ComradeKayAdams

Buffalo Timmy: “Well done proving that the initial alarm was very likely poorly done research.” ComradeKayAdams: “I did no such thing. I distinguished the most useful metrics for determining coral reef biome health (any of the coral bleaching data) from the much less useful ones (coral growth rates and coral cover percentages). The article did not review any of the coral bleaching data collected from the Great Barrier Reef or from any other coral reefs on the planet. Any guesses as to why??” Buffalo Timmy: “Kay, if you can’t predict the future it is not good science.” ComradeKayAdams: “Agreed, but predictions have already been made. The data so far is approximately matching the median predictions for ocean temperatures, coral bleaching incidents, bleaching coverage, AND biome population reductions for the flora and fauna most sensitive to ocean temperature increases.” Buffalo Timmy: “If I keep predicting collapse and it grows, then I am missing something large.” ComradeKayAdams: “Well for one thing, predictions of coral reef biome collapse have been made predominantly for the second half of this century…which obviously hasn’t arrived yet. Also, there are a number of explanations for short-term reversals of long-term trends in coral health. Regional ocean temperatures can undergo large seasonal fluctuations (El Nino/La Nina), carbon dioxide absorption perturbations at sea level can lead to temporary changes in coral growth rates due to the changes in ocean acidification, and a small percentage of coral species can always become more or less adaptive to alterations in their ocean environment via the wonderful process of evolution!” Buffalo Timmy: “Making huge predictions based on 30 years of data for a structure that is thousands of years old seems foolish.” ComradeKayAdams: “No, it’s not foolish. We have a very detailed understanding of how all the various coral species react to water temperature and water acidity. Our understanding comes from both in-situ studies and laboratory research. The only major variables in play, really, besides disease are the trajectories of ocean temperatures and ocean acidity levels. Unfortunately, we know how those two are trending…well, that is the non-climate change deniers among us do.”

I adore you, Irv. You had me at your thread title. The heat from your ridiculous right-wing political takes is often exactly what I need to warm my hypothermic progressive soul. Plus, I respect your inimitable gift for summarizing content in just three unforgettably monosyllabic words. I know that we are traditional political adversaries, Irv, but I need your help now more than ever! We both share a common enemy: the Democratic Party. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer are traitors to the American working class. And so far, Bernie Sanders and the Squad have played the “party sheepdog” role well by keeping far-left enthusiasm away from third-party development but also away from political disengagement altogether. But while many Bernie Bros since Super Tuesday of last March have chosen to wither, know that this Bernie Ho refuses to dither! Won’t you join me, Irv, and help bring down the Democratic Party during the 2022 midterms and further again in 2024?? I will do my best to lead the roughly 40% of the party’s base who self-identify as “progressive” over to third parties (Green, People’s, DSA). I’ll need you, meanwhile, to call out their so-called “moderate” base from the right in the specific ways that I describe. Simple example: start referring to them as “warmongering Russiagating McCarthyites,” “corporate sociopathic oligarch lovers,” and (perhaps my favorite succinct epithet) “sh!itlibs” (a delightful portmanteau of “sh!theads” and “neoliberals”). In due time (how about 2028?), I will get you to see the viability and righteousness of a Green New Deal. But until then, be aware that such unlikely temporary alliances as ours are not at all unprecedented! I’m sure Sun Tzu said something profound about it. Didn’t Batman team up with Catwoman on occasion? The Bat and the Cat? How about…Reactionary Irv and the Far-Left Verve? The Hater of Disarray and Comradely Comrade Kay? I know of a Nanushka black faux leather dress that I think I can modify into a costume and wear at canvassing activities! Oooh, my love of politics is returning. Best thread ever! Thanks, Irv!

Oh no…this editorialized sentence from the article is a BLATANT lie: “Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health.” For starters, coral growth rates and coral cover percentages don’t tell us anything about the species composition of the newly formed coral. As an extreme example, imagine that every other coral species but one could be dying off, but that one randomly well-adapted species could be spreading like wildfire. This would definitely not indicate that the overall reef biome is in good health, bearing in mind the complex interdependencies of all the highly diverse members typically occupying coral reef ecosystems. Coral bleaching data is BY FAR the most important indicator of coral reef health, but discussion of it in the article excerpt is conspicuously absent. While localized ocean current temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef may vary in any given season like weather does above any region of land, we know for sure that global mean ocean temperatures are continuously rising. We also know for sure that rising ocean temperatures threaten coral life in coral reefs everywhere. This is a basic principle of coral fauna. The coral of the Great Barrier Reef are no exception. Basically, not a single credible oceanographer or marine biologist on this planet would disagree with the information I provided above. Anyone telling people not to worry about the vitality of coral reefs this century has been propagandized by the fossil fuel industry. It is unfortunate that other countries like Australia are also victims of this propaganda.

