As I posted here, I purchased a copy of Van Jones’ new book and had it signed by Van himself. Unfortunately, I didn’t have a shot to start reading it. Until today.
There’s been a lot of stuff going on, both in my blogging life as well as in the life outside of the laptop (little as it might be) and I just needed to switch gears for a bit. So, I started to read some of the books that have been sitting on the shelf for a while – and realized how much I’ve missed holding a book in my hands! So I as said earlier, it was time to read this book by one of the biggest cheerleaders for a “government centered life” for us all – and basically, someone who has no problem in slagging folks like TEA Partier me. After all, I’m not someone who studied Marx as a political way to follow and have little truck with Communitarianism – a word that you’ll be seeing more often here on the ‘Grok. Essentially, the emphasis is on “the community” and while the Wiki definition makes it seem benign, read the section on Positive Rights:
Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.
A common objection is that by providing such rights, communitarians violate the negative rights of the citizens; rights to not have something done for you. For example, taxation to pay for such programs as described above dispossesses individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights, by attributing the protection of negative rights to the society rather than the government, respond that individuals would not have any rights in the absence of societies—a central tenet of communitarianism—and thus have a personal responsibility to give something back to it.
I digress in a small part -but make no mistake in that in many cases, the emphasis is always that the individual Rights must be subsumed to the need of the Collective. With these watermelon environmentalists, there will be more and more emphasis that we need to give up stuff and Rights “for the common good” – at and by their command. The problem is that ” the needs for the Common Good”, just like the vaunted “social contract” that Leftists accuse Conservatives of violating, there is never a sheet of paper that lay out what the “Common Good”‘s needs are, or the boundaries vis-a-vis our Individual rights. All there is seems to be a never ending, vaporous commentary of “we more, you less”. How do you defend yourself against what is basically vaporware? (er, easy: start asking them the hard questions of “what?”, starting writing them down, and don’t take “no” when they say “er, later – we have to go over this other stuff” or “I’ll get back to you”.
Thus, this fits in both with Van Jones as an environmentalist and with the Granite State Future Plan / Sustainable Communities Initiative posts I’ve been putting up lately. So, back to the review – I haven’t even made it to Chapter 1 yet – the Prologue is 35 pages long. In it, two things struck me:
- He shoulda listen harder to his Dad; he comes around to believe him but missed the most important point
- He lies
About what? “Of course, President Obma had no intention of closing America’s coal mines.” (page xxvii). Just one big lie through that nice big smile he has!
He tells the story:
For example, as the administration was gearing up for our big push to win clean energy legislation, I sat through a somewhat tense meeting ith representatives from the coal industry. After the session was over, one exasperated owner of a small mine pulled me to the side. he said “We have followed every rule and regulation that has been handed down – to the letter. We are spending our money on lawyers so we can follow the law. But back home, everyone is saying Obama just wants to shut us down, no matter what we do. Tell me, now: Is that true?”
He leaned in, searching my eyes. “Are you going to put me and my family out of business? If so, don’t play around with us. We just need to know. I’ve got to tell my wife something; she can’t sleep. Her ulcers are kicking up, again. I came all this way just to get a simple answer. Do you think what we are doing is wrong – to the point where you are trying to take everything away from us? We can handle the truth – but all the games and guessing, that’s what’s killing us”.
Good question – a fair question. And asked to one of the right people in the Administration. Asked of an Environmentalist whose concentration is Green, Green, and more Green. And a hatred of the system (earlier in the Prologue – wrapped into another post later). So, what happened?
For the first time, I fully realized the degree to which all our talk about ‘change” and “green jobs” – which had intrigued and inspired so many – was terrifying to some. Our guest feared that our vision of a clean energy future excluded him and his family.
Well, yes, it does. Absolutely and to the Nth degree. So, did Jones give a square, honest, and forthright answer?
Of course, President Obama had no intention of closing America’s coal mines. Renewable sources such as solar, wind, and hydro electricity make up less than 2 percent of our nation’s energy portfolio today. In the US Senate, Obama had represented Illinois, a big coal-burning state. The president was looking for better ways to burn coal; the administration had no plans or desire to eliminate it. He had dedicated billions of collars in stimulus funds to the search for “clean coal” technology.
I didn’t know this mine owner’s particular circumstances, so I had to keep my comments general. But I tried to reassure him by telling him the simple truth. “America is going to be burning coal for a very long time,” I said. “Your family is helping other American families to keep their lights on, every day, all across this country. We aren’t going to turn the lights out on coal any time soon.“
Er, the answer to my question is no, he lied. Obama can say anything he wants, but this mine owner already had his answer by Obama himself. If electrical generation in the US is by coal fired plants, and Obama wants to bankrupt them, what does that say about the future for coal owners? Watch the videos in this post – both of these folks are Obama appointees; they are led both by their own ideology as well as their boss. His EPA has just set CO2 emission standards that no coal plants can meet financially – and their owners are shutting them down. The EPA and Interior Dept are setting new rules for coal mining – and all but shutting them down too.
Once again, that old truism holds true – actions speak louder than words. Van Jones, as part of the Obama Environmental team, knew the answer. He lied. There is a war on coal and they do mean to shut down the entire coal industry. He should have listened to the story from this other coal owner:
This story, of Ronnie Bryant, has gone viral. David McElroy has this story of a coal mine operator that decided to “go Galt”, the essence of the book. Which means, instead of operating his business and providing good paying jobs and providing the fuel that keep our electric lights on, he has had enough:
