Comment of the day: Recycler!!

From resident enviro-stud stomv, on Scott Brown’s answer to climate change: “I recycle all the time …”

 

Blue Mass Group | “I recycle all the time … “

ZZ Top and Scott Brown just kicked the can down the road on this one.

But dude, I recycle!

There are 100 US Senators, and they have a massive influence on how the United States will deal with man-caused climate change.

He connected climate change with recycling for God’s sake. Recycling is important to be sure, but *that’s* his link with climate change? Not heating buildings, not electricity generation, not transportation fuels. Not EPA regulations, not subsidizing green technology research, development, nor deployment. Not energy efficiency standards for appliances, CAFE standards, improved transmission lines. Not programs which weather seal and insulate homes, not increased building codes, not even natural gas instead of coal. Not nuclear power, not OPower, not mass transit, not bicycles and sidewalks.

Recycling? The dude clearly has no idea how this works, or just doesn’t care. Either way, it’s a problem.

Let’s remember that he voted against the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. Well gosh, if you had no idea why CO2 was a problem, then of course you’d vote that way!

It’s not just his ignorance that galls: It’s the laziness. And the reference to himself, and his purported personal virtues: He folds laundry and has, like, lots of women in the house, so he’s a big feminist. He drives a truck, so he’s a normal dude. Goes along with his wanting credit for being pro-jobs and pro-woman, etc. without actually having to make any votes or pass legislation for it.

This is a Senate race, not Welcome Back Kotter. Come back when you’ve done your homework, Senator.



Discuss

19 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Along similar lines,

    I was struck by this passage in the Globe story from a couple of days ago:

    Then a boy, who looks about 8, stops him. He asks: Are you a bad guy, like I saw on TV?

    “I’m not a bad person,” Brown assures him. The senator lingers, unhurried on a sparkling October afternoon. He records a keepsake video for another child, telling him to study hard in school. “I’m Scott Brown and I approve this message,” he says with a grin.

    But the encounter sticks. Walking toward his next campaign stop, Brown says to nobody in particular, “I may be a lot of things but I’m not a bad guy.”

    That, at least to me, encapsulates Brown brilliantly. His belief in his own wonderfulness, his own unassailable virtue, is utterly disconnected from what he actually does or says. It doesn’t matter that he votes against equal pay for women, because he folds laundry and is a good dad. It doesn’t matter that he votes to cripple the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, because he recycles and thinks the environment is important. And it doesn’t matter that he has engaged in unrelenting, scurrilous attacks against his opponent, because, well, he’s “not a bad guy.”

    Sorry, Scotto. It doesn’t work that way. You had your chance and you blew it. And on Tuesday, we will hire someone who is actually up to the job.

    • It is all about image over substance

      That in a nutshell is Scott Brown. He won his previous race with an all-image, content-free campaign and expects it to work this time as well.

    • This is a great anecdote

      but the observation is tru of all politicians.

      This is the same phenomenon that permits Democrats to treat a different politician like a “good guy” because he voted for the Support Cute Kittens bill, even though in his personal life he spends his time poking out the eyes of puppies with hot knives.

      • But Zell Miller

        left the Democratic Party a long time ago. If I’ve seen anyone in politics who might actually “spend his time poking out the eyes of puppies with hot knives,” it’s that guy. Kinda scary.

        I don’t know anyone who talks about Dem politicians as good people because of some fluff issue or personal anecdote. Personally I care only about policy.

        • Ha

          My point is that party members are always willing to forgive almost any degree of personal-life awfulness when expedient, while high-mindedly saying they vote the party, not the candidate, while simultaneously extrapolating non-personal life things about opposing candidates into stories about what awful, evil people they are on a personal level.

          • Gross misrepresentation

            Cynicism is one thing, but this comment really is over the top. The list of Democrats who have left in office in disgrace is much longer than your comment would indicate. Anthony Weiner, former Representative of New York, was not forgiven. John Tierney is in a fight for his political life, and he arguably did nothing wrong.

            It also needs to be said that candidates who base their public identity on self-proclaimed “moral fiber” (Larry Craig and Newt Gingrich come to mind) should, in my opinion, be held to a higher standard than those who are more tolerant of the claimed failings of others.

            • It was Tierney that I had in mind

              There was a thread here within the last few weeks on Tierney, titled “Vote the party, not the man” in which such a vote was rationalized. A similar phenomenon could be observed for years with State Sen. Wilkerson. It seems to me that party members only turn on such individuals once their disgraced departure becomes inevitable, and they are thus a liability to the party.

              This is peachy because Our Dear Party is so thoroughly good and decent, and so completely dedicated to truth, justice, and the American way that supporting it through good times and in bad is a noble and righteous act. Their Evil Party, by contrast, is, naturally evil in every conceivable way. Thus proceeds life in a bubble.

              It is doubtful that you will ever get me to think anything other than the worst of political parties. They are not in favor of you, or me, or some mystical “working man.” They are in favor of themselves, only.

              Parties have worthy individuals operating within their corrupt structure; Democrats have more at the moment. If this is taken as anything other than damning with faint praise, then my meaning is misunderstood.

              • Tierney not similar to Wilkerson

                Come on, CMD, think about it. Diane Wilkerson was prosecuted for attempted extortion, pleaded guilty, and is serving a three and half year prison sentence. I’ve been here since something like 2006, and my recollection is that BMG immediately and explicitly denounced her. I grant you that the Massachusetts Democratic Party was slower than I liked in rejecting Ms. Wilkerson, but I was joined by many of the party faithful in being disappointed by that tardiness.

                Mr. Tierney has been accused of no crime. He has not been arrested, no officer of the court has even hinted that he has done wrong. Your attempted conflation of Mr. Tierney and Ms. Wilkerson, in my view, does a disservice to Mr. Tierney.

                Can you identify any instances where a Democratic candidate has lied as flagrantly and egregiously as the current crop? The Democratic Party did not bring us Watergate, Contragate, the illegal war in South America, the unprovoked and unjustified 2003 invasion of Iraq, and a host of other major misdeeds.

                The Democratic Party was not the party that brought us the Great Recession, or that has intentionally sabotaged the credit-worthiness of the United States in order to beleaguer a sitting president.

                When, since the 1968 expulsion of the Southern racists, has the Democratic Party made any remotely similar appeals to racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia as today’s GOP?

                Your attempt to paint the Democratic Party as only marginally less evil than the GOP flies in the face of history, reason, and current events.

                • Wilkerson

                  He is similar, in my view. She was supported until she was completely non-viable because of her 2008 arrest and prosecution. But it was clear as far back as 1997 (tax evasion conviction) that she was a grossly dishonest public servant. If it wasn’t then, then it was in 2001 (failure to disclose she was a lobbyist), or 2005 (fraudulent campaign financing).

                  As it happened, Democrats continued to re-nominate and support a candidate that was known to be dishonest for more than a decade, and gee whoops it turned she eventually out got caught accepting a bribe. It is not known how many bribes she received without being caught.

                  The Tierney family has kept the mortgage paid up by operating a criminal enterprise. How many times has the proection of that enterprise influenced his public service? Eventually, we will know about at least once such instance, when he winds up in Wilkerson’s boat.

                  Then, having supported and sustained another obviously dishonest public servant, Democrats will touch the back of their wrist to their forehead and wonder “Why, oh, why do people not trust their government? It must be that they are listening to Reoublican lies. That must be it.”

              • Still don't agree that

                Tierney’s been shown to have done anything wrong. Wilkerson was different and I wasn’t a huge fan before that was proven.

                It’s not so much that I think every Dem candidate is “so thoroughly good and decent” as that we no longer have a Republican party within 1000 miles of where I think we need to go politically. A Lowell Weicker I could consider voting for, certainly over a Joe LIeberman.

                But I don’t think there’s any dispute this GOP is as far to the right as we’ve seen since the 1920s and perhaps before. The outrageous mailers I got from the Mass. GOP this week tell me all I need to know. And the Mass. GOP is benign compared to the GOP in many other states. It’s a party with no interest in paying the slightest attention to basic economics or 99% of the scientific community, and damn the consequences. I’m more than willing to prioritize keeping that kind of thinking out of power.

          • Speak for yourself.

            .

    • self-love

      It’s good to be confident, but Brown does take professions of love of self to new depths and sometimes weird places. One does have to wonder if the person he is really trying to convince is himself.

      In this new interview from WBZ-TV the great man is asked (about 1min in)- if you could be someone else for one day, who would it be? His answer: Gail Huff.

      So, if Scott Brown wasn’t himself, he’d like to be married to himself. Hmmm

  2. Thanks for recycling my comment

    though, to be fair, that makes me guilty of a pet peeve of mine. Recycling isn’t reusing, and it’s not reducing, and it’s not downcycling.

    Reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order. Below recycle is downcycle, and below that is landfill.

    My comment wasn’t recycled — it was reused.
    Taking a plastic grocery bag and then using it to scoop dog poop — that’s not recycling either. That’s not even downcycling. That’s a single reuse and a landfill.

    In some ways, Senator Brown was victim of our society’s use of the word “recycle” to mean anything better than throw the item in the trash right now.

  3. The ghost of Dick Cheney's comment

    that energy conservation was just a matter of “personal virtue,” not public policy.

    Hurricanes? Melting ice cap? Climate change?

    It’s your fault, dude, ’cause you don’t recycle enough.

  4. idiot

    This jerk was my state senator, and in various correspondence with him I heard this same crap about ‘i do my own laundry and iron my shirts and recycle, and how about all my women?’. useless then, useless now.

  5. Babbling or deeply ignorant?

    Which is the case?

  6. Another Wilkerson/Tierney difference for the above exchange.

    Wilkerson had a primary opponent, Sonia Chang Diaz, who was also progressive and ultimately prevailed. Thus Democrats had someone to get behind. Also given the overwhelming Democratic majority, plus the fluidity of parties at the state level, in the General Court we can sacrifice a Dem seat if absolutely necessary whereas I would not want to do that in Congress in the current political climate.

    • Your Democratic Party

      Opposed to corruption and criminality, but only when it doesn’t cost us anything.

      In support of corruption and criminality, if it means that the GOP house majority will be 48 instead of 49 seats.

      This is the definition of putting the party ahead of the commonweal.

  7. Sorry CMD...

    …but I want my rep to vote my way – period. It is for the criminal justice system and not me as a voter to determine criminal and corrupt activity and prosecute when appropriate. If that happens hold a special election and keep the voting record intact. You seem to see party as if it’s just rooting for a team like saying the Red Sox over the Yankees right or wrong, but ultimately meaning squat in terms of our lives. Parties represent AGENDAS which could put us on the right track, or not. For me, the commonweal with increasingly rare exceptions requires Democrats in office pursuing their agenda.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Tue 21 Oct 9:33 AM