I can never make sense of Al Fonzi. His isn’t a measured point of view from the right, nor is he a concerned citizen addressing issues of local import. It’s one man spreading lies and anti-fact, anti-science, white supremacist-infused ideals parroted from the likes of Fox News, OANN, and Breitbart and spreading it around like his own manure.
He continues to decry the forever wars in Afghanistan though he was far from banging the drum for peace during their tenure. He doesn’t like the way Biden withdrew, though he supported Trump’s similar plan to do so—one that turned out to be all talk.
Fonzi denies climate change, yet he just watched the Dixie fire consume more than a million acres, and the Caldor fire take an additional 222,000 over the last 45 days in his own backyard.
Even as his party slowly shifts to acknowledge the climate crisis, he refuses to rely on fact and overwhelming scientific consensus that this planet will soon be uninhabitable for all living things if drastic and systemic changes, starting with removing the fossil fuels industry, aren’t met.
He uses age-old complaints about Dems’ spending sprees, and yet over the last century, the biggest profligates have been Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, and George H.W. Bush—in that order.
And I guess doling out historic tax breaks to the ultra-rich is OK though money needed for health care, climate change, schools, or infrastructure are definite nos. Never once have I seen Fonzi question the $775 billion rubber-stamped to the Pentagon annually to defend us (Against who? Ourselves?) or to secure our made-up borders (the terrorists who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 were home-grown).
Fonzi also happens to live off the same government he wants so desperately to dismantle.
A retiree who comes out swinging every column with a baseline argument that denying future generations access to the same privileges and taxpayer-fueled luxuries (not to mention a habitable planet) he enjoys has always been cruel to us readers. But now it’s starting to seem even more mean to let him continue—standing by and watching his monthly 18 column inch allotment of self-ownership has, sadly, also grown tired. Δ
Andrew J. Pridgen wrote to New Times from Los Osos. Send an opinion in response to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Oct 28 – Nov 7, 2021.
I couldn’t agree more!
To a leftist, there is no offense quite as offensive as the refusal to salute their latest exalted “truth”. And here, with climate change, we have irrefutable “proof” from our recent fires, because everyone knows that wildfires never existed before the industrial revolution, and that the fact that some species of plants can only reproduce after burning is just a meaningless anomaly.
You’re indeed right Mr. Donegan, large wildfires have always existed in California and the acreage burned overall in the past was far greater than what we’re seeing today. And Mr. Fonzi is right in saying that we have populated areas we should not have, such as forest land that should have been left alone and arid deserts where there simply is not enough water. We have also not been good stewards of our lands.
But, we have not seen a combination of warming oceans, melting glaciers and desertification with these wildfires, hurricanes, flooding and other weather related turmoil like we are today.
Its true there have been periods of global warming and cooling, also related to spikes in greenhouse gases, during the Earth’s long history. But those historic increases in CO2 should be a warning to us: they led to serious environmental disruptions, including mass extinctions. Today, humans are emitting greenhouse gases at a higher rate than any previous increase in history.
The longer people like you and Mr. Fonzi kick and scream about moving toward renewable energy, an area in which America is far behind the rest of the first world, the more these fires will devastate our state.
And even if there was no warming, wouldn’t it be smart to move away from fossil fuels which cause pollution and health related problems? Wouldn’t it be prudent to listen to the scientists for a change rather than big oil who profit from our slow transition to new energy sources?
This article explains why I don’t read Fonzi’s column anymore. He uses unreliable sources to back up his lies. He’s just not worth my time. If I want to hear what the other side thinks, I can select from many conservative columnists whose opinion I respect.
@Michael Smith: I am not arguing against anthropogenic climate change. It probably exists, at least to an extent. I do object to the glib, silly “proof” often offered, such as wild fires or the hysterics of Greta Thunberg. Wildfires were probably larger back when there was no one to fight them, and burn hotter now because we intervene against the more frequent natural fires which kept plant growth down. I am suggesting that the discussion should be honest, not laden with emotional theatrics. Fighting climate change will cause a lot of economic destruction and deprivation, which should be honestly disclosed. And until we get meaningful and timely participation from countries like China and India, our sacrifices will be pointless.
“anthropogenic climate change. It probably exists”
Well, that’s a start. If I were to hear that from Mr. Fonzi, I’d be a little more optimistic.
Jimmy Carter has been the perennial punching bag for Republicans ever since he left office in 1981, but if we had listened to Mr. Carter (and later, Mr. Gore) on climate change we would be leading the world in renewable technology and the transition would have already happened in this nation (without “a lot of economic destruction and deprivation”). Unfortunately, we’ve had 40 years of continued hegemony by the oil companies, with the result, as I have pointed out ad nauseam, that the U.S. is way behind the curve in developing wind, solar, hydrogen, battery technology, etc.
At some point, Republicans rejected science (maybe it’s because many of them are evangelicals and they flat out don’t believe in evolution) to the detriment of the rest of us. Again, I am heartened to hear this may be changing as Mr. Donegan grudgingly (“probably”) admits we have to spew less carbon into the atmosphere.
@Michael Smith: We might have been”leading the world” in displaying our environmental virtue,but since we generate only a relatively small portion of the world’s carbon, it would make little functional difference, and our sacrifice made just for show. And,of course, back in Carter’s time most of the technology didn’t exist, and science and technology advances at its own rate, not to accommodate edict or popular demand. The people who lose their jobs or businesses will disagree about there being no destruction or deprivation, and if the major polluters don’t act more quickly that required by the climate accords, it will all be just a meaningless grand gesture by the US. And it is funny to hear the left proclaim themselves as being pro-science when they have abandoned the scientific fact of gender to accommodate their latest emotional crusade. “Science” doesn’t exist to just validate what you choose to believe.
Tech advances at its own rate? Really? Govt. can’t force science to create what didn’t exist before? You might try telling that to the scientists who developed the Atomic bomb or the engineers and mathematicians who sent a man to the moon. All accomplishments that came to fruition because government money got behind them.
We have spent the last 40 years trying to cure AIDS, including the terms of 3 Democratic presidents, and have spent billions, and yet it defies cure even though a cure is demanded. We have spent 70 years trying to harness nuclear fusion, and yet it eludes us. Scientific discovery moves at its own pace.