Right, but none of us are challenging the original stated reason for entering the Afghanistan conflict! Adopting a policy of non-interventionism doesn’t mean you don’t fight back in self-defense. The relevant topic here is an examination of why this war has persisted for TWO FULL DECADES. And to me, at least, the answer is obvious: American imperialism. You seem a bit hostile toward political retrospection, SoCal Deek! A quick look into the Afghanistan region’s long history beforehand would have informed us that forcing democracy and our own specific values onto such a balkanized society (that is living within such a difficult-to-traverse mountainous topography, no less) was doomed to fail. Our country’s record of success with boots-on-ground regime changes, organized coups, and hard sanctions since World War 2 is beyond dismal. And studies of empire collapses throughout human history suggest that overextending one’s own military at the expense of domestic investments is a very bad idea. But I’m sure the sociopathic oligarchic powers in control of our country already knew all of this, and that’s kind of the point. They knew and didn’t care. Canadian or not, Niagara Bill’s thread is actually one of the most interesting and important ones I see on this forum’s first page. My PPP raison d’etre is to get people thinking beyond the “left versus right” American political paradigm that has defined the twentieth century and more toward a twenty-first century “populist versus establishment” framework. Some of you seem to already be there, though way too many of you seem to not understand that imperialism is the foreign policy arm of the establishment. Afghanistan is just the low-hanging fruit, so to speak, of this political awareness. Neoliberal Dems defended Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, but then they looked the other way on disastrous situations like Libya and Syria. Trumpers praised their charlatan’s scathing criticisms of Hillary’s record as Secretary of State, but then had no problem with his renewal of the ineffective six decades-long Cuban embargo or his reckless reversal of the JCPOA (which has now, in turn, hindered Biden’s options with Iran). Neither political side appears to have a problem with coups/sanctions against Venezuela and its people, not to mention the human rights violations against Palestinians in the name of Empress America’s militarily strategic Middle East satellite state. Both sides, of course, excused their guy’s failure to withdraw troops from the Afghanistan conflict. All underlying motives of the U.S. government are clearly economic in nature, not moral (I’m referring specifically to the corporate oligarchs in charge and not the overall voting citizenry who technically put them in charge). Democratically elected socialists in, say, South America are constantly challenged, while gross human rights violators in, say, Africa are routinely overlooked. Empress America especially hates anything associated with “socialism” or “communism,” but not because of the lowered standards of living these systems tend to generate for their citizens. Rather, the reason is because they tend to be much less likely to allow foreign capitalistic powers to come in and exploit their natural resources and labor pools. Economic factors and military efficacies aside, let’s think a bit more about the moral quandaries that the establishment’s foreign policy creates. A large majority of this forum’s participants are strict constructionism types and Judeo-Christian philosophy proponents to varying degrees. But where in the Constitution does it say that our country has the right or the imperative to tell other sovereign nations how to organize their own governments or their own labor pools? And would Jesus be okay with indiscriminately bombing brown people, depriving said brown people of basic economic goods and services needed for survival, or carrying out military drone programs where ~90% of kills are not even the intended target? I guess I should stop typing now because hardly anyone reads what I write anyway (though a few of the BillsFans.com boys still do! Thanks, guys!). I wish people would take a minute every now and then to really think about U.S. foreign policy in various scenarios. Apply the Golden Rule and reverse the roles of the U.S. and the other country/countries in question. See if your opinions change.

Good post, ALF! I wish our country was talking about universal health care during a pandemic more so than indulging in vaccination debates. From that list of 10 countries in that study, I don’t believe even one of them has a minor political party advocating for the privatization of health care, let alone a major party. Doing so would be considered political suicide in these countries. The United States, meanwhile, has TWO major parties doing it…which is twice as upsetting to me as being the only modern industrialized country in the world with a major political party effectively denying anthropogenic climate change…but I digress… The point is that all 10 of those countries have largely (or practically entirely, in the case of some like the U.K.) socialized their health care industries during the twentieth century, and none of them have any regrets in doing so. They simply look at socialized medicine like we look at socialized national defense, socialized law and order, socialized fire departments, socialized postal service, etc… And not coincidentally, all 10 of those countries (U.K., France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) routinely score higher than the U.S. in all sorts of upward socioeconomic mobility rankings. Hmmm. I still believe M4A in the United States is inevitable just like I believe social democracy here is inevitable. But if we couldn’t even get a national discussion on it during a once-in-a-century pandemic, we are almost definitely a full generation away from implementing it. If roughly half the country currently perceives any form of a vaccination mandate to be a slippery slope to gulags, can you imagine the McCarthyite fearmongering that would have ensued if our corporate media acknowledged the basic interconnectedness of each individual’s health, from a financial well-being standpoint? Since our country’s inception, the concept of a social contract has always been under attack here more than in any other country in the world. And to some extent, this is a very healthy thing and a great source of our country’s strength. But in many specific modern scenarios such as pandemic management, I argue that it is downright pathological.

Afghanistan is much more than a “piece of dirt!” It contains an enormous amount of untapped mineral resources that can be used for the electronics industry and for other various high-tech emerging industries. Historically, the land has also held an important trade position connecting the Chinese empire with the Persian empire. Nowadays, the United States can look at the country as a favorable geostrategic position from which to watch over her biggest adversaries: China, especially Iran, and Russia too. If you look at a complete map of U.S. military bases around the world, you will see something very interesting: we’re REALLY obsessed with surrounding Iran on all sides! I believe these are the most important reasons for our extended military occupation there. Spreading democracy, upholding international human rights, controlling the opium market, diverting oil pipelines, maintaining a high budget for the military industrial complex…all good answers, but I think they are secondary motivations. Seeking revenge for 9/11, dismantling the Taliban, and stopping Islamic terrorism were the main reasons for entering the war and certainly the main reasons why any American citizens continued supporting the war in its early stages. But now? At this point, it is indeed all about American imperialism. Afghanistan is only one of the more obvious examples of this deeply immoral and pervasive foreign policy, with Iraq being the most obvious one (Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia/Yemen are conspicuous as well. Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Israel/Palestine, and countries involving military drones are perhaps a bit more subtle). As someone who is a strident non-interventionist, I am actually MORE concerned that we are (allegedly…) withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan. Why are we (allegedly…) abandoning this strategic military outpost?? My cynical suspicion is that we may soon see false flags somewhere in the Middle East (Syria?) that will get us into some form of a protracted war with Iran. And if I was a resource-rich South American country with a left-leaning government, I would be sleeping with one wary eye open northward.

