DL Open Thread Monday, Oct. 23, 2023
Anyone who’s raised children recognizes Donald Trump as an overgrown toddler. The lies he tells are the sort of incompetent falsehoods even small children outgrow. After his attorney Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to election mopery, Trump claimed – and apparently expects people to believe – “Ms. Powell was not my attorney, and never was.” I actually expect him to trot out “I know you are but what am I?” next.
I’m starting to think all the Republicans in Congress show up to work in the same tiny car. Now there are nine guys who’ve put their names forward as potential speakers of the House. They’re so anonymous their families haven’t even gotten MAGA death threats yet.
Americans like to think of ourselves as special, but voting populations all over the world have shown themselves susceptible to irresponsible conmen. For example, Italians, given their penchant for changing governments like socks, kept voting Silvio Berlusconi into office just because he was rich and entertainingly corrupt. He also had dreadful taste. He fancied himself an art collector, but instead of buying paintings by artists anyone has heard of, the media magnate with an almost $7 billion fortune purchased pictures of madonnas and naked women for three-figure sums from the equivalent of Home Shopping Network – and kept them in a climate-controlled warehouse at a cost of $800,000 a year. Now his heirs are trying to figure out what to do with thousands of worthless paintings.
I’ve been seeing a lot of supposedly unbiased journalism lately pushing hard on the notion that nuclear energy is a necessary component of any battle against climate change. This HuffPo piece, for example, spins the fact that the Democratic governors of Illinois and North Carolina have vetoed bills allowing new nukes in their states as some sort of tragedy. The writers of such pieces don’t live downwind from Three Mile Island, or own any property near Fukushima.
The floor’s yours.
Instead of a poll you should keep a running clock on how long its been since BHL has announced her audit and how long nothing has been done about it. What is worse, a continual liar or a habitual cover-upper?
Great idea. Was thinking along the same lines…
Problem is, and I just went back to look, BHL announced the audit on September 28.
However, John Carney had ALREADY announced cancellation of his fundraiser for her as of September 19. Meaning, he knew something then that he, characteristically,kept to himself.
So I’m going with September 19. Keep in mind, though, that, by that date, a whole buncha Bethanybots had already abandoned ship.
OK, I’ll do it…
…if and ONLY if one of our great commenters comes up with a snarky title for this ongoing series.
Have at it!
The Long Goodbye Clock
In honor of halloween:
The Tell Tale Audit
Nevermore
The Nightmare Before Election
The Fall of the House of Hall
Meh. Good attempts, just not feelin’ it. Keep ’em coming.
I came up with “The Hall Monitor”. Didn’t like that one, either…
Oooh, I got it! You won’t have to wait long.
(Election) Signs, by local filmmaker David Hall
“Largely panned by critics for predictable plot twists”
Short of radically altering our own personal lifestyles, nuclear is the solution. After accounting for climate variability and energy loss over transmission lines, wind, hydro and solar will not plug the carbon gap. Otherwise we are looking at dramatically altering western lifestyles, from everything including food, transport and levels of personal comfort.
Don’t be silly. Even its supporters aren’t selling it like that. At most it will make up about 10% of the energy supply – at exorbitant cost and significant risk.
If energy was priced so that its negative impacts were paid for, people would adjust their “levels of personal comfort” accordingly.
It’s a lazy solution for lazy people, being pushed by people who intend to profit from it.
I guess the French are lazy. 70% of their power is nuclear and they are building 14 more plants. You’re lazy mainly because you continue to belch the hard Left propaganda. Do some research and independent thinking.
I’m for an “all of the above” approach to climate, including: wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, planting trees, direct carbon removal from the oceans and air, and anything else we can think of. Doing one doesn’t mean stop doing all the others.
Without fossil fuels it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conduct the aerial and mechanized warfare currently waged against Palestine. So time to dial back Exxon and the like.
10% of the energy mix is significant because having a reliable base capacity is fundamental to keeping the grid running. Natural gas is currently filling that role.
I think you are underestimating the kinds of sacrifice required at the individual level required to meet the current climate goals. If you price energy to include all the negative externalities you would cripple the economy. The belief that we need to just elect better leaders who can turn the dials is a sure fire way to get more of the same.
“You would cripple the economy.”
Right. Because we wouldn’t phase it in or anything.
This isn’t about the leaders. Not the elected kind, anyway.
We’re debating adding a new generation of $20 billion reactors to maintain 10% of the energy mix? The money would be better invested upgrading the grid. And decentralizing energy generation instead of relying on a model that generates enormous amounts at a central source.
Look, I already know the tired explanations for all the crap you espouse, so you can spare me the bromides. It’s not cost efficient for what it proposes to do.
As for The Economy – we used to call him Mammon – we adapt to oil supply restrictions, imposed at whim, with some frequency. I think you overestimate what imposing greater expenses on users would do to society, as opposed to The Economy.
You and I know that a big chunk of the cost for building new reactors is tied up in the legal and regulatory hoops that were created by the old anti-nuclear fuddy-duddies. Anti-nuclear is anti-science.
“You and I know that a big chunk of the cost for building new reactors is tied up in the legal and regulatory hoops”
That’s bullshit and you should know better. These reactors cost tons of money to build and never recover the taxpayer investment in them. They also present serious security threats and waste disposal solutions. Get a grip on reality. The cost of offshore wind and other “RENEWABLE” generation capacities is dwarfed by nuclear generation costs.
Representative John Kowalko (retired)
Go yell at a cloud.
You’re not going to get far here with your attitude, making pronouncements like “anti-nuclear is anti-science.”
Your statement about regulation is laughable. Nuclear plants don’t have to take out normal insurance – they pay into a special government program at a far lower rate, in effect giving them a massive subsidy.
You and I both know that. Or do we?
Alinsky squad? Buh-bye.
“we adapt to oil supply restrictions, imposed at whim, with some frequency”
If gasoline prices went up by a dollar or so next October voters would likely turn the government over to a permanent fascist regime which would remove all impediments to burning more fossil fuel.
Yeah, so?