Jill Stein’s Ideas Are Terrible. She Is Not the Savior the Left Is Looking For.

[Purveyor]

Now that Hillary Clinton has officially won the Democratic presidential nomination, chances are we're going to hear a lot more about Jill Stein. The Green Party candidate, currently polling in the low single digits nationally, has been gunning for the support of disaffected Bernie Sanders fans, urging them to “keep the revolution going” by getting behind her own long-shot White House bid. Tuesday, she was on hand at the Democratic convention to meet aggrieved Sanders delegates, some of whom formed a small crowd around her to chant, “Bernie or Jill.” Thanks to progressive grassroots rage, she may well peel off a few percentage points of the vote come the fall, when she's expected to be on the ballot in about 47 states.

Which is a pity. Because even by the standards of protest candidates, Stein—whose press team did not respond to an interview request—is an absolutely awful torchbearer for the far left. She's a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience. She mangles pet policy issues. And her cynical retelling of the past eight years has nothing to do with the reality of recorded history.

Let's begin with Stein's platform. Some of the ideas, like a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition, are mainstream these days, thanks to the work of progressive activists and Sanders himself. Others, like moving to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 (while ditching nuclear), are deeply unrealistic, if admirable in spirit. And more than a few sound like they were hatched in an old Bay Area commune. Cut defense spending in half and close more than 700 foreign military bases? Sure, maybe after we get done levitating the Pentagon.

Tucked into this long, starry-eyed list of progressive causes are a few lines that remind you of the far left's fraught relationship with biological science. There's a call not just to label genetically modified foods but to “put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.” Never mind that scientists have studied GMOs extensively and found no signs of danger to human health—Stein would like medical researchers to prove a negative. She would also “Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.” This is a nod to the discredited theory that some pesticides are driving the collapse of honeybee populations (which, by the way, are not actually collapsing). Again, this is somewhat standard stuff on the far left these days, but coming from a physician, it's discouraging. It is also in keeping with the last official Green Party platform, from 2014, which supports the “teaching, funding, and practice” of “alternative therapies” such as naturopathy and homeopathy, i.e. funneling money into quack medicine. (Stein first ran for president as a green in 2012).

more...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/27/jill_stein_is_not_the_savior_the_left_is_looking_for.html

[apnu]

1. On the GMO thing, the science may say they don't pose a risk to humans but what about...

... the rest of the environment?

Dumping all those chemicals on pesticide resistant crops does what to the biodiversity of the soil? It does what to the water table? It does what to runoff?

Yes I know about Golden Rice and its health benefits to people who are beta-carotene starved. But really, now many sacks of Golden Rice seeds are bought and planted versus Round Up Ready corn and soybean seeds?

I've always found the "But GMOs are safe according to science" a bit myopic. Scientific studies ask a specific question then experiment and observe to see the results of that experiment. In this case the question is "Are GMO's fit for human consumption?" Probably that's true, but what of the studies about the soil affect of dumping all that Round Up on the ground? How about the studies of nitrate fertalizers needed to compensate for the affects of pesticides, herbicides and mono-cropping?

Look, GMO's are part of a larger agriculture problem human beings are creating. GMOs contribute to the chemicals we dump on our soil to grow food and ensure that every year is a bumper crop year.

I'm opposed to GMOs because of that, I don't give a shit about the fact that Bill Nye or Neal Degrasse-Tyson "looked at the science" and declared GMOs safe. That's studying the trees but missing the forest.

If I'm wrong on this, please tell me why.


On edit: Jill Stein sucks and she follows questionable science (anti-vax, thinks wifi is a health hazard, thinks homeopathy is fine). Hillary's got my vote. On the other points of the OP, I'm totally down with.

[TheProgressive]

3. Right - it's Bernie Sanders...

Just responding to the post headline/title...