This is a fairly mainstream message among left-wing populists. I mention it briefly in this thread (see: bottom of page 20, my post, last paragraph). Thomas Frank gives the most articulate and thorough description of the message in books like “What’s the Matter with Kansas” or “Listen, Liberal.” For those who really want to understand modern American progressivism, I would also recommend checking out these three books if you haven’t already: “Manufacturing Consent” by Noam Chomsky, “The Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein, and “Griftopia” by Matt Taibbi. I’m familiar with Jimmy Dore because he was Tulsi Gabbard’s most prominent advocate during her 2020 presidential campaign. I’ll attempt to summarize his political philosophy in an easy-to-read list form: 1. Reaganomics has failed the working class. 2. America is an imperialist nation. 3. Republicans and Democrats are a one-party corporate oligarchy run by sociopaths. 4. With the help of corporate media, both parties use culture war issues like CRT to divide and politically weaken the working class. 5. The Democratic Party is far more dangerous to the progressive movement because one of its main intents is to co-opt and then defuse progressive political energy. 6. The 96 Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) members (including Bernie and The Squad) serve the same role on the left as Donald Trump does on the right: corral enough gullible voters into the two-party political duopoly and get them to think they are actually fighting the “establishment.” 7. Because the Democratic Party is inherently corrupt and unreformable, it must be pushed left and eventually destroyed from outside pressure (third parties, mass protests, and worker strikes). 8. Left-wing populists and right-wing populists must somehow unite if they want to stand any chance at defeating the plutocracy. While most progressives believe #1 and #2 to be true, there is considerable debate within the movement regarding #3-8. I have slowly come to agree with all 8 points. For me, the very last straw was the deafening silence from the CPC in support of last Saturday’s nation-wide “March for Medicare For All.” I attended the one at Washington Square Park in downtown Manhattan. The crowd wasn’t nearly as big as I had hoped. If national progressive Democrats actually cared about what they profess to believe, they would be doing everything they can to constantly push Biden and neoliberal Dems left on major issues like health care. But I strongly suspect they don’t. Their individual political careers and the wealth that come with it apparently matter more to them than fighting for the concerns of ordinary Americans. Interesting post, All_Pro_Bills! I’m shocked at your open-mindedness. It’s not common in this childish hellhole of a subforum.

His entire line of attack against Ms. Fitzgerald was a misfire because she was likely hired for her sports journalism skills, not for having an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bills. Like any true professional, I’m sure she will do her homework and quickly become very knowledgeable of our team. Also, the definition of a “floozy” is a promiscuous young woman who uses sex to manipulate men. That is a pretty disgusting label to flippantly toss at any female, especially one reporting on male athletes.

I am addicted to you.

Would it be wrong to make an Ertz joke here?

I swear, Irv…your political takes are sooo hot that I find myself having to turn up the AC in my apartment as soon as I log in to PPP. Where do I even begin with you??? 1. The term “zipperhead” is a highly offensive slur against Asians. 2. BullBuchanan is the only true socialist here at PPP, but be thankful that I’m not summoning him right now… 3. Joe Biden is in no way a socialist. 4. You don’t appear to understand the internal power dynamics between the two main factions of the Democratic Party. 5. You don’t appear to understand the difference between socialism and social democracy. 6. You routinely conflate authoritarian socialism with democratic socialism, command economies with market socialism, libertarian socialism with statist socialism, socialism with communism, etc… 7. You show no real awareness of the multitude of successful capitalist countries with significant socialist elements like universal health care. 8. You show no real awareness of the immense role that US sanctions, blockades, and CIA-backed coups have played in the destabilization of far-left countries such as Cuba and Venezuela. 9. The real Irv Weinstein died on December 26, 2017, so you must be an imposter. 10. WHAT. A. MESS.

EXACTLY. The fossil fuel industry would rather have the next generation of American taxpayers get stuck with the bill for the sum environmental damage. And while the political right in this country fetishizes the free market, they willfully ignore all of the federal subsidies oil and gas are given. The “pinko commie” far-left form the subset of American politics that take climate change and environmentalism most seriously, and that’s obviously no coincidence. It takes a Marxist to really critique capitalism (as it pertains to land property rights, public goods, negative environmental externalities, unsustainable growth, etc.) without the rose-colored glasses. Only a laissez-faire extremist thinks the free market will reach optimal environmental solutions in minimal time without government regulations and assistance from federally funded scientific research. Your U.S. emissions reduction statement is highly misleading. That refers strictly to carbon dioxide emissions but doesn’t account for all greenhouse gas emissions, namely methane from fracking. The solution to the China dilemma is to engage in carefully crafted multilateral trade agreements with them that incentivize their cooperation under the Paris Climate Agreement. China can make a lot of money by ditching coal, taking advantage of their rare earth metal resources, and fully participating in the emerging international renewable energy market.

Probably, but the Brown write-in campaign idea is getting a lot of pushback from local and state leaders within the Democratic Party. Keep in mind the negative national media attention the situation will draw. Along with the optics of Brown not accepting the consequences for running a terrible mayoral primary campaign, this will only enflame the ongoing civil war between the party’s centrist and progressive wings. Democratic strategists across the country do not want the drama carrying into the midterm primaries. Furthermore, write-in campaigns rarely succeed. Yes, wouldn’t it be nice if our country could discuss issues like adults, instead of going off on drunken Chris Matthews-esque diatribes straight out of the Cold War era?? The claim against India Walton is that she is a dangerous wealth-destroying socialist. Looking at her website: I don’t even see her specifically calling for the raising of taxes on businesses, sales, property, or general wealth. Her campaign seems to emphasize the reallocation of current tax resources away from certain sectors like the police department and toward various infrastructure projects that more directly affect lower income communities. Her plans to address housing, education, and the environment are fairly mainstream liberal ideas now and not exactly without American municipal precedent. The stuff on pandemic recovery, food access, and the arts is all very anodyne. I guess one could call her ideas on immigration extreme, however. The apparent overarching theme in her campaign platform is that of looking out for minorities. As for India’s socialist bona fides, we have little to go on because she has no public office track record. The DSA endorses her, but their vetting process is not exactly known for its rigor. They will endorse practically any political candidate who is willing to publicly self-identify as a socialist. So truthfully, we have no idea if Walton’s long-term intentions are to rage against the feudalistic capitalism machine and lead a grassroots-based revolution whereby workers everywhere eventually come to own the means of production… At worst (read: most left-wing), she may only advocate for a stronger social safety net and a more progressive tax code like any run-of-the-mill social democrat. What we can safely assume is that India Walton will have a giant national media bullseye on her. Every single unfilled road pothole will be used against her very character and against far-left politics in general. Even among some on the far-left, the slightest of political compromises and moves toward centrism from her will likely attract accusations of selling out and of corruption (probably even from me at some later point lol…). Few people have the personality traits to thrive under such scrutiny. Fortunately, India’s inspirational biography suggests that she may be one of the few who can. Regardless of her political orientation, I wish her the best because I love the city of Buffalo and want to see it succeed above all else. Oh…final thoughts on the national media: I always enjoy their narratives. They entertain me. They delight me. One of them here is that so-called socialists like India Walton are the reason for cities like Buffalo having become failures. For one thing, there hasn’t been a socialist mayor in a major US city since 1960. For another, higher taxes that disincentivize business growth are not a distinctly socialist feature. But my main point of contention lies with the selective omission of perhaps the biggest explanation for Rust Belt decay: four decades of a failed Reaganomics ideology for the working class and for Millenials/Gen Z’ers. If people want to discuss what is perceived to be a rising popularity in socialism in this country (see: latest Axios+Momentive poll from June 11-15), how about a little bit of neoliberal culpability?? Let’s also include the impact of international free trade agreements on the deindustrialization of places like the Midwest. Let’s discuss how the collapse of unions has coincided with the obvious reversal in upward American socioeconomic mobility. Or how money that could have gone toward regenerative civil infrastructure projects has been diverted to the military-industrial complex and to American imperialism. Stuff like that.

Updates, summaries, and hot takes: 1. With all in-person Election Day votes counted, Eric Adams has a slim 14.75k vote lead over Garcia. Wiley is in third place and is very close behind Garcia by ~350 votes. 2. Those infamous 135k test ballots were successfully removed from the most recent numbers release. I see no reason to believe the (bipartisan) Board of Elections was up to anything nefarious. It was a simple (albeit embarrassing) human reporting error that is now resolved. 3. The ~125k uncounted absentee ballots (and some provisional ballots) are all that remain (note: I forgot to include this factor in my back-of-envelope calculations last week…oops!). Looking at the preliminary data from each district and using historical precedent, one might expect Wiley and Garcia to benefit the most from the absentee ballots even though a plurality of them come from districts that Adams won. 4. As it turns out, Garcia received a significant vote boost from Yang’s people, proving the value of that late-campaign political alliance she made with him. 5. So the two remaining factors in this extremely close three-person race are the absentee ballots and the relative positions of the top two candidates among the third-place finisher’s votes. Wiley’s best chance of winning comes with Garcia finishing third. Adams, however, is probably thinking his best chance of winning also comes with Garcia finishing third. Garcia, meanwhile, likely doesn’t have a strong preference either way. 6. I’m beginning to think Garcia will pull off the small upset! She was definitely the least polarizing candidate among the top three, which could give her the ranked-choice numbers advantage for the final two rounds of voting. This is how I’m feeling right now: Garcia with a 40% chance of winning, Adams at 35%, Wiley at 25%. 7. Ranked-choice voting is FANTASTIC. It is rank (pun intended!) propaganda from the two-party duopoly to hate on it. Who cares if we have to wait a few additional weeks to get the results?! What’s the value in catering to a society of instant gratification and short attention spans, anyway? A progressive leader’s socioeconomic background ultimately doesn’t matter as long as the candidate can deliver results, avoid corruption, and forego authoritative/non-democratically elected means to their ends. Even the most serious socialist revolutionary believes that a person becoming rich through capitalism can lead a socialist movement. Often times, the only way to achieve meaningful power under a capitalist system is to amass financial wealth. So at the very least, there’s no apparent hypocrisy during the pre-socialism transition stages. On a personal level, the wealth hypocrisy angle doesn’t work on me since I’m a pro-capitalism social democrat who has no problem with the existence of filthy rich people. I only caucus with the true socialists and the communists because American politics is so absurdly right-wing (from the perspective of the rest of the industrialized West) that we all must scrunch together on the left end of the political spectrum if we hope to achieve anything. These points of commonality include universal health care, free college/trade school/preschool, affordable housing, living wages, unions, environmentalism, non-interventionism, and just generally not ascribing moral value based on supply-demand curves. I do have a very slight preference for working-class political leaders, though, because they’re the ones who feel and understand the effects of neoliberalism most personally and deeply. You raise an interesting point I want to quickly address: why do America’s progressive leaders continue letting the movement down? The answer is threefold, in my opinion: 1. We prioritize issue-by-issue litmus tests and don’t vet our candidates primarily by leadership traits (namely, a backbone to go along with integrity). 2. We are habitually demure and obsequious toward power. I attribute this one to our Stockholm syndrome with the oligarchy, dating back to the McCarthyism era at the beginning of the Cold War. There’s also this perception that the movement is still way too small (it’s not, if you follow polls by economic issues), and so we have nothing to gain except humiliation by rocking the political boat. It’s a sentiment that stems from the 1972 McGovern defeat. 3. Neoliberals have perfected the art of co-option among media and political organizations. This is by far the biggest reason. Money and career advancement are their tools of influence. P.S.: I’ve actually been pretty indifferent to Maya Wiley as a candidate and to the NYC mayoral race in general. I only voted for her partly as a favor to left-wing friends of mine and partly for its potential in galvanizing a nationwide progressive movement. Crime took center stage in this election at the expense of so many other equally important issues. And I don’t particularly care for the anti-police rhetoric coming out of the progressive wing these days, nor do I think we’re addressing crime at its fundamental levels if we’re not stridently approaching the problem from a socioeconomic, educational, or family unit perspective. Thank you for the response, Leh-nerd. Few mortals can handle my word counts or my Slavic sass. You are among the very few who can. A couple critical points I feel compelled to make: 1. I would hope that you don’t (initially) trust ANYTHING I post here! Skepticism is good. I merely offer different perspectives on topics that perhaps you don’t normally consider or experience in your offline life. What you choose to do with my information thereafter is entirely your prerogative. Ideally, I piqued enough curiosity in you that you will actively seek to learn more about whatever subject we were discussing with a more open mind. 2. I don’t particularly care for skorts. I just don’t. Shorts and pants/leggings are to be reserved for athletic activities like jogging, yoga, or the occasional hiking excursion. Skirts and dresses (paired with pantyhose during the non-summer months) are suitable for just about everything else.

