“Suckers and losers”

I feel a camaraderie for his birthday story, because his birthday marked the armistice for WWI, and mine is the armistice for WWII.

I think obviously whenever you’re talking about as complicated a thing as a whole society, there are counterpoints. But the failure of aid was deliberately abetted by people in government who thought Irish overbreeding needed to be checked.

I’m not versed enough to recite all the specifics, but I’m fairly certain the historical consensus is the British government deliberately withheld food aid out of a belief in Malthusianism. I’ve read and watched more detailed explanations of this with citations, but I don’t have details memorized.

Yeah, I think I’m familiar with that conclusion. Makes a lot of sense.

I see the nuance that you’re creating there, but for instance when the Irish fled poverty they were also fleeing a top down, human created famine. And certainly Jewish immigration was a mix of economic opportunity seeking, but also flat out oppression.

I’ve heard this referred to as Schroedinger’s Immigrant: they’re too lazy to work and they take all our jobs.

Rt. 6 is on the other side of the park! All he would have had to say is “Yeah, let’s finish the park.”

Right?! That’s your pragmatist.

It would not have been hard for Whitehouse to say, “You know, Buddy Cianci for all his faults understood the city would be better with a walkable park than a twist of roads built over our riverfront. Let’s keep up the good work.” Or even, “There’s a local process so we have no comment at this time.”

And we’re talking about a city that had already successfully moved one highway (I-195) to reconnect neighborhoods, and had completely removed road infrastructure and moved the NEC alignment to create Waterplace Park. In the ‘70s! Under a Republican mayor!

The thing that makes me angry about this is Whitehouse also fashions himself as a climate champion. I’m not sure if he still does this, but for a while his schtick was weekly “Time to Wake Up” mini filibuster speeches about the seriousness of climate change.

I remember at the time feeling like I had protected the Democrats’ right flank— and the more mainstream Minority Leader, Brian Newberry (R) was also quoted in The Projo backing the removal— and Whitehouse showed up on Ian Donnis to say it was an awful idea that would cause traffic.

oceanstatecurrent.com/who-should-d...

There were a couple lessons I drew from that experience, and this was one of them. Justin Katz is a noxious MAGA asshole, but we were able to appeal to some of his conservative credentials to get him to back highway removal. Not Whitehouse.

The other thing that annoys me about Whitehouse is the false veneer of intellectual rigor. He acts as though he’s giving everything the white glove touch, and it would have taken him and his staff two minutes to google the several successful highway removals that have happened in the US alone.

I think Whitehouse really does sincerely think he’s a pragmatist, but situations like 6/10 should inform your opinion of whether he’s right about that. One could excuse not backing the project if it was hugely unpopular, but Whitehouse chose to go to the right of GOP leaders and experts.

I mean, this is a good thing, really. This is the essence of conservatism in its best form.