Thread: AOC Slams Facebook, Google, Microsoft CEOs "Complicit In Denying Climate Change"

AOC = Alexandria Occasional Cortex; the unemployed Bartender / Waitress

AOC Slams Facebook, Google, Microsoft CEOs "Complicit In Denying Climate Change"



"...the spreading of misinformation can be dangerous to our society. Today's coordinated campaign to deny climate change...is not unlike that of the tobacco companies which once sought to discredit their product's link to cancer..."

Mon, 01/28/2019 - 12:54
201 SHARES

The poor, the homeless, the immigrants, the minorities, and now climate change - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has now checked another box in her first month as a member of Congress.



AOC's climate warpath began a week ago, quoting the Bible after the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, suggested the US government should leave environmental protection up to God.

"I don't think we're going to listen to [AOC] on much of anything, particularly not on matters that we're going to leave in to the hands of a much, much higher authority," Sanders said on Sean Hannity's Fox News program on Tuesday night.
She argued that the country should leave the fate of the planet in "the hands of something and someone much more powerful than any of us," presumably referring to God.

Ocasio-Cortez quickly replied via tweet:

"'Genesis 1: God looked on the world & called it good not once, not twice, but seven times. Genesis 2: God commands all people to "serve and protect" creation. Leviticus: God mandates that not only the people, but the land that sustains them, shall be respected,'"
She went on: "You shouldn't need a Bible to tell you to protect our planet, but it does anyway."

And then, just days later, she tweeted on Saturday that the power that tech companies hold in messaging is "societally and economically unsustainable."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ✔ @AOC

· Jan 26, 2019

Replying to @AOC
Most platforms currently have 0 incentive to disseminate high-quality, true information.

In fact, FB *paid* for info tied to conspiracy theories on those demanding for accountability.

It matters. Soros was the 1st to get mailed a bomb last year.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/technology/george-soros-facebook-sheryl-sandberg.html …




Sheryl Sandberg Asked for Soros Research, Facebook Acknowledges

Facebook’s second in command wanted an examination of the billionaire’s financial ties after he delivered a blistering speech about tech companies.
nytimes.com

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ✔ @AOC

The fact of the matter is the current monopoly trend is societally & economically unsustainable.

We can’t simply accept the cliché that “journalism is dying.”

Journalism will only die if we choose not to fight for it - and if journalism dies, our democracy will, too.

19.3K
2:02 PM - Jan 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

4,571 people are talking about this

Which has led to what could be considered a threat from the fresh Congresswoman

Full letter below:

Dear Mr. Nadella, Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Pichai,
We are writing to you today in light of the important role that your companies play as we prepare to take comprehensive action on climate change. As Members of the House of Representatives, we have already begun our individual, committee, and caucus efforts to make this issue a top priority in the 116th Congress. That is why we were deeply disappointed to see that your companies were high-level sponsors of a conference this month in Washington D.C., known as LibertyCon, that included a session denying established science on climate change.
The past commitments of your companies to address climate change have been well documented. We are encouraged that each of you have pledged to reduce your carbon footprint and have committed other efforts like pursuing renewable enemy,. We need more of this commitment from corporate America. Disappointingly, though, the example you have set promoting sustainability and evidence-based science is compromised by your implicit support of the session organized at LibertyCon.
We understand that sponsorship of an event or conference is a common occurrence and that these sponsorships do not automatically indicate that the company endorses the variety of political viewpoints that may be presented at these events. However, given the magnitude and urgency of the climate crisis that we are now facing, we find it imperative to ensure that the climate-related views espoused at LibertyCon do not reflect the values of your companies going forward.

As you are well aware, the spreading of misinformation can be dangerous to our society. Today's coordinated campaign to deny climate change, or to put a positive spin on its effects, Is not unlike that of the tobacco companies which once sought to discredit their product's link to cancer. Their propaganda kept the nation from addressing a public health crisis for years, leading to many preventable deaths. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again with climate change. We must be resolute against granting this campaign any credibility, whether intentional or otherwise.
We look forward to hearing from you in the hope that we can continue to count on you as allies in the fight for a more sustainable future.
AOC's co-author of the letter, Chellie Pingree, has even more threatening words for the mega tech CEOs: "Corporations can’t be complicit in denying climate change. @Facebook, @Microsoft, & @Google have made public commitments to reduce emissions, but their sponsorship of a conference where climate change denial was promoted is dangerous and troubling to me."

Chellie Pingree ✔ @chelliepingree

Corporations can’t be complicit in denying climate change. @Facebook, @Microsoft, & @Google have made public commitments to reduce emissions, but their sponsorship of a conference where climate change denial was promoted is dangerous and troubling to me & @AOC. Read our letter

2,332
12:17 PM - Jan 28, 2019

So how long before corporations' "free speech" to sponsor a conference is government-mandated as "hate speech"?
We leave it to Ben Stein to sum things up...

