The View From 1776
Whether It Works Or Not, The Government Will Make You Swallow It
Read Ira Stoll’s assessment, from The New York Sun webpage, of Hillary Clinton’s green energy policy proposal.
- Stoll's lightweight comments read like he was sitting at his computer, facing a deadline and was desperate to come up with something to say to fill space. So, the best carping he could come up with is that "setting a goal for use of solar energy was unreasonable because other renewable technologies exist?" Of course there are others, but that does not negate the utility of getting more solar capacity installed.
Stoll needs to put in a little more effort to get above the pablum threshold if he expects people to take the time to read his stuff.
And, Thomas, by the way, how is encouraging folks to make use of solar energy "Central Planning"?
(Aside: Thomas: You were silent for quite a while so I hope you were not indisposed! Good to have you back!)
- J Jay,
Your “lightweight comments read like you are sitting at your computer”, frustrated by a lack of effective retorts you can make, “and desperate to come up with something”, anything, as masks the bankrupt ideology you defend is beyond redemption. The best carping you could come up with is “… how is encouraging folks to make use of solar energy ‘Central Planning’?” I ask you back, how is that even an argument? Mr. Stoll wrote substantively regarding Hillary’s policy approach, but here you are whining about labels rather than substance. Your rejection of his label (which is perfectly fine, BTW) is moot because his point is valid regardless the choice of label because her policy simply cannot produce the result she insists for it.
You crudely allege Stoll struggled to find something to say on this subject, yet it is clear from his opening remarks there was much more he could have said but chose not to in the interest of brevity, clarity, civility and fairness. Apparently, those are problems for you (because they deprive you of attack openings).
In a sense, you are right in that Hillary’s counterproductive policy choices are not exactly news; and, if that were all that was happening here you might have a point. But, of course, it isn’t and you know it. Here is the rub I see for you: assuming your counterpoint were actually valid, that would suggest Hillary is even more of a leftist-cause chasing idiot than even she pretends. I don’t see you meant that by attacking Stoll’s main point (i.e., her poor policy choices). Everything else in the article seems, to me, tame stuff to which any leftist would readily agree. So, that leaves me wondering: exactly what is it you object to here?
Unstated, but obvious, is that not only is Hillary’s policy ineffective, it is also patently corrupt in that it picks winners and losers. It is guaranteed wealth-redistribution, not from rich to poor, but from middle-class taxpayers to wealthy crony-capitalists. More to the point, it is a brazen attempt by Hillary to draw already corrupt, subsidy-bloated solar investors into funding her Presidential bid. Declaring she will favor solar beforehand effectively guarantees solar panel makers will get preference in the subsidy lottery (think $-billions) in exchange for their support now. This is about as corrupt as our political system gets, brazen in it open display, and such Clintonesque con-artistry I have to wonder was this hers or Bill’s idea. It is a ‘you scratch mine and I’ll scratch yours’ scheme using other people’s money in plain sight; and, that is something only an idiot could possibly miss or a partisan dismiss.
Possibly, Stoll missed the corruption angle (though, I don’t think so from hints he dropped), and that would explain his emphasizing irrational aspects of her policy. However, it is only irrational given you assume Hillary gives a hoot about the environment (she doesn’t). Many a conservative pundit has already noted her frequent departures from pragmatism and rationality, even within the confines of her own brand of socialism. But, that is because they are taking her at her word that causes matter to her. From the power/corruption angle, her policy makes perfect sense (to her, not environmentalists). To Hillary, the environment is just one more liberal cause she can exploit for power and money. But, that does not mean her irrationalities do not also bear repetition. They do, because, as we get closer to election time, a lot of ‘old news’ will resurface as voters demand reliable background information on the candidates, including sanity questions. It is the job of writers, like Stoll, to satisfy that demand, and his article does draw attention to policies that cannot possibly produce the kind of results she gives her disciples to expect.
It may surprise you to learn that I am not a huge Hillary fan, although I will keep my powder dry until I see who makes it to the top of the Republican heap before pulling the trigger on an endorsement.
My point about Stoll's article was that simply it was not worth reading because of its lack of depth and analysis.