Morning Manhattanite Musings from Comradely Comrade Kay: While others are busy preparing Yang’s eulogy, let’s analyze together the remaining viable three: Kathryn Garcia, Eric Adams, and Maya Wiley. We’ll begin with the most probable ranking for each candidate’s top supporters: Wiley: 1. Wiley, 2. Garcia, 3. Adams Adams: 1. Adams, 2. Garcia, 3. Wiley Garcia: 1. Garcia, 2. Wiley, 3. Adams You’ll have a hard time arguing against my first ranking. None of Wiley’s supporters whom I know even had Adams in their official top-5 vote, while many of my female lefty friends did manage to include Garcia in theirs. Some even had her ranked as high as #2! I sometimes forget about the endorsement magic that the NY Times (sadly) still possesses. Plus, Garcia’s environmental/green energy plans for the city are admittedly substantive. Oh yeah, and don’t forget the GRRRL POWER effect! My second ranking may also be tough to argue against because Garcia is politically much closer to Adams than Wiley is to him. However, there could be an important African American solidarity effect in play, fueled by any racially charged fallout from the Adams vs. Garcia+Yang feud. I can’t speculate any further because unfortunately I don’t directly know enough Adams supporters, nor am I particularly dialed in to the political sentiments of NYC’s African American communities. My third ranking gets interesting. I’m making the case for placing Wiley ahead of Adams on the GRRRL POWER effect, though you can make a very valid case for flipping the two names because of the similar political philosophy effect. Keep in mind that there are many more women than men in NYC. Also, keep in mind that Maya “Wily” Wiley has successfully kept a low profile throughout the mayoral race, while Eric “Authoritarian” Adams has been hurling and deflecting one bomb after another since overtaking Yang in the polls. Much of Garcia’s appeal is that she comes across as an innocuous public servant who may be boring on the campaign trail but will be extremely competent on the job. Maya’s (superficially) similar personality profile could be enough to mitigate her far-left associations with AOC (through endorsement) or with de Blasio (through her work experience). QUICK BACK-OF-ENVELOPE ANALYSIS: I’m crunching numbers this morning based on 84% of the top-choice votes having been counted. Adams has about a 97.5k vote lead over Garcia, while Wiley has about a 22k lead over her. For simplicity, let’s give all 62.5k votes from Stringer and Morales to Wiley because they are all progressives. Next, let’s completely ignore Yang’s 93.5k votes for the reason I explained in my previous post. That leaves 56k votes among the remaining 7 candidates which I will all give to the centrist frontrunner, Adams, since it’s looking like the other centrist, Garcia, is going to get eliminated in the penultimate round anyway. So that leaves Adams with a 69k lead over Wiley before Garcia’s 156k vote dispersion. 798.5k votes have been counted out of an estimated total of 950.5k, so that also leaves 152k votes left to count. With an assumption of a 50-50 Garcia vote split to Adams and Wiley, those 152k currently uncounted votes would need to be dispersed in the final round so that Wiley gets a minimum of 110.5k, i.e. ~72.7%. With an assumption of a 50-50 vote split of those 152k uncounted votes, Garcia’s 156k votes would need to be dispersed in the final round so that Wiley gets a minimum of 112.5k, i.e. ~72.1%. Combining the two factors (uncounted votes and Garcia’s votes), Wiley needs at least 188.5k votes or ~61.2%. Can she do it?! Sure, I suppose, but a lot depends on what parts of the city that 16% remaining vote is coming from…as well as having a better understanding of how Garcia voters actually feel about Wiley compared to Adams. Maya will need both of these factors to break her way to a moderate (i.e. ~60%) extent, and I think the chances of that happening are more unlikely than they are likely. CONCLUSION: After the ranked-choice voting tabulation process is completed, I predict that Eric Adams will be the winner. Poop. OBVIOUS ANALYSIS FLAWS: I assumed equal Yang Gang vote dispersion to Wiley and Adams, I assumed that the bottom 9 candidates voted monolithically based on progressive or centrist identification, and I assumed that everyone had at least one of Wiley or Adams in their top-5. Question #5 was typed with tongue firmly in cheek. Sometimes I parody PPP for my own amusement. NYC is amazing and I hope you have a great time with your son! It is its own universe with a seemingly infinite number of unique places to visit and unique people to meet. For this reason, living here can feel overwhelming at times. I can’t even imagine being in charge of running it all, so I wish our new mayor the very best. My NAE heels were purchased at a specialty store whose marketing ploy is that a portion of their proceeds go to reforestation efforts. Same idea behind the Ecosia search engine that I hope you used when looking up the name of my heels and learning they were Portuguese imports…because there is no way you knew that fact beforehand lol… Furthermore, their packaging is entirely recyclable and compostable. My net carbon footprint wears a size 0, Leh-nerd. You can’t spell COmradEkayadams without ECO. By the way, Leh-nerd, I happen to be a lot of fun at July 4 parties. People offline find me delightful. And at least I manage to show up to the parties, unlike others who stay home and get too drunk because they are unwilling to put on a simple sports jacket appropriate for the occasion. I am referring, of course, to the “If Trump loses and refuses to leave” thread on page 7 of this forum and your specific comment near the top of page 127 that you made on 12/3/20. ComradeKayAdams never forgets and rarely forgives.

I’m not familiar with Florida Keys topography, but I absolutely do believe in the accuracy of global sea level data from the past 150 years. We have multiple ways of verification, including landmass deformations and tide gauges and, most recently, satellites. The different methods applied at different locations all point to the same conclusion with relatively minor numerical deviation. You at least appear to be more confident in the data since about 2005, all of which indicate global sea levels having risen between 50-65 millimeters (1.9-2.6 inches) over the past 15 or so years. Oceanographers, civil engineers, the U.S. Navy, and people who live and work along coasts don’t disagree with those numbers. Many lives and careers depend on such data being accurate and uncorrupted. Your second-to-last sentence is very telling and is unfortunately where I sensed this discussion was headed. Healthy climate change skepticism in this country has devolved into a logically unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Instead of constantly demeaning climatologists from afar, please try conversing with some so that you may have your scientific concerns properly addressed.

Kay’s little birds* were fluttering in the five boroughs over the weekend! They’re all telling me the same thing: the progressive consolidation around Maya Wiley is happening at light speed…conventional social democrats (think: AOC supporters), DSA-style socialist types (think: Julia Salazar’s crew), progressive-light Democrats (think: Cynthia Nixon types), Democratic Party-distrusting social democrat purists (think: someone like a Zephyr Teachout or a ComradeKayAdams), and even some confused neoliberals (think: Kirsten Gillibrand fans). Remember that tomorrow is the first time NYC is using ranked-choice voting! We get to choose our top 5 from the 13 possible candidates. No one can win with a plurality. At each round of elimination, the top votes for the least popular candidate disperse to their next-highest choices as that least popular candidate’s name is removed. This process continues until one of the candidates achieves an absolute majority. It’s entirely possible that someone’s vote won’t count in subsequent rounds if all five of their choices get eliminated, so there is a bit of strategy involved with ranked-choice voting! For example, if you REALLY despise anyone who uses the surname of Adams (how could you?!?!), then you might want to reserve your 4th and/or 5th ranked choices for someone you think will be much more likely to last until the end, such as a Garcia or a Yang. Ranked-choice voting probably ends up hurting Wiley’s chances because now a centrist vote won’t dissipate among Adams, Yang, and Garcia. A lot depends on where Wiley may be positioned in the top-5 rankings of Yang Gang bangers and Garcia fans. I don’t know much about Garcia’s #1 supporters, but some of them may have Wiley ranked higher than Yang or Adams because of the opportunity to elect the first female NYC mayor. I have a few Yang Gang birdies* whose insights seem to suggest that the 2nd-5th ranked votes of Yang’s supporters will be all over the place and, therefore, likely won’t play a deciding role in any final round(s). The extremely crucial Latino vote is up in the air, too, but my little birdies* in Brooklyn seem confident that they will follow AOC and Julia Salazar toward Maya Wiley. I am much less confident in their confidence, but we shall see… Q & A with Comrade Kay: 1-Q. PPP Community: “Hi, Kay. So who do you think will win tomorrow?” 1-A. Me: “I’ll answer that in probabilities: 55% chance for Eric Adams, 25% chance for Maya Wiley, 10% for Kathryn Garcia, 9% for Andrew Yang, and 1% for any of the others.” 2-Q. PPP Community: “Who are your personal top 5 for tomorrow, Kay?” 2-A. Me: “I’m going with what I think should be a fairly standard left-wing solidarity approach: Wiley, Stringer, Morales, Yang, and Garcia in that order.” 3-Q. PPP Community: “Didn’t you renounce the Democratic Party last March, Kay?! What are you doing participating in this primary?” 3-A. Me: “I’m technically still registered as a Democrat and will continue participating in Democratic Party activities if I feel it could help advance the overall progressive movement in some way. However, I harbor no delusions that elected Democrats will uphold loyalties to policy promises over party. Also, this policy loyalty issue does tend to be less of a problem at the local level compared to the national one. I normally vote for Green Party candidates whenever possible and am transitioning to Nick Brana’s People’s Party.” 4-Q. PPP Community: “What might Mademoiselle Adamski be wearing tomorrow to commemorate her first ever participation in a ranked-choice U.S. election??” 4-A. Me: “Excellent question! A green blazer dress, NAE Bella d’Orsay heels, and of course my Buffalo Sabres hat. The green symbolizes my political eco-consciousness, the heels my vegan activism, and the hat my pride for my Upstate NY homeland.” 5-Q. PPP Community: “Smug far-left idiots like you are why NYC is falling apart.” 5-A. Me: “That was a declarative statement, not a question. And go ^&^% yourself, you stupid #@^&%ing #$(!~&^hole. Suck my #%&#& you #$^%face right-wing poop%#(@~.” * - a lovely Game of Thrones reference!

WTF?!?! 1. Hurricanes overall HAVE become more numerous and stronger since 2006, according to NOAA, The Earth Institute at Columbia, NASA, and pretty much every credible climate scientist on this planet. I never argued otherwise. You cherry-picked your data and I explicitly told you how you did so to reach an incorrect logical conclusion. 2. Al Gore did NOT predict “much less snow” for the planet, if that is your intimation. He made a single sloppy literary reference for a single mountain peak. You fixate on this one technicality that he got wrong, but then you fail to address the broader intended point of shrinking alpine glaciers around the world. Why is that?? Hmmm… You also very conveniently choose to not address EVERYTHING ELSE that Al Gore covered in his documentary. Why is that?? You claimed that he basically got everything wrong, but then you don’t back that assertion up with ANY data references. BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH PAPERS. Oh, and then you concluded your post with a classic “weather = climate” fallacy. Impressive.

