US Politics: A Farewell to Arms

[OldGimletEye]

For people that like solutions to problems.

The Republican Party Healthcare Plan or lack thereof:

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/1/18290301/trump-republicans-new-health-care-plan

Quote

A series of prominent Republicans and Trump administration officials went on the Sunday morning news shows to talk about the new Republican health care plan. There’s just one problem: There is no new Republican health care plan.

On the heels of the Trump administration’s abrupt decision to change course and support a federal judge’s decision to invalidate the entirety of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Donald Trump has insisted his party “will become ‘The Party of Healthcare!’” and said things like, “if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we will have