"Out: The United States of America; In: The State University of America"

A funny line from David Burge (iowahawkblog) about Rep.-Elect Ocasio-Cortez joining "youth activist" sit-in in Nancy Pelosi's office.

See here for the sit-in story, and here for the iowahawkblog Tweet. Thanks to Prof. Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit) for the pointer.

Comments

[William_Zanzinger]

Did you forget to include the funny part?

[Sarcastr0]

These things are in the eye of the beholder.

Seems pretty good optics for all involved - Pelosi gets to seem a stiff-spined moderate, Ocasio-Cortez gets to be an up-and-coming firebrand.

And it's a lean, clear story - just two people without the usual 'I also am involved' you'll get in Congress whenever you have a good symbolic protest going.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This humor may not meet your standards, but you should consider the context.

The liberal-libertarian mainstream gets all of the above-mediocre musicians, actors, comedians, directors, movies, television shows, concerts, etc.

Republicans and conservatives have to make do with Greg Gutfeld, Larry the Cable Guy, Kenny Chesney, Scott Baio, Dinesh D'Souza, Lee Greenwood, Roseanne, Ted Nugent, and the team that produces the Left Behind movies. Standards have adjusted accordingly.

By current conservative standards, this is top-shelf comedy.

[Corey Trevor]

You forgot Dennis Miller.

But yeah, you are sadly correct, sir.

[JesseAz]

Acting like children is good optics?

[Sarcastr0]

Protesting is good optics; it's become very much part of America's vision for a democratic society.

Did you feel the protest in Broward County was childish?

[Bob from Ohio]

"it's become very much part of America's vision for a democratic society."

The Left's America. The Tea Party was a once in a century conservative effort.

Sit ins are a toddler type protest.

[jonmarcus]

A "once in a century event"? I presume the Brooks Brothers riot, Malheur, Bundystan, and Charlottesville, et cetera ad nauseum don't count, because none of them were True Scotsmen?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Acting like children is good optics?

Are you referring to the Tea Parties who stormed town halls, the Malheuf National Wildlife Refuge occupiers, the Brooks Brother rioters, the Cliven Bundy fan club and militia, LaVoy ('Run For Glory') Finnicum, the 'Jews Will Not Replace Us' marchers, or something else?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Can't go wrong with the old stanbys: " I know you are but what am I?"

[Harvey Mosley]

Remember: whataboutism doesn't apply to the left.

[jonmarcus]

Whataboutism is a very dubious response to charges of unethical/criminal behavior. It makes a lot more sense as a response to charges of poor optics.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's dark humor.

[MatthewSlyfield]

David Burge replied to his own tweet with this:

The Sergeant at Arms has issued a quorum call for a drum circle on the House floor

[TwelveInchPianist]

Thank God. I wasn't sure about how I felt about how big a priority the Dem's plan to transition to a zero-carbon economy, but thanks to Ocasio-Cortez, I now know that this should be the number one priority.

[perlchpr]

I look forward to her introduction of legislation to raise the federal tax on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel by $6 per gallon, to bring our prices more in line with Europe.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I look forward to her debate with Sarah Palin. Unedited, with questions read an Iranian Mullah, provided by Steven Colbert and Rush Limbaugh.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have lost track of the Palin family's arrest-to-college degree ratio. How are they doing?

I assume the unplanned pregnancy-to-professional career ratio hasn't changed much.

[gormadoc]

For all the liberal bashing of public choice theory last year I must gather that they don't understand that it describes this exact sort of thing well. A vocal and involved minority is able to exert outsized pressure in order to make changes in democracy. Their demands wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell if democracy was always majoritarian.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't need public choice theory to see the utility of public engagement on issues you care about.

[Longtobefree]

I love the symmetry; The young minority member from a safe district being groomed by the old stalwart from a safe district. Occasional-Cortex will be re-elected forever, and take over the reins from Nancy to rule the house for the socialists as God intends. The fiction of disagreements will be maintained to keep the youngsters inline.

[Bob from Ohio]

We have had extreme left wing reps from NYC before. None has become speaker or gotten anywhere statewide or nationally.

Neither will she.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob's reliance on the continued moderation of the Democratic Party leadership is quite a twist.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

By far the most effective means of reducing one's carbon footprint is to produce fewer children. By forgoing one child, a family in a developed country reduces its annual CO2 output by about 59,000 kilograms. This compares to 2400 kg per annum for living car-free, 1600 kg per trans-Atlantic flight for giving up air travel, and 820 kg/year for giving up meat. Thus one child-free person has the same positive environmental impact as 72 vegans...

Given this, I assume that one of the things that bothers Ocasio-Cortez et al. most about the platform put forth by Pelosi and company is its advocacy of measures that tend to incentivize procreation. I trust that the climate action plan that they want the party to promote will oppose such things as the dependent-child tax credit, requirements that employers provide maternity leave, taxpayer-funded day-care, and a host of other pro-reproduction measures that the party leadership has promoted, heedless of their impact on the planet.

[Smooth Like a Rhapsody]

Legal limits on family size worked well for the Chinese: their per capita energy use plummeted.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

It wouldn't be necessary for the government to issue mandates on family size: only that they abandon policies that favor procreation by taking money from those who haven't spawned and reallocating it to those who have. This should satisfy people on both sides of the ideological divide: progressives, because of the strong positive environmental effects; and libertarians and conservatives, because it allows people to keep more of their own money and reduces the government's interference in people's private lives.

[jonmarcus]

Limiting population reduces *per capita* energy use?? Cite please, that seems...counter intuitive anyway.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

I suspect that Smooth intended that sarcastically, since the charts I find indicate that per-capital energy consumption in China has increased significantly.

Of course, by focusing on per-capital energy use, Smooth seems to be ignoring some basic math?
Total CO2 output = (per-capita CO2 output) x (total population)

If we want to reduce that total output, we can ignore the second factor, and resign ourselves to living like Pakistani goatherds, who presumably have an admirably low per-capita carbon footprint. Or we can make a serious effort to reduce population, and continue to enjoy a high standard of living.

[Corey Trevor]

I just reduce my carbon footprint by sequestering all of my plastic in the ocean and landfills.

[donojack]

Look on the bright side. Once the libs get their Freeze in the Dark program rolling we won't have to worry about border enforcement any more.

[ReaderY]

The new class of Democrats is indeed well to the left of the previous generation, to the point where they can indeed regard someone like Nancy Pelosi as a stodgy centrist who tries to work with (I.e caves in to the other party too much. Much like the Tea Party folks were with the previous generation of Republicans.

But just as governing requires doing more than shutting down the government, it requires more than conducting sit-ins at one's own leadership.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Of course. Isn't it a basic human right? With vegan, gluten-free, and organic options, of course.