. Which, as a reminder, is still less than half of one percent.
Now: Who's up for getting CO2 down to where we can eventually stop that darn photosynthesis? Show of hands? Serious question, because there are lots of folks around us that have joined a Death Cult, and they're on a membership drive.
@happlesauce:
* There's hardly any air (N2, O2, Ar, H2O, CO2 etc) at all at 30,000 feet. What's yer point?
* Sorry, but BILLIONS of trees would have to have been planted all over the world in the last 30 years for that to be a plausible reason.
* It appears to have escaped your notice that the Earth is 70% covered with liquid water, which globally evaporates into the air and returns as rain or snow. In comparison, H20combustion emissions amount to a fart in a hurricane, as do CO2 emissions.
* Malaria was common in the Deep South and Caribbean long before "climate change" was a "thing". Has it occurred to you that not using effective pesticides like DDT may have led to its comeback? Do you have any evidence that the southern part of the US is statistically warmer than it was, say, fifty years ago? Has it further occurred to you that
diseases like West Nile virus arrive here via airplanes and ships?
* ASSERTIONS made about climate change by oil company people back in the 70's are not "proof" of anything. They were hypotheses at best.
* If oil companies hid "proof" that human-emitted CO2 caused climate change, where is that "proof" published today? What scientifi experiments did Big Oil perform to "prove" it?
* What is the difference here between "absolute percent" and "relative percent"? Explain.
* Growing seasons have not yet lengthened past a day or two over the last century, and it would be a good thing if they did further. And have you not noticed the early and late major snowfalls across the US over the past five years or so? Explain why those don't count as evidence, but claims of longer, hotter summers do.
* The tobacco companies denied the CONCRETE scientific evidence that their product caused cancer. Pointing to hypothetical damage to the entire planet due to changes in atmospheric temperatures that have been exceeded in both the historic and geologic past is not "proof" of anything.
* Real scientists are pushing back against the climate hoax. Are they in the pay of the Oil Companies and their PR firms?
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/01/second-nobel-prize-winner-signs-letter-with-1600-scientists-declaring-climate-emergency-a-myth/
"Second Nobel Prize Winner Signs Letter With 1,600 Scientists Declaring Climate ‘Emergency’ A Myth"
Finally, after coughing up another of your spittle-flying rants, you accuse *me* of being angry??
SNORT
hpudding @12:29: Ah. There you are.
"... you think black people ... should ... be excluded from politics." It didn't take long. The shopworn, "Racist, Racist, Racist," accusation pops out in your first paragraph.
Oh. And, my goodness, "... shades of 'the threat to Germany posed by the unfair Versailles Treaty'" in paragraph two. So, "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi." Almost obligatory.
The paragraph three accusation is more obscure. What? "Slithering constitutionalist" maybe? Odd, but original.
Pretty hackneyed stuff for the most part. As trolls go you don't take the cake. You'll have to settle for the pudding.
You have to be exceedingly stupid to think many men lived into their mid 70's in the late 1700's
John Adams - 90
Thomas Jefferson - 83
James Madison - 85
Ben Franklin - 84
John Jay - 83
Samuel Adams - 81
There is something strange about a lefty troll obsessing about Trump's guilt and climate change on a thread about the Supreme Court mix.
But then ....
There is something strange about a lefty troll obsessing about Trump's guilt and climate change on a thread about the Supreme Court mix.
But then ....
Puddinghead, stop using meth.
Aggie said:
"Photosynthesis stops at a bit less than 300 ppm."
************
The actual number is about 130 ppm.
The Earth was at about 180 ppm at the end of the Little Ice Age, so we dodged a bullet then.
More here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/03/the-dangers-of-low-atmospheric-co2-concentrations/
"The above findings (and others discussed here) demonstrate that humanity benefits from higher levels of atmospheric CO2, which increase plant yields and enhance available carbohydrate supply. On the other hand, reducing the current CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, which has become a platform of far too many politicians and activists, has the opposite effect. And the greater the reduction in atmospheric CO2, the more devastating the impacts will be, as research indicates plants begin to die at CO2 concentrations lower than 120 or 130 ppm."
*******
The good news is, no matter how much the Green Weenies try, they will never reach those low levels.
The bad news is, they will try-----and wreck modern economies and civilization---and immiserate mankind---in the process.
Pretty hackneyed stuff for the most part.
Well, maybe if you tried saying something original you’d get a more original response.
But talking about how urban, black populations can’t be competent jurors is not an original thought. And using terms like “mediaswine” in 2020 is not original either - you could just go back to terms like “luegenpresse” and the average European in 1939 would have known what you meant anyway. Not original then or now.
I for one find it entertaining that a conservative would pretend to value originality in the first place. Yep, new ways of thinking about things, that’s definitely what conservatives are known for! That, and thinking that life owes them entertainment.
In any event, far be it from me to question the sense of modernity and racial equanimity of a man from the state that gave us Juneteenth. Yep, in 1865 they couldn’t even bother to let the slaves know they were free until months after the Civil War ended, and a Texan pretends to be outraged! after being called out for disparaging urban populations. Talk about unoriginal. Your prejudices are thousands of years old or older. They are not original. Try updating them if originality is so important to you.
* There's hardly any air (N2, O2, Ar, H2O, CO2 etc) at all at 30,000 feet. What's yer point?
Don’t worry. If you can’t draw the connection between a lack of heat-retaining gases at an altitude and a lack of warm temperature there then that’s just the kind of ignorance that the oil and gas companies rely on in order to be absolved for their wreckage of entire ecosystems and the billions of dollars in property damage that go along with it. Which both go together to wreck economies as well.
I understand that you think oil company profits = economy. The reason for that is that you find human beings to be expendable, so of course you welcome the excess heat stroke deaths, heart disease, property loss and all the other immiseration caused by widespread fire and excess days >95 - 100 degrees.
But you’re doing it for the trees. Right! You’re the Lorax! Right-wingers pretending to care about the environment, while turning it into tar sands, charred hellscapes and oceans as hot as jacuzzis. Firefighters traumatized by the koalas screaming while being burned alive in Australia. Brazilian rain forest being cut down by Bolsonaro to turn it to grassland at a faster rate than ever before. Reagan said trees cause more pollution than people. Talk about incoherence! CO2 levels were already at 3 PPM prior to industrialization, but you confuse that with levels at the end of the Ice Age, ten thousand years before that. You quote an amateur partisan website that talks about an alleged need to “enhance available carbohydrate supply” in a country where diabetes is epidemic.
So eat a Twinkie and stop pretending to worry about the trees, Carbohydrate Man. You are doing the bidding of a man who cut them down in Brazil more quickly than any non-fascist before him, and all for the sake of an industry that runs desert countries like Saudi Arabia or kleptocratic, primitive economies like Russia. Places that cannot produce a single thing of value and therefore run on extraction economies.
If your obvious wish is to make America more like Saudi Arabia, Russia or Brazil under Bolsonaro you should just say so. It would save a lot of time and you wouldn’t have to pretend to know how the atmosphere works, either.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন