George Clooney Against DUMBF**KERY

May 8, 2019

15 Responses to “George Clooney Against DUMBF**KERY”

  1. rhymeswithgoalie Says:

    I would really like an unbleeped version. Is there one?

  2. J4Zonian Says:

    It’s great to get help wherever we can get it, but let’s not forget that except on some social issues Clooney is a right of center dumbfuck who supported Kerry, Obama, and Clinton, all 3 of whom, it is now ever more clear, were campaigning on promises (to be broken once in office as we saw from all 3) that would just as surely have led to the end of civilization as the policies of every recent Republican regime including the current one.

    Losing by a little is the same if not worse than losing by a lot in this case, especially since the longer humanity lingers on in desperate, conflictual and exploitive mode, the worse it is for the rest of life on Earth. The corporate Democratic program for the climate and larger ecological crisis is still completely inadequate, with Pelosi and Schumer (and others like Feinstein) effectively just as malevolently wrong on the direness and needed actions as every Republican. The Republicans are not the enemy, the oligarchy’s tool, the corporate duopoly, is.

    • Don Osborn Says:

      Seems like J4 could use a visit from George’s new organization. There is a BIG difference between moving a bit too slow in the right direction and a head long rush in the wrong and over the cliff. In any case, getting the movement in the right direction is the much needed step that can then be built upon and accelerated. The pox on both of your houses (or the false equivalence) is just lazy thinking or an attempt to actually cloud the issue. You either do know better or should.

      • J4Zonian Says:

        No, with climate catastrophe there’s no difference between losing by a lot and losing by a little; war and tipping points make that clear. The end of civilization is the end of civilization, whether it’s caused by Republicans or Republicans Lite. Nothing false about the equivalence; and the rules aren’t made by me, or politics; they’re laws of physics and ecology. They can’t be bargained with, compromised with, fudged, hacked, ignored, or worked around. The sooner the naive wishy washy wishful-thinking fools on the left realize that, the better. If it’s not very soon, we’re fucked.

        Choosing the same thing over and over and over in the Lesser Evil Gambit was crazy the other times; it did exactly what it was supposed to and drove the country steadily to the right–both halves of the corporate duopoly party forcing and following each other, and everybody else dragged along. It was relatively easily fixable though painful 3 elections ago, but not enough people on the left were willing to suffer the pain, and as was absolutely foreseeable (and foreseen) it’s gotten crazier and harder and more painful as we galloped rightward. Now it’s a royal (or dictatorial) fuck up no matter what we do in the election–unless we can get a progressive elected president and take over the Senate while we keep the House. Otherwise, we’ll have to do it the really hard way–force resignations with a revolution. Waiting another 4 or 8 years isn’t a possibility if we want civilization to survive. Or maybe you have a brilliant plan that hasn’t occurred to anyone else in the US. If so, please share it.

        Yes, the Republicans are much more insane than the Democrats. But tell me how it’s different if we end up in the same place, with civilization collapsing and millions of species extinct. The way out of the dilemma is either to take over the Democratic party from the left with massive, relentless direct action, or to abandon the corporate Democrats and join the Green Party by the millions, suddenly making it a force in national politics, and then take over the US government by massive, relentless direct action.

        • Jeffrey Cowdrey Says:

          The difference is one group can be reasoned with. By alienating everyone who is the tiniest bit unwilling to accept without question one’s own sense of urgency, one ensures nothing will get done.

          That kind of thinking makes you the dumbass.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            No, one side keeps power by pretending they can be reasoned with. For 30 years we’ve been pretty damned sure this was happening. The latest science has come around to understanding we have considerably less than the overly conservative IPCC’s ‘halfway there in 12 years’ 1.5 report–IOW, we have no time at all and are trading millions of people’s lives and thousands of species for every month we delay. Meanwhile, the corporate Democrats have come around to understand we have 35 years left to diddle around and make promises to maybe start to do something about pretending to care. Their program is completely inadequate to meet the the direness of the crisis–just like the obviously more insane other right wing.

            When one doesn’t know exactly how bad something is but does know it threatens the existence of civilization and millions of species, is it smarter to underestimate the direness of the threat and risk acting too slowly, or overestimate it and act in a way than may turn out to be unnecessarily fast? If one also knows that the unchanging trend of the last 80 years has been to become ever more certain it was happening faster than expected, over and over and over and over, what ‘s the best course–overestimating or underestimating the threat?

            Read Michael Mann on long tailed risk.

            Read this comment and the one after it if you’re not convinced I’m actually under playing the threat:
            https://grist.org/article/600-environmental-orgs-say-this-is-what-they-want-in-a-green-new-deal/#comment-4285915404
            And this:
            grist[DOT]org/article/climate-denial-is-getting-more-popular-its-probably-trumps-fault/#comment-3853064871

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Now you’ve done it, JC—calling Jeffy a “dumbass” will get you added to his “why don’t you commit suicide” list. It’s his way or the highway, as you know.

            I’m beginning to wonder if Jeffy is perhaps another Russian troll who is trying to sow division and alienation in the ranks of American voters?—-perhaps just masguerading as a leftie as he alienates “everyone who is the tiniest bit unwilling to accept without question (his) sense of (feigned) urgency”—-fairly clever tactic, if so.

            Jeffy says—-“The way out of the dilemma is….to abandon the corporate Democrats and join the Green Party by the millions…” Yep, that fracturing of the left would probably guarantee Repugnant victories at many levels and make Putin et al very happy. Remember Nader?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      So, Clooney is a “right of center dumbfuck” who supported DEMOCRATS? That said by someone who also says “Losing by a little is the same IF NOT WORSE than losing by a lot”?

      May I suggest that Jeffy’s milling around in a state of philosophical and logical confusion does NOT represent any sort of “help wherever we can get it”, but rather a hindrance to progress?

    • rsmurf Says:

      Don’t remember president Kerry?!?! But if you remember and its clear you DIDN’T, Carter TRIED to make us green, but dumbfucker reAGaN nixed that!

      • jimbills Says:

        Reagan won in a landslide over Carter, and a part of that reason was that they didn’t like the ‘wear sweaters and turn down the heat’ suggestions of Carter, so really the dumbf**ks were the American people.

        https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/02/18/The-Jimmy-Carter-thermostat-control-program-that-saved-about/4531351320400/

        Carter was the last American President to actively suggest personal sacrifice as a way to combat our ecological problems, and he lost so badly the Democrats took the message that could never work again. They used caution first when dealing with it afterwards, worried that the Republicans would use it to score points with voters:
        http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,10030,00.html

        • rsmurf Says:

          And reaGaN started the march to an unlivable planet. And here we are.

          • jimbills Says:

            It started long before Reagan. He’s just a guy who capitalized on the human capacity for self-delusion. An ‘unlivable planet’ was a regular point of discussion in the 1970’s, yet the people wanted to think of something else instead. Along comes Reagan, an easy scapegoat, yes, but the people preferred what he was saying over what Carter was saying:

            I’m peeved about the change that happened then, too. The tearing down of the solar panels was a significant illustration of it. But it was the American people that elected him, and who keep electing others after him – Bush, Trump, and who knows who’s next.

            It’s quite possible that we have the incapacity to deal forcefully with the issue (I’d say that’s an understatement). Carter is practically an object lesson in that incapacity. We prefer positive stories about ourselves and the world instead:

  3. grindupbaker Says:

    Yes and this is why Guy McPherson is not a hero. Persons who tell outright lies about the science topic (I mean huge bald-faced lies, not fibs) and spout other drivel based on zero analysis are never heroes. No wonder the uneducated think that it makes negligible-to-no difference about how much carbon is burned now that it’s “too late”.

  4. jimbills Says:

    Just as a hypothetical, say the currently tepid Democratic proposals (besides the GND, which isn’t going anywhere, including with the Democrats) lead to 3-4 degrees warming (which is where the Paris Treaty as it stands leads, and few countries are on track to meet their targets), and the Republicans no action leads to 5-6 degrees warming (say the ‘free market’ largely replaces FF with cleaner sources, just on a slower time scale).

    J4 isn’t wrong in that both lead to bad places. But he is wrong in thinking that anyone besides himself and a handful of others would support the radical changes that are needed to limit the warming to 1.5 degrees. No one is there with him. He’s even getting piled on here – a place that should know radical and often uncomfortable change is the only thing that prevents significant warming. I doubt Clooney would support him. He’d have to give up several of his mansions and fly to Lake Como less.

    So, unfortunately, our best hope is that hypothetical 3-4 degrees. I’d say we should just call all humans dumbf**ks.

    • grindupbaker Says:

      I’m sporadically trying to find out what reliable information there is about the rate oceans would absorb CO2 if none was added to the atmosphere because there’s in the range of 0.85 to 1.01 degrees of global warming locked in right now with the present GHGs because only 53% (Magdalena Balmesada ORAS4, Cheng et al 2017) or 61% (NOAA/NASA ORAP5) of the effect of present GHGs since 1750 AD has been balanced by warming so far and the oceans and ice are stalling the other 39-47%. With the GHGs held at present then the 39-47% must happen and Jim Hansen’s sure that 75% of that (so 3/4 of 39-47% happens over 100 years with more in the first 20 years than in the next 80 years combined). That implies doubling or more the recent decadal increase rates *with the present GHGs*


Leave a Reply to rsmurf Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: