mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Climate Obsession
NYT Botches Mexico City’s Sinking Story
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Disappeared4x

    “can anybody say anything about Aztec methods of population control?” Human sacrifice. Next? Time for “Gray Lady” to be relabeled: “Green Punk” Not so baffling to anyone who read the 2016 Democratic Party Platform. Human Sacrifice was the main theme.

    “All the News on Climate Change We See Fit to Print”

    • Fat_Man

      Human sacrifice in the form of abortion is the key sacrament of the left. There is little to pick between modern environmentalists and the Aztecs.

      • Disappeared4x

        I doubt the Aztecs would vote for Deep Ecology, the foundational Platform for the 2016 DemParty Platform as written by Bill McKibben, interwoven with lower GDP, no hydrocarbons, and the extreme support for taxpayer-funded birth control and abortion:

        The Deep Ecology Platform

        1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth, intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

        2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

        3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

        4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

        5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

        6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

        7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

        8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

        —Arne Naess and George Sessions (1984)

        http://www.deepecology.org/platform.htm

        • Fat_Man

          Actually, the Aztecs were more ecological than the environmentalists because they did not raise animals for food. They used their neighboring communities as their protein source.

          • CapitalHawk

            Indeed. The Aztecs were all about limiting population growth (in neighboring communities) in order to keep global carbon emissions low. They were the first eco-warriors!

          • Disappeared4x

            No one counted particulate emissions from burning wood, or flesh…

        • SineWaveII

          And yet in spite of all of the above they flood the country with third-worlders who don’t give a s*** about the environment and are then given a pass by the left for their attitude because “diversity!”.

          • Disappeared4x

            Deep ecology greens embrace indigenous people’s rights, not open borders. Would help the rest of us to have a Field Guide to Identity Politics.

    • Andrew Allison

      “All the FAKE climate news we can make room for” Unhappily it’s not just climate “news”; the NYT has become laughable.

      • Disappeared4x

        Yes, saved by the pay wall from trauma triggered by NYT, especially since 2013.

  • rheddles

    I’d rather fix Baltimore. Both appear to be equally susceptible to success.

    Build that wall faster.

  • FriendlyGoat

    A written piece which blames the plight of Mexico city residents on “poor policy planning” is not better than the NYT article which at least DESCRIBES physical conditions in parts of the city. Above we have a ninth paragraph which is very critical of past-present governance without bothering to explain anything——and—–we have in the tenth paragraph an endorsement for a wall. C’mon, TAI. You’re not beating the NYT with this, even it you want to claim that you are.

    • leoj

      I always wonder, on the occasions that I actually read my way to the bottom of the comment thread: What kind of secret, masochistic pleasure drives you, man?

      I’m glad the markets are doing better since Trump has taken office. Something to cheer you with all the spare time you have since retirement. Be well, fare FriendlyG!

      • FriendlyGoat

        Add “masochistic pleasure” to the kinds of subjects TAI can get from its comment-writing readers. I ask myself what’s wrong with your heads as much as you ask what is wrong with mine.

        • Psalms564

          I don’t wonder what’s wrong with you. You are a totalitarian Statist, a rather common type of cockroach. See, that way I can predict with 100% accuracy your every single take.

        • leoj

          Who are you speaking to? To what imaginary audience are you addressing such mysterious list-making?

          You see, this is a troubling false equivalence. Our views may be “crazy,” but we are at least talking to one another as is common in normal conversation. You are yelling into the void while wiping the egg off your face. JR seems positively homicidal. You’re less a troll and more a court jester. It’s just curious, that’s all…

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m not an unpaid troll, not a paid troll, and not here to entertain people as the court jester. I’m here to read the TAI perspective which is somewhat unique and to simply write my own thoughts into a screen.

            Today, while noticing that TAI did not really describe what it expected in Mexican government in its complaint about NYT piece, I noticed what other subjects the comment-writers were simultaneously bringing up. There is nothing mysterious about the references to Baltimore, Aztecs, human sacrifice, abortion, the 2016 Dem platform, and masochistic pleasure. They can all be found in the comments above. Something about a cockroach can be found below—-and I presume is an example of “we are at least talking to one another as is common in normal conversation”.

          • Anthony

            Something to change your proceeding (and the linked pieces are quite informative): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/with-such-a-people-you-can-then-do-what-you-please/517272/

            Also this: “And a people that can no longer believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also its capacity to think and judge. And with such people you you then do what you please.”(Hannah Arendt. 1978)

            And this: “He’s perfectly happy for the media to be disgusting and corrupt – so long as it’s on his side.” (quote related to WRM’s lead regarding our media scrutiny)

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks. I’ll just stick with my regular theme. Our church people either have discernment about what they see and hear—-or they don’t. At this time we are farther into the era of “don’t” than anyone thought.

          • Anthony

            Oh, I would be last person to try to move you off regular theme. But given your comment on a later TAI Post, I thought a momentary digression would give pause as well as tie into your overall implication of “intellectual integrity” – facts matter (not probably factual, not particularly factual, not alternatively factual). And you’re welcome.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, I know you’re not trying to get me off my pet theme. In connection with your link, we are going to have to stop worrying so much about “what” non-facts are believed and start worrying more about “who” is believing almost any or all of them. It’s the evangelicals, sorry to say. We can’t talk about this enough, because there is no fix without addressing this problem.

          • Anthony

            I concur that organized effort is required. Start where you are and execute your action plan – involve youngsters (key to addressing problem you lament).

          • Tom

            Part one: stop acting like you know better than they do why they did something.
            Part two: start fixing your party. After all, if baking a cake isn’t that big a deal, as you’ve said, why make forcing someone to bake it part of the platform?
            Part three: profit!

          • FriendlyGoat

            Profit from whom?

  • Tom Scharf

    The NYT has been running hit pieces on climate change in all the areas where land is sinking. Maryland, Louisiana and so on. The headline is always climate change is causing this and buried deep in the article is an admission that subsidence is by far the leading problem with the “rising” seas. It has become so pervasive that I don’t even read their articles anymore, and the honorable fact based climate science team rarely, if ever, call them on it.

    It’s become so corrupt that it’s pretty easy to cheer Scott Pruitt being put into the EPA.

  • QET

    Mexicans have voted with their feet for decades. When something like 15% of your population has fled to the US over the last 20 years, you are in no position to criticize anything about anyone, especially the US. So yeah, build the wall. Pace FriendlyGoat, neither TAI, nor its commenters (including you), nor the NYT, nor the USG, nor La Raza, have any neat expert wonkeries to fix Mexico. Mexico is a failure of human politics and ethics. Policy, like Soylent Green, is people.

    • FriendlyGoat

      It’s not better to continue with a theme you can’t and don’t explain. That’s what TAI was doing here and no one is edified by it.

      • Jim__L

        TAI is helping us avoid mistakes.

        And, there’s always hope that the Mexicans will be able to get it together and fix their own problems. To think less of them is, frankly, racism.

        NYT is actively sabotaging any chance the Mexicans have, by emphasizing pointless apocalyptic nonsense. The more people heed TAI’s take on this, the better.

        • FriendlyGoat

          TAI did not actually articulate what it wants Mexico to do. Neither did you.

          • Jim__L

            I’m proposing that Mexicans solve their own problems, which if you think about it, makes it a reasonable thing that I didn’t tell them how to do it.

            Well, aside from ignoring long-term apocalyptic cults like AGW’ers.

  • lukelea

    What the book Gotham is to NYC, La Capital is to Mexico City: https://goo.gl/1Es8an

    Bottom line: it has always been corrupt to a degree that beggars the imagination, as, indeed, has been the whole country, which is ruled by a tiny, mostly European elite, one of whom has a 5% stake in the NYT.

  • CapitalHawk

    TAI – I think you are missing the other point(s) of this article. As I see it, there are four main purposes of this article, and climate change is only one. They are:
    1. Carlos Slim gets to have the NYT publish an article that absolves his friends in the Mexican government of any responsibility for their failures. It’s the Americans fault! (it always is)
    2. The NYT gets to publish an article that subtly criticizes Trump and the Wall. I mean, you can’t trap all those innocents in Mexico, right? They didn’t do anything wrong, and now their country is becoming, literally(!), uninhabitable. Also, the best solution is to stop the population growth in Mexico and the only way to do that is let more Mexicans (I mean, future Americans) into the USA. And its our fault! (it always is)
    3. The article tries to make the problem one that is externally imposed on Mexico (via climate change) and not one that is endemic to the culture of Mexicans, even though that is the truth. So, no need to worry about more Mexicans coming into the USA, because their culture isn’t the problem, climate change is.
    4. Finally, they get to beat the drum about climate change, even though it is obviously off in this case. Also, its America’s fault. (it always is)

  • Jayne

    One would love to see Mexico get its act together and figure out what Canada and the US do to make functional cities. The country has no reason to be so bad off. Sheesh. Why?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service