Hi, Capco! Good to see you here again! Small clarification: critical race theory shouldn’t be lumped in with theories like evolution and general relativity. The latter are essentially natural science “facts” that always pass tests of scientific inquiry within very broad domains. CRT is more of a narration that doesn’t go through the same rigorous analyses as do other ideas from the social sciences. Personally, I’m not a fan of formally teaching CRT for the reason above and also because it ends up being way too divisive, and thus counterproductive, in practice. It should be enough to simply remind children in civics class that the American law and order system is often not applied equally among different races (especially regarding the drug war!), and that we should all aspire to make it so when we become adults…beginning with NOT electing a guy who helped write the 1994 Crime Law… From a political strategy point of view, topics like CRT distract us from the necessary war we need to wage against neoliberalism and American imperialism. The corporate oligarchic establishment loves culture war issues like these because they help prevent the working class on both political sides (whites on the right, minorities on the left) from unifying. A politically united working class, after all, threatens their power structures. Jeff Bezos loves seeing my fellow comrades argue over our proper use of gender pronouns as he continues evading tax payments, purchasing the Fourth Estate, and forcing his Amazon warehouse peons to subsist on food stamps.

Ok, I haven’t seen the documentary since middle school and I don’t feel like watching it again lol... So instead, I ran a word search of “snow” and “hurricane” on a full PDF transcript of “An Inconvenient Truth.” The only snow-related prediction Al Gore made was that “within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” I assume this was intended to be a cutesy reference to the Ernest Hemingway story? It’s actually the glaciers we care most about, and they are most definitely shrinking near Kilimanjaro’s summit. How much these specific changes are connected to global warming is very debatable, but the general shrinking of glaciers around the world is indisputable and fully in accordance with global warming predictions. Al Gore never made any official predictions of hurricanes in his documentary, aside from general allusions to them getting stronger and more frequent over time. But this is also indisputable, according to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). You referenced the specific drought of no Category 3+ hurricanes striking the U.S. between 2005 (Wilma) and 2017 (Harvey), but that is a bit misleading because it ignores data like major hurricanes that struck other locations during that time, the severity of hurricane seasons since Harvey, and total number of hurricanes…not to mention financial damage and death tolls. This is somewhat analogous to the “weather versus climate” debate when it comes to data selectivity. But in all honesty, hurricane monitoring is a much less certain metric for global warming compared to the other ones, due to the nature of ocean currents. I have no idea where you’re going with the data fabrication accusations. If this is a reference to the November 2009 Climategate controversy, it was debunked years ago. Climate science is no different with their data transparency than any of the other natural science subfields. It is practically impossible for science to maintain a grand operation of willful systemic data fabrication. The profession has way too many built-in mechanisms of checks and balances, especially on the international arena. I still believe the U.S. can do its part in meeting the 2050 Paris Agreement goals without adversely affecting our economy. Doing so, however, will require more vigorous investments in nuclear energy and reforestation than we’re currently seeing from Biden. Advancements with carbon capture technology are simply moving way too slowly, as are positive changes within major greenhouse gas-polluting industries like agriculture and aviation. In my opinion, our ideal composite energy solution should be centered around nuclear and solar, as well as electric vehicles. Bear in mind that I did not whimsically reach this conclusion! All energy resources have benefits and drawbacks, of course, but prioritizing these three would be the most optimal from the perspective of energy production versus risks of environmental degradation. A note on electric vehicles: lithium-ion batteries are already more “green” than conventional fossil fuels, in overall terms of usage plus resource extraction. We can render them more friendly to the environment by working with several South American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile) and making sure suitable government regulations are imposed on brine deposit mining. I also like the progress that scientists and engineers are making on viable battery material alternatives to lithium, which is why I’m so sanguine about electrical cars.

There are multiple irreversible tipping points in the evolution of global warming. The article is highlighting one of the earliest that could be expected to go. Passing through one tipping point does not mean we shouldn’t try to avoid the others. As damaging as the loss of summer Arctic ice coverage would be, something like permafrost thawing in the Northern Hemisphere would be much more devastating to future generations. Because we’re dealing with feedback control systems that proceed nonlinearly and that could trigger cascading positive feedback loops, I don’t have a problem with the alarmist tones in the article. What specific climate change metrics (surface temps, ice sheet sizes, glacier sizes, snow cover, sea level rise, ocean temps, ocean acidification levels, various extreme weather events, etc.) did Al Gore get wrong? Can you state his erroneous claims verbatim from the documentary and then provide the numbers from peer-reviewed research papers that contradict his claims? I’ll spot you the Mount Kilimanjaro glacier example, though Gore could have used plenty of other glaciers to make his point. It has honestly been a very long time since I saw the film, so I should probably watch it again over July 4 weekend to judge how well it has aged. But when critiquing the documentary’s veracity, we need to be mindful of distinctions between worst-case scenarios and expected ones. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that only 15 years have passed. Hey, at least Al Gore covered the thermohaline circulation science better than “The Day After Tomorrow” lol… Which data sets are you determining to be incomplete? How are they incomplete? What should climate scientists do to assemble more complete data? A few quick responses: 1. All known major non-anthropogenic climate change factors have been isolated and ruled out with rigorous data processing techniques. Atmospheric carbon rose ~31ppm from 1988 (the year of James Hansen’s Senate testimony) to 2006 (the release of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”) and then an additional ~37ppm up to now. Simultaneously, mean Earth surface temperature rose ~0.33 degrees Celsius from 1988 to 2006 and then an additional ~0.39 degrees Celsius up to now. If anyone has a better explanation for this correlation, please cite the research paper you are referencing or tell us your novel hypothesis! 2. Water, methane, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide are the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere besides carbon dioxide. The methane also oxidizes into carbon dioxide over time, a lesser-known scientific fact that proponents of the fracking industry like to omit! The other ~99% of stuff in the atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) does not contribute at all to global warming. 3. Most climate scientists and many green energy engineers are active members of and financial contributors to all sorts of environmental conservation organizations.

