“It is a fact that we can change human behaviors without much change to our lifestyle and we can save the future generations of our country and this world.”
—-Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, talking about the feasibility of the “Green New Deal.”
Right now the most interesting contest is between Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris for Most Outrageous Demagogue. Harris already has the “How far can I jam my foot down my throat” title, at least until the infinitely entertaining Joe Biden officially enters the race.
Re-engineering human beings is the domain of totalitarians, and her party is now so thoroughly entranced by totalitarian methods–control of the media, censorship of speech, defiance of elections, Big Lie propaganda—that Senator Harris may be getting careless and letting the mask drop.
This statement is also a lie and an alarmingly brazen one, which gives us a good idea of how the Green New Deal will be sold to the largely ignorant and gullible public. Read that FAQ document again and try to imagine how the objectives appearing there—not that they are much more realistic than Oz—wouldn’t involve “much change to our lifestyle.”
Now, to be fair, it is possible that Harris’s meaning wasn’t as ominous as it seems. People can change their behavior and habits: that’s what this blog is about. People got the message about littering in the late Fifties and early Sixties, for example. The culture us always evolving, and the culture causes people to adapt their behavior. The problem is that Harris didn’t say people can change, she said that “we” can change human behavior. That’s what Marx and Lenin thought. I don’t trust people who think like that, or who even lets statements like that out of their mouths without stopping and thinking, “Wait, what did I just say?”
Perusing the status of the Democratic field, I find myself wondering, “Why doesn’t this country produce responsible, qualified leaders any more?” I would love for such a leader to run against President Trump in 2020, but the current field (and how much larger can it get?) doesn’t contain a single one. The high profile Senators—Sanders, Warren, Harris and Booker— have zero executive experience among them, just a propensity to make absurd, dishonest or unrealistic statements. No wonder Joe Biden currently leads the polling, and I see no scenario where Biden both gets the nomination and enthusiastic support from the wild-eyed democratic base. After four years of anti-male, anti-white, pro-youth pronouncements from the Left and its allies, Democrats are going to rally behind an old white pol who likes to feel up young women in front of cameras? Impossible. Either Democrats will rig the nomination process (You know, like the last time) to make sure a woman or minority prevails, or it will hand the election to Trump, because the Obama/Hillary core won’t go the polls to choose between two white 70-year-old men.
But surely—surely—there are skilled, reasonable, articulate, persuasive, honest, ethical leaders in both parties who could be trusted to be a competent President.
Where the hell are they?
42 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Cal.)”
Not to late to throw your hat in Jack. Or perhaps you’re smart enough to stay out of it.
Oh, I’m not. I wanted to be President when I was 10, and if life’s twists had brought me to a point where there was a plausible path, I would have taken it. My dream job.
The oddest of the oddballs I have seen so far is this guy Yang. Oh – he is another Democrat running for the presidency. He pushes “Universal Basic Income” of $1,000 per month. I suppose he means for that to be paid by the government to each ADULT person. I am having too many grandbabies too quickly to think that a federal system could keep accurate track of how many k-notes per month to pay to every child. Some children would be left behind. (Well, there’s always the abortion option – quick end to poverty: You say you don’t have your UBI check in hand? Death penalty. To the abortionist for you!)
Notice how this “tech entrepreneur” never says where that income will come from. He also does not seem to understand that you can’t simply recirculate that income indefinitely if people are taxed or buy imports. Even if it was 100% recirculated unless the tax rate was 100% you would wind up in a continuing debt spiral.
Why no one challenges this idiot on basic economics is beyond me.
I know that, with your interest in and knowledge of politics, your final question is at least partially rhetorical. Why don’t the “skilled, reasonable, articulate, persuasive, honest, ethical leaders” you speak of step forward to seek political office? I have been asking that question about potential political candidates at the local, state and national level for at least thirty years since I first got involved in county politics. At the national level especially, money is a big factor. Not many Trumps out there who can finance their own campaigns. Who is attractive to the parties’ big donors? That’s who’s likely to end up on the ballot. Ditto for state and local offices on a smaller scale. Of course, many of the people who would do a good job are put off by the process, particularly the “go for the jugular” style that has become the norm in campaigns from school board to President. Few people want to subject their families to this process. Many of the “right” kind of people are too busy running companies, non-profits or government agencies and/or raising families to put things on hold while they run for office. They may even perceive that they can “do more good” in the private sector or wherever they currently work. Even if elected, constituent expectations are often unrealistic and you almost always get more negative feedback than positive. The term “thankless job” is apt for most political offices. For most of the people who would make desirable candidates, there is more downside than upside. Just my thoughts.
