Here are a few comments on Fred Hughes' recent letter about the Green New Deal:
1. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez may be unrealistic...." I don't see how the words "may be" are viable. The tenets of her Green New Deal are as realistic as terraforming and colonizing Mars by 2030. Flat impossible - period!
2. "(A)t least she has ideas not geared toward maximizing profits for large corporations ..." How is that even remotely desirable? Do any of you readers run your business with a goal of minimizing profit? Do you deliberately work for the lowest possible pay? Over half of you own shares in those corporations. Do you want your government's actions to lower the value of your investment?
3. "(I)f the Green New Deal points toward policies that benefit the greater common good, even if some of those policies may seem unrealistic...." What on earth is the point of a policy that is admittedly unrealistic? Why don't we have Congress endorse a policy that cancer can no longer strike any American under age 100? How about a House resolution that all tornadoes must cease by 2030? Both policies would certainly benefit the common good, both are impossibilities, both should render any sponsors laughingstocks.
House Resolution 109 is the stuff of children's fairy tales, the most nonsensical document I have perused in decades. Yet it is co-sponsored by Peter DeFazio and endorsed by both Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden. Download it and read it, then ask yourself if this infantile thinking is what you expect and deserve from your elected representatives.
Corvallis (Feb. 27)