Tag Archives: Vox

Ridiculous: Vox wants constitutional change so Ocasio-Cortez can run for president

It’s amazing that some progressives actually take this womyn seriously.

From Fox News: Liberal political website Vox is getting accused of jumping the shark after publishing an appeal to “fix the Constitution ASAP” so that 29-year-old incoming Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can run for president – claiming “there’s no time like the present to start working to abolish arbitrary qualifications.”

Wednesday’s lengthy piece, “It’s ridiculous that it’s unconstitutional for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for president,” declared that everyone from immigrants to recent college grads should be eligible.

Vox co-founder and senior correspondent Matthew Yglesias wrote that “phenomenon” Ocasio-Cortez “is the biggest star in the Democratic Party,” and therefore it is “completely ridiculous” that the Constitution makes anyone under the age of 35 ineligible to run for president of the United States.

“There’s nothing wrong with old people per se, but essentially everyone has lost a step or two both mentally and physically by their mid-70s,” Yglesias wrote. “The really awful thing about being old is that you just keep getting older over time.”

Even Ocasio-Cortez pushed back on the premise:

“How about… no,” she wrote. “Sometimes political media is too fixated on personalities instead of policies. The whole country JUST went through an exhausting midterm election. We need a break.”

This is truly Vox’s jump the shark moment. Not exactly sure how you can claim to be anything other than pure parody when you are publishing pieces like this. I guess they believe – wrongly – that all publicity – even negative publicity- is good,” conservative strategist Chris Barron told Fox News.

NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck told Fox News that Vox is “supposed to be knowledgeable and explain things to the masses” but “always finds a way to baffle people by showing that they’re the ones who struggle with basic facts and trying to explain things.”

“Vox is quickly becoming a parody of itself and this fantasy of wanting her to be president even though she hasn’t been sworn in yet is ludicrous,” Houck said. “At least Barack Obama had served in the state Senate and then the U.S. Senate for a few years and could have claimed to have had some experience in office.”

Yglesias argued that “young is better than old” and suggested America would be better off with Ocasio-Cortez than an older candidate such as Bernie Sanders, 77, or the 76-year-old Joe Biden.

“We’re sitting here in the winter of 2018 talking about filling a presidential term that won’t start until 2021 — with an inevitable reelection campaign in 2024 for a term that wouldn’t end until early 2029,” Yglesias wrote.

Yglesias noted that people even younger are often “trusted with life-and-death situations in a huge array of contexts” such as having children and serving in the military.

“The constitutional prohibition on people under the age of 35 serving as president is just one of these weird lacuna that was handed down to us from the 18th century but that nobody would seriously propose creating today if not for status quo bias,” he wrote.

Yglesias even argued that her “AOC” nickname works in her favor.

“Is having a nickname a sign that you would exercise good judgment in the Oval Office? Absolutely not. But it’s proof positive that she’s an honest-to-goodness political superstar, and it’s clear that’s what many Democrats are looking for in 2020,” he wrote.

Yglesias tweeted that “AOC should run for president and dare the Supreme Court to stop her.” His message was met with an onslaught of criticism online.

“It’s amazing someone gives you a paycheck,” one user wrote while another added, “I get that you don’t like old people, but you’re going to be one someday, so maybe lay off the hatred for now.”

The argument for changing the presidential requirements is among a host of ideas being floated on the left for major constitutional overhauls in response to President Trump’s administration and, most recently, the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Critics have floated packing the Supreme Court, overhauling the Electoral College and considering term limits on the high court in response.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Blackout: Major progressive web sites omit report that Starbucks is giving raises as result of GOP tax cut

media TDS
Yesterday at 5:09 am Reuters reported that Starbucks was going to give raises to employees. From the story:
Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O) will use some of the savings from the new U.S. corporate tax cuts to give domestic employees pay raises, company stock and expanded benefits with a combined worth of more than $250 million, the company said on Wednesday.
With the announcement, the world’s biggest coffee chain joins companies like Walmart (WMT.N), Apple Inc APPL.O, Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and American Airlines Group Inc (AAL.O) in sharing their tax savings with employees.
Starbucks is known for giving its workers, which it calls “partners,” more generous pay and benefits than other mass-market restaurants and retailers.
“Investing in our partners has long been our strategy, and due to the recent changes in U.S. tax law, we are able to accelerate some significant partner investments,” Chief Executive Kevin Johnson said in a letter to employees.”
Read the rest of the story here.
Over 11 hours later, at 1:45 pm (Central Time), I went to several proggie web sites to search how they reported this great news. I searched the following sites to see if they had “Starbucks” or any story on their home page about this announcement:

At the time of my search, I didn’t find ANY article on this good news on the above web sites. Gee, I wonder why?
CBS news had the story, at the bottom of their home page under the “Money Watch” category. Fox News DID have the story, about a quarter of the way down on their home page.
Wonder if these progressive “news” web sites will get around to reporting this great news as a result of the GOP tax cut plan, which NOT ONE demorat voted for.
No wonder we call them #FakeNews.
DCG
PS: I checked all the web sites bulleted above at 9:30 pm last night and STILL NOTHING about the Starbucks announcement. Shocker, not.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Bioethicist opinion: Science proves kids are bad for earth; morality suggests we stop having them

travis rieder

Travis and his child in his Twitter profile picture


The author of this opinion piece, Travis Rieder, PhD, is the Assistant Director for Education Initiatives, Director of the Master of Bioethics degree program and Research Scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics. He is also a Faculty Affiliate at the Center for Public Health Advocacy within the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
From NBC News: A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.
The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children — is also being taken seriously in many circles. Indeed, I have written widely on the topic myself.
But scientific evidence and moral theorizing aside, this is a complicated question with plenty of opponents. In what follows, I will address some of the challenges to this idea. Because while I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn’t have environmental and ethical consequences.
The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger.
Most environmentalists accept this sort of ledger view when it comes to recycling, driving, and flying, but support begins to decrease when applied to family planning. The opposition is typified by Vox writer David Roberts, who argues that “such an accounting scheme is utterly impractical” because it seems to entail that one is never responsible for one’s own emissions. Because “we don’t want to double-count,” as Roberts says, this means parents are really only responsible for their kids’ emissions.
The flaw in this objection is the plausible-sounding caveat: “we don’t want to double-count.” Because why wouldn’t we want to double-count? If moral responsibility added up mathematically, then double-counting would be a serious problem. But I think it’s clear that we should not accept a mathematical model of responsibility.
Consider a different case: If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.
Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility. Moral responsibility simply isn’t mathematical.
If you buy this view of responsibility, you might eventually admit that having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons: Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.
Read the rest of this opinion here.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Anti-Trump violence: news editor incites; San Jose police do nothing

Here’s another sign that the United States has devolved into a Third World country.
Americans once prided ourselves for being a civilized democracy where the bullet is replaced by the ballot, unlike those primitive “banana republics” of the Third World.
No more.
Vox is a news website run by Vox Media, founded by liberal columnist Ezra Klein in April 2014.
Emmett ResinOn June 2, 2016, in a tweet, Vox’s deputy editor Emmett Rensin, 26, urged people to “start a riot” if Donald Trump comes to their town/city. His tweet received at least 349 ♥ likes.
Emmett Resin tweet1In a follow-up tweet, Resin clarified his call to start a riot, stating that whereas murder is not legit, it is legitimate to destroy property, shout opponents down, and disrupt all events.
Emmett Resin tweet2It turns out Vox has its limits. The next day, on June 3, Vox’s editor-in-chief Ezra Klein announced that Rensin has been suspended. Klein said that although Vox encourages its writers to debate and disagree:

“direct encouragement of riots crosses a line between expressing a contrary opinion and directly encouraging dangerous, illegal activity. We welcome a variety of viewpoints, but we do not condone writing that could put others in danger.
In this case, Emmett’s tweets violated Vox’s standards and Emmett has been suspended as a consequence.”

ZeroHedge observes:

One can only imagine the level of anger, media hype, and blame-throwing that would have been unleashed were this some right-wing social media site. Where are Trump supporters’ “safe spaces”? Don’t they deserve to be protected against micro-aggression (and utterly lawless physical violence)?

The answer, of course, is no.
In Amerika today, neither Donald Trump nor his supporters deserve to be protected against threats of and actual acts of violence, as shown in San Jose, California.
Two hours after Emmett Rensin had sent his “start a riot” tweet, anti-Trump protesters in San Jose, California, started a riot.
On the evening of June 2, 2016, 250 police officers in riot gear did nothing as Trump supporters at a Trump rally in downtown San Jose were attacked by violent protesters throwing punches, water bottles and traffic cones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9j712PC2lM

San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia‘s lame excuse is that the police is not “an occupying force” and that the police held back to avoid inciting more violence and having the crowd turn on officers. He also said the 250 police assigned to the rally weren’t enough to control the roughly 400 protesters. (Source: San Jose Mercury News)
It turns out that Garcia is far from being an objective enforcer of peace and order, as Gateway Pundit discovered, for police chief Eddie Garcia is affiliated with the Chicano racist group La Raza (which means “the race”). Below is a screen-cap from Garcia’s Twitter account:
Eddie GarciaThe La Raza Roundtable of California had celebrated when Garcia was sworn in as police chief.
See also:

H/t Big Lug and FOTM’s Hadenoughalready
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0