I should elaborate on this issue. My study of the Presidency convinced me that such leaders are PUSHED through the pack to emerge as leaders, and national leaders are oddballs who actually enjoy all the aspects of leadership that drives other, saner qualifiers out. What seems to have changed is that those pushed forward by these cultural forces are no longer strong or trustworthy.
Those traits and the traits that have to accompany them) will actually prevent one from becoming a nominee. You are too easy to destroy in today’s environment.
I’d like her to define much change to our lifestyle.
Here’s how I define it in terms of just one of the Green New Deal’s items: eliminating combustion engines so everyone can travel by light rail.
The nearest grocery store to my house is 2.7 miles away. I can drive there in two minutes, park, buy an entire week’s worth of groceries for my family and come home. It takes about 1 hour and 15 minutes of my time (assuming they haven’t started rearranging the aisles…again. Grrrr).
Under the Green New Deal, my car goes away and light rail is set up. I live in the suburbs. What is the likelihood of a light rail station stopping outside my house? In the front of my neighborhood. The closest BUS STOP is right next to that grocery store, incidentally, which makes taking the bus to get my groceries more impractical than it already is.
Because I can only carry so much onto public transportation.
Assuming I won’t have to walk almost three miles in Indiana weather which can go anywhere from 100 degrees to 10 below zero depending on the time of year (and that doesn’t include storms), how many times am I going to have to go to the store each week before my family has what it needs because I can’t take a week’s worth of groceries onto a light-rail car?
Now, Green New Dealers would point out how people in cities do this all the time. That’s great. People in cities generally choose to live in cities. I don’t choose to live in a city. There are plenty of people who choose to live in suburban or rural areas. This is what is great about America – freedom of movement. We can move about our country.
Is the GND going to end that? Are we all going to be packed into drab green apartment buildings in cities that will be fitted with eco-friendly energy devices and all the houses in the suburbs torn down? After all, it’s that what guaranteed housing is in socialist countries? That’s one way to control the population.
What about those inconvenient people in rural areas that grow our food? Those people who live 20 minutes away from the nearest police station and rely on guns to protect themselves from criminals? They have to drive to the next town over just to find a Wal-Mart to shop at. Are there light rail stations that will service them, too, or are they just going to be forced onto collectivized farms so they can be controlled, too?
Forcing Americans to rely on public transportation to go anywhere will drastically exchange our lifestyle.
This is exactly the point that sparked the ‘Yellow Vest’ protests in France. It was the final straw that proved that the urban, elite, ruling class is completely out of touch with the country as a whole. Macron’s ‘let them drive Teslas’ moment has spurred 18 straight weeks of protests that have shut down much of France. During that time, the French government has proven over and over that it is more concerned with the well-being of immigrants and refugees than with the French people. France has taken increasingly aggressive action against the protesters and even brought in foreign troops to take control of Paris.
I assume the troops are German?
EU equipment (trucks, etc.) have been seen. I am not sure that foreign troops is the fair word.
That made me laugh out loud.
Hoist upon their own petard, are the French people.
Sorry for the typos. That last line should read “drastically change” not exchange. 😦
Are we all going to be packed into drab green apartment buildings in cities that will be fitted with eco-friendly energy devices and all the houses in the suburbs torn down?
The answer is yes. Small apartments, tiny houses, ‘smart’ meters, universal income…and euthanasia for all. And the best part is these “lifestyle changes” will not just be political & ideological, but spiritual in nature as well. After all the Nazi’s couldn’t have gotten where they did without a spiritual component (mostly the occult) with propaganda done in a way that fulfilled the desire for the mythical & supernatural.
Nazi officer Kurt Hesse said of Hitler “All will cheer him on, all will obey him. Why? Because he exercises a power that he alone possesses. He is a ruler of souls!”