Ryan Saavedra ✔ @RealSaavedra

Video at the page link

Ben Stein: "We have a society in which there are an awful lot of people who have no idea that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came to power promising the same kinds of things that Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorship, it led to genocide."

18.1K
4:12 AM - Jan 28, 2019

10.2K people are talking about this

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...climate-change

AOC Is Calling For Wars She Can't Win



"... how have more recent 'wars' we’ve fought against drugs, poverty, and terrorism turned out? ... The left should think long and hard about these changes before planning its next round of wars."

Mon, 01/28/2019 - 20:40
25 SHARES
Authored by Max Gulker via The American Institute for Economic Research,

The most effective politicians often have a kind of cynical genius for speaking the language of feelings while brazenly disregarding facts. Count Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez among them. Her statements at a Martin Luther King Day event this week have almost too many fallacies to count:

Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we're like: “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”...This is our World War II.

At Reason, Nick Gillespie dismantles two of those fallacies. First, Ocasio-Cortez’s cavalier approach to paying for her preferred environmental programs invalidates her comparison to the Second World War, where the government raised taxes and borrowed heavily from its citizens. Second, as I also wrote recently, climate change poses real risks, but they’re the type of risks to be approached by looking at costs and benefits rather than the existential risks posed by Hitler, Mussolini, and Imperial Japan.
But in her invocation of a generational struggle, Ocasio-Cortez unknowingly revealed that the left is stuck in a framework for addressing societal problems that is largely a relic of history. And those who argue against its policy prescriptions often unwittingly make the same assumption.
Strong centralized nation-states are good at marshaling resources to defeat other nations in wars. But how have more recent “wars” we’ve fought against drugs, poverty, and terrorism turned out? Society has gone through staggering changes since 1941, and so have the problems we face. The left should think long and hard about these changes before planning its next round of wars.


The “Wars” We’ve Lost

A comparison to the failed war on drugs is instructive. The belief was that the government could attack both the supply and demand sides of illegal substances with strong, centralized action. But ending the sale and abuse of drugs is a vastly different problem from winning military battles against a nation led by a tyrant. Drug abuse is a fundamentally dispersed problem. Rogue smugglers and dealers have command structures far more complicated than nations. And users make tragic and unhealthy decisions for a wide variety of reasons that “experts” still have trouble understanding.
The problems our society has with drugs are the emergent results of billions of complexly interwoven individual decisions. They are nothing like those in a traditional military conflict. And because we tried to address them that way, it’s hard to say we haven’t failed. And Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty involved massive public housing projects that made problems worse along with clever-sounding welfare programs - again centralized solutions to decentralized problems. And the actual military and security threats we most often face today involve rogue actors buried deep within that complex web of individuals.
Eighty years ago we relied on a government that solved problems by exploiting its vast size, a mass media that kept people similarly informed, and an ability for individuals to express themselves generally confined to reaching one’s friends and neighbors.
Today, individuals have unprecedented ability to access niche products and ideas from around the world, and communicate with virtually anyone. Unlike 80 years ago, we live in a complex, technologically driven, and increasingly decentralized society. And yet, there’s the same government, relying on its centralization and scale to manage problems that are complete mismatches to this approach. In my opinion, this is the central source of the political tension we all feel that appears to only get worse.
Strength Through Peace

Poverty, unequal access to health care and education, and environmental degradation are real problems. The left insists that we declare more wars, following the 1940s model of large, top-down programs enacted by the nation-state. But these programs all resemble the failed wars I just described. Taking education as an example, we currently rely on top-down administration and accept the outsized interests of entrenched groups. Instead, we could allow school choice, and unleash the power of markets and social entrepreneurship to find ways to educate our children that a room full of experts could never match.

A history of military conflict shows us that when people perceive an existential threat, they are willing to sacrifice some degree of freedom to the government. By labeling climate change an existential threat without being willing to have a good-faith discussion of costs, benefits, and options, it is not overly dramatic to say that some left-wing politicians are playing a dangerous game with our freedom. And by not unleashing the decentralized private sector on the problem, their ideology may prevent actual problems from being solved.

I don’t like demonizing my political opponents, and many of these politicians are simply wrong and have a stubborn unwillingness to question themselves that to some degree all humans share - traits that are certainly not unique to the left. I also know many rank-and-file progressives who simply want to help people and solve the problems discussed in this article.
The type of solutions I have in mind radically depart from what we’ve tried and found unsuccessful in the past decades. I have nowhere near all the answers, but it is imperative that economists build on these ideas and communicate them to all Americans. That, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, is the central challenge of this generation.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...s-she-cant-win