Since this thread concerns my city and many of my comrades, I shall provide some commentary: Yes, Andrew Yang looks to be finished. He positioned himself in somewhat of an ideological no-man’s land, which is a dangerous place to be if one lacks the rare personal charisma that can draw a plurality of voters from two disparate political sides. Yang’s comments on Israel and on the minimum wage certainly did not help him curry favor with the left. Maya Wiley is now the top progressive choice and is making a late surge, thanks to the recent endorsements from AOC and Jamaal Bowman. There are still plenty of undecided voters in NYC that she can win over, including a large pool of undecided lefties who were previously flirting with Scott Stringer and Diane Morales. But I don’t think the NYC progressive political infrastructure was organized all season, and so I don’t think they’ll be ready to meet this moment which is arriving fast. Eric Adams (no relation) is also the safest perceived choice to a community that I feel is looking for stability right now and a return to normalcy above all else. In the likely event of Eric Adams winning, the corporate mainstream media narrative will be that June 22 was a bellwether election for the failing political experiment that is modern American progressivism. Since NYC is commonly looked upon as the vanguard of the country’s far left (and rightfully so!), replacing Bill de Blasio with some form of a neoliberal centrist is indeed a bad look. But as long as the proper lessons are learned here (stop the childish infighting, stop the rigid ideological purity tests, drop the failing culture war issues like “Defund the Police,” prioritize economic issues that have 50+% of the popular vote, strengthen connections with working-class communities), progressives everywhere should fare well in next year’s Democratic primaries and beyond.

The Soviet Union collapsed because its implemented economic system doesn’t work and its bureaucracy became unmanageable. The efficacy of the various Cold War proxy wars is completely overblown by war hawk propagandists. The most involved one, of course, was the Vietnam War which didn’t turn out so well for us. I will reiterate: there are other ways to promote democracy that don’t involve regime change wars and coups. Carefully crafted multilateral trade deals are one such way. I’m not even going to attempt to properly break down U.S.-Latin America and U.S.-Africa foreign policy history this morning. Suffice to say, words like “blowback” and phrases like “human rights violations” would be used frequently. I noticed that you didn’t address Obama’s 7 military interventions. How come? Do you still defend them in terms of ethics, budgetary cost, military strategy, and international diplomacy?

Hello, my newfound free market fundamentalist friend! I’m curious to see the full results. We have ~30-40 semi-frequent visitors these days, I think. The poll, unfortunately, is a bit biased in favor of libertarians because they are more likely to click on this thread in the first place. Also, the wording of the first option is too vague since most people will agree to that stuff in principle. The details of public policy are what distinguish genuine libertarians from the rest. I would have slightly adjusted your 5 voting options like this: 1. I like the Libertarian Party’s platform the most. 2. I prefer someone like Bernie Sanders, the Green Party, the DSA, or the People’s Party. 3. I would prefer a more socially conservative Reagan-esque GOP, like under Mitt Romney. 4. I prefer the GOP under Donald Trump’s populist nationalist platform. 5. I prefer the Democrats with Joe Biden. Great question! The late Milton Friedman, a hero among libertarians, proposed this general idea in a somewhat different form called the “negative income tax.” It was a way to provide a social safety net while simultaneously removing the government bureaucratic middlemen. I don’t have a strong opinion on UBI at the moment, so I won’t answer your question. Lots of interesting test runs are being done on UBI throughout the world. Germany, for example, is doing one. You can look at the pandemic stimulus checks as a type of UBI experiment, too. As far as the universal health care component goes, yes! Absolutely. Eliminate the health care insurance company middlemen. Nationalize the whole service already like we do with defense, police, fire department, etc… We should have done this back in 1946, but better late than never. Obamacare, public option, and whatever hoodwinking nonsense Trump was promoting are all no good. I prefer the UK model and would use the Australian model as a transition stage. I don’t know, Tibsy, because I never receive a straight answer on environmental issues whenever I discuss them with libertarian purist types. Something about how I’m not defining precisely enough what I mean by the word “pollution.” Or how private individuals are the best stewards of property and that we should let wealthy CEO’s buy up national parks and other public lands. Or how government ruins everything it touches anyway (a classic “throw the baby out with the bath water” argument) because it lacks the all-powerful “profit motive” that can solve every single one of life’s problems. Laissez-faire capitalism fails in the modern industrialized world for a multitude of reasons, many of which include its inability to address market failures such as externalities. Pollution is the main class of negative environmental externalities. A strong tendency among libertarians is to side with job creators, so they will frequently give industry polluters a free pass if environmental regulations would cut into company profits and lead to less jobs. They do this by downplaying or outright denying the environmental damage specified by scientists and health professionals. Two examples: Donald Trump’s well-documented war with the EPA, the anthropogenic global warming “debate.” If your economic toy model can’t effectively solve a problem, I guess try downplaying or denying the problem?

A “shoddy pseudo-scientific” understanding of fundamental economics…really?! You mean the emerging consensus among faculty and grad students at Columbia’s and NYU’s econ departments regarding the current inflation situation, mixed in with some canonical intro macroeconomics material?? Now you’re just being haughty with me. So I guess we’re just two equally haughty people haughtying around on Two Bills Drive, no? Please reread my point #3 above. My argument has been that inflation is multifaceted, that I believe its transient components are the dominant ones for the current situation, and that I will consider monetary policy means to address any long-term components if the inflation data persists intolerably throughout the summer. In other words: I will be perfectly happy to admit that my initial hypothesis was wrong, depending on new data that better informs us on how the real world is functioning. You, on the other hand, stated in page 2 of this thread that the Biden administration will “try to manipulate and hide inflation data as long as they can.” This is quite a convenient position to take if the economics data doesn’t end up fitting your preferred narrative by August/September! Apparently that dastardly Bureau of Labor Statistics is also in on the latest conspiracy. Do you see what I mean when I say “cult?” I’m not a communist, by the way, even though red does happen to be my favorite color. On political economics issues, I’m ideologically much closer to Donald Trump than I am to a communist.