Personally I watch carefully for all things related to the UN Earth Charter (which is, in essence the globalist spiritual component to the Green World Order) and who is paying lip service to it. I’m sure that candidate will surface at some point.
Transportation is the least of the lifestyle changes that the “Green New Deal” would impose. Probably the biggest one is that a huge portion of the population would starve to death. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that would be a major disruption to my current lifestyle.
Modern agriculture cannot exist without internal-combustion engines, and a whole lot of them. There isn’t going to be electric equipment that can harvest thousands of acres of soybeans or corn before it rots in the field. It takes a few minutes to fill a tank with diesel fuel and get back into the field. How long would it take to recharge the massive batteries required to match the energy contained in the 200 gallons or so of fuel carried by a large combine?
Also, the transportation of massive amounts of food grown in far-flung rural areas to cities for consumption isn’t going to be done with electric trucks and monorails.
Perhaps this is the hidden genius of the GND – by starving 75% of the population to death, our impact on the planet will be massively curtailed…
Agenda 21 is alive and well. Pack the population into easily controlled urban areas, collectivize food production, and starve/hunt/imprison any hold outs.
Then you only need enough peons to support the elite in the lifestyle to which they wish to become accustomed. The enlightened ones deserve it, after all.
There. Fixed that for her.
Seriously, this is perhaps the most remarkably transparent statement of totalitarianism I have yet heard from a Democratic candidate with any theoretical chance of getting nominated.
Quick reminder this quote comes from the same person who wants to send African Americans 17 billion dollars a year in reparations, yet we don’t have to change our lifestyle?
Perhaps you could write a post that summarizes all of this anti-male, anti-white bashing? It would be great to bookmark.
I have a suspicion as to why they hate white males. Could it be they view white males as representative of American values?
It also explains why so many of them are in the anti-gun cult. They view gun ownerrship as a white male trait. Note that whenever drawing caprictures of “gun nuts”, the “gun nuts” are never portrayed as stereotypical black gangbangers.
My guess would be that the stereotypical black gangbanger is not a gun nut. All he knows how to do is load it and pull the trigger. Sometimes he can even hit what he’s shooting at.
In spite of this, the ‘gun nut’ is not a threat to public safety. In my state, 7% of the population has a concealed carry license. Despite this, only 0.006% of convictions for felonies are concealed carry holders (and that includes the easy-to-commit trivial gun felonies). That means the ‘gun nuts’ are 120X (that is times, not percent) less likely to commit a serious crime than the average person. There are demographics in this country that are over 1500 times more likely to commit a serious crime than someone with a concealed carry license. However, the Democrats think the ‘gun nut’ community is the biggest threat to public safety. It makes no mathematical, legal, or practical sense. What could be the real reason for targeting these individuals?
Michael, that is pretty much my point. Black gang-bangers, don’t know anything beyond the basics. To paraphrase Antonio Banderas in his first Zorro movie, “The bullet comes out here and goes into the other guy.” If you don’t know how to aim your .45, haven’t cleaned it in 2 years, haven’t done basic maintenance, you’re fooling yourself into thinking you’re a gunman. You may look bad-assed with your nickle-plated Glock, but you are likely gonna shoot a 10-year-old girl a block and a half away rather than your intended target.
“What could be the real reason for targeting these individuals?”
Many of us have the ability to hit a man sized target from over 300 yards away. Makes it hard for our presumptive lord-and-masters to enjoy an outing in a public park, once they have outlawed anyone else using them. Bullet holes ruin an otherwise beautiful sunny day…
We have to get rid of the guns (and destroy those with the skill to use them against us) to prevent an unfortunate incident from cutting our reign short.
”the stereotypical black gangbanger is not a gun nut”
Interesting read on that, oddly enough in the NYT:
The Black Gun Owner Next Door
Paul, I agree in almost all aspects with the article. I suspect that if the feces finally hits the fan, black, legitimate gun owners are going to be very surprised to see who is standing with them.
You could write a BOOK on anti-white, anti-male bashing. The root of it, I think, is that most of the most successful people and high achievers in history have been white males. Most of the continuing influence in this world is that of white males, depending on how you count Mohammed. If by white you mean strictly European then he doesn’t count, but there is no “white” race in anthropology, the Caucasian race breaks down into the Indo-European (just what it sounds like, the Europeans and the people of the Indian subcontinent, though I have no idea why), the Semites (Arabs, Hebrews, etc.) and the Hamitic (Moors, Tuareg, other North African types).
Like it or not, white males conquered most of the rest of the world at one point – Alexander conquered a big piece of Asia, the Roman Empire reached from Britain to the Arabian peninsula, the Spanish conquered so much of the New World they had to break it up into four viceroyalties while the French and English took the rest, and then came the British Empire on which the sun literally never set, the other European empires in Africa and Asia, the Soviet superstate, and the American dominance of the west. Name a non-white empire? There were a few (including Songhai and Khwarezm, which I bet you never heard of), but they’ve all been dust and ashes for centuries, save the Chinese neo-empire and the historical flash in the pan that was the Japanese Empire (it was really only an empire for about 60 years). Like it or not, white males have usually been the great innovators and inventors.
Why is this? Some of it is just opportunity, since white men were more likely to have the education and the access to make themselves able to do great things. Some of it was frankly disastrous decisions by non-whites civilizations, such as Chinese backward looking and Japanese isolationism, which led them to fall behind to a place not easily caught up from. Some of it was open contempt, like the Arabs and Turks acquired for Europe and all things European after the disaster that was Hattin. They would find out in short order at Diu, Malta, and Lepanto just what the Europeans were capable of when not in a waterless desert and when well led. Some of it was just slow development, like the American Indians, a whole continent of whom were still living in the New Stone Age and quite content to live that way, indeed ignorant of there being any other way, the day before Columbus landed, bringing gunpowder, steel forging, and the Renaissance with him, and the sub-Saharan Africans, who were still fighting with spears 4 centuries later when British rifles and machineguns ended the reign of Ceteshwayo at Ulundi.
I get that some of the people whose ancestors suffered under all of this are probably still carrying a fair amount of bitterness for those who did these things to their ancestors. As the son of Italian and Anglo-Irish ancestors who is proud of his people’s achievements, I can see why others might still be angry that those achievements came at their people’s expense. The thing is, most of that’s in the past, or should be. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of folks, now that there’s a lot more accessibility for women and people of color to move up, aren’t quite as assimilated as was thought, and aren’t so willing to let bygones be bygones. Maybe we should have seen it in our own history.
To this day the Greeks have no use for the Turks, and vice versa, although the Turks are long gone from the Balkans and Greece is getting close to its bicentennial as an independent nation. To this day the Poles have no use for German or Russian alike. Most glaringly of all, the Irish still loathe the British and the British can’t stand the Irish. Even over here, two decades after the Good Friday Agreement, there are still a fair amount of Irish Americans who hate the British even though they’ve never set foot in either Ireland or the UK and know no one over there. They’ve been going to Mass openly every Sunday with no one saying a word, but they still talk about the Carraig an Aifrinn, or Mass Rocks, where their ancestors had to hold Mass secretly for fear of reprisals. They’ve never missed a meal, yet they still talk about the Famine like it was yesterday. They’ve never been shut out of anything, but they still rage about how after Cromwell their ancestors were shut out of civil rights, despite the fact that Cromwell’s long dead and his influence wiped from the British Isles.
Maybe it should come as no surprise that the blacks aren’t going to let go of slavery or the South’s poor treatment of them here, or of apartheid in South Africa, or of colonialism elsewhere in Africa so easily. Maybe it should also come as no surprise that women aren’t going to let their permanent second-class citizen status until recently go so easily Maybe it shouldn’t come as a surprise that, now that the Middle Eastern and other peoples that suffered under past empires move among us, that they are looking for revenge for those times.
As for guns being an overwhelmingly white thing, it’s partly a myth. Actually since 1982 60 of 107 mass shooters have been white males, so about 56%. The media has played up the white ones and played the others, especially where Islam was concerned, down. That’s because it doesn’t track with their narrative, their biases, or a goal of many in that industry. They’d also be accused of racism if they played up the many back and Hispanic gang shootings. They want Suzy Housewife not to be afraid that those thugs from the inner city will bring their dangerous lifestyle into the suburbs (although that HAS happened), but instead to be afraid that some loner young white man will snap, get a hold of a gun, and take out her precious children. No one’s ever thought to point up that the minority gangsters who’d just as soon kill you as look at you are not exactly the most stable people. Europe is only too happy to play along, since there is no right, or very limited right, to own firearms there, and that’s how they like it, despite the fact that what, a half-dozen armed whackos, paralyzed Paris.
The fact is that there’s a lot of folks in America now who are American born, American citizens, American educated, and American in name only. They don’t believe in so-called family values, because they grew up with minimal family. They don’t believe in the system, the system hasn’t done a thing for them or those like them. They don’t believe in the Constitution, as far as they’re concerned equal protection is a joke. They don’t believe in capitalism, as far as they’re concerned it’s just another way to keep them and those like them down at the bottom of the pile. They almost got a shot at making some changes to their liking, but then that orange buffoon stole Hillary’s crown, and now he’s undoing everything His Hipness and Coolness and Blackness did. They won’t stand for it, and if it means those standing in the way have to go, then so be it.
why would this cause the Left to hate white males?
Or why any white male would be a Lefitst?
Another example of what motivates the anti-gun cult.
The question I have for Ms Harris is what is their plan to change behavior if a sizable population segment chooses to be obstinant about their willingness to have their favored behaviors changed?
That answet will speak volumes.
Before I forget, thanks for your many condolences late last week. They are appreciated.
Can’t we just be honest and say at least the majority of one political party is bent on destroying the US Constitution and externality regulated free market capitalism? This is the only characteristic which defines them all. If you’re onboard with those two things, you can do no wrong in their and the MSM’s eyes.
The leftist resistance wants to end America in any way most of us would recognize. This is why I persist in supporting Trump, though I personally loathe him and wish for so much better from him.
Joe Biden is about to get a letter from whoever is currently in charge of the DNC with a picture of his daughter inside and a note made of cut-out magazine letters that simply says, “Do it for her.” He will officially pull out of the race soon.
This is why I don’t like, “when ethics fail, the law must step in.”
I don’t see where the line delimiting tyranny is, and I bet those in power have worse eyesight than I.
People need to be free to be stupid, unethical, vapid, idiots, so long as they do no real harm. And, given that those people may be in the majority, the only way to have enough freedom is for them to have too much.
Did I say “those people”? I meant “we”.
Shhhhhh!!!! (Don’t blow our cover!)
I’m sure I misstated my own maxim at one time or another, but the correct version is “When ethics fails, the Law WILL step in.” That doesn’t mean it should. Often it shouldn’t. Maybe most of the time.
Actually, that gives me pause. I thought you were advocating for the imperative (it shall step in), instead of the factual (it will step in).
Sorry. I have not consulted my Critique of Pure Reason lately, so I am at a bit of a loss on my modalities.
I may have completely misunderstood what you meant by that. “Ab initio.,” for what it is worth
The law stepping in can certainly make things worse.
I can think of how a law that bans deplatforming could go wrong.
First post that came up when I searched for the phrase: https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/06/12/case-study-in-how-when-ethics-fail-and-the-law-steps-in-the-law-will-screw-things-up-beyond-repair/
I read your example.
I wonder why the broad, sweeping legislation instead of legislation prescribing specific remedies for specific problems.
Having gotten through 3 new titles by very definite Leftist-Progressives: (((Semitism))) by Jonathan Weisman, Dangerous Minds by Ronald Beiner, and Backlash by George Yancy (actually I am still in this one), I believe that I now have a much better perspective of what the ‘resistance’ is on about.
In order to understand their view — I am thinking especially of Yancy and Beiner — one has to enter into it. It is a coherent view in the sense that it is rational, according to how they see things. But it is absolutely radical and militant in its implications for America. You-plural will never be able to make peace with Yancy or come to an agreement with him unless you surrender, absolutely, to his understanding of whiteness and white privilege. You are not *part of the problem*, you are *the problem*. You will not ever be able to rectify what had been done in history (the enslavement of Blacks and their oppression under white culture) and there will never come about a peace-agreement. Yancy and Spike Lee and many others carry forward a radical critique that is now part-and-parcel of the American cultural landscape and which the Democrat Party is seeking to channel into political activism that will bring people like this into power.
As I have come to understand the profound conflicts of the present — the Crisis of the present — I suggest there is not a solution. It will continue because the side that opposes white America (this is what it comes down to and what it is about in essence) will not relent. To understand their position, and what they intend, and how far they will go, is to understand a perspective of anthropology which is very difficult of access to Whites. To embrace their theory of whiteness does actually mean to turn against it, and thus against white selfhood. Essentially, it means to stop being white. And that is why the Far Right speaks of the idea of ‘white genocide’. The war against whiteness, against European identity. Once you understand the structure of their position, and the ramifications of their adamancy and militancy, you quickly see that there is no possibility except to separate the races. Obviously, this presages something politically catastrophic. And since the American Left is seeking to embody these doctrines, which include these assaults on whiteness and many other stances, they are establishing the poles through which a profound cultural and social battle will unfold and is unfolding.
What Joran Peterson said is actually true: the antics and activism of the Radical Left will lead to conditions in which a Radical or Extremist Right arises and throws off the shackles of guilt and shame and self-destruction that people like Yancy ask for. And once White America, or if White America, realizes what it is up against and what is in store for it, and if they become capable of politicization, and if they can gain self-consciousness quickly enough, they will indeed be a force to be reckoned with. But the implications are, of course, dire indeed.
There is not going to appear on the American Landscape right now any leader who could unify America to some purpose. America does not any longer have a recognized, agreed on purpose. Just try to name it, you can’t. It has splintering purposes with emphasis of the plural form. The Old Patriotic Narratives are dead. They can only be rehearsed in fake, polished rituals. They cannot be restored, rewritten, re-scripted. Unfortunately, The Crisis like a disease and fever in the body has to proceed to its catharsis. Nothing now can arrest it, no pill, no quick solution, no ‘leader’. It might be forestalled though. A war? Another terrorist event? A financial crisis?
It is dead, Jack. The old Patriotic Vision of America is dead. It will not mystically come back together. The dream of that happening may be comforting, but it is unrealistic, and if one cannot see in real terms, one cannot act responsibly in the present.
To be skilled, reasonable, articulate, persuasive, honest and ethical means to start speaking like Jared Taylor and many other like him. That is where the honest conversation is happening now. I know that you don’t agree — you can’t agree given your orientation — but I suggest (I could be wrong) that time will prove me right.
At the same time I would not and I do not deny the perspectives of Yancy and Beiner and Weisman (and the millions that stand with them). They are advocating for what they want or what, to them, seems right. I guess I will say that it is right for them, and for the New America that they desire to replace the Old America. It is a question of power, ideology, vision and also of desire.
Ironically, I sign off as “Cassandra, who sees but who is not believed”.
I would believe the pushers of this green deal IF AND WHEN they put up. Right now, as a good example. Lead from the trenches not order others to take the hit while you keep all your favorite modern conveniences.
Here’s a partial list: 1)no cars- foot power or pedal power as you can’t travel any distance or speed. No electric or hybrid cars as they depend on fossil or nuclear for the future and winter. 2) No electronic toys and especially no upgrades. The direct energy and rare costs to make and power to run. Read about the rare earths needed for the newer batteries and how dangerous they are. 3) No Internet and no internet of things, giving up those home security cameras is far less important than the coming doom. Go back to writing letters and talking on a landline only tied to the wall (no batteries remember?) and not the least 4)No fast home delivery of orders and imported foods like qinuoa or tuna from a far ocean or cat toys. All dependant on fossil fuel and refrigeration.
And without these things, the businesses and jobs that supply them will fold and the economy will crash like a dead sponge. Blacksmiths may make a comeback, I guess. But I can’t see Ms. Harris volunteering to be a street cleaner after her wonderful changes. Anyone pushing this package and meaning it, should adopt it NOW and live like the Amish for a couple of years. Then I might believe regressing the world like this is doable. They want the social collapse without losing their smartphones…
Buggy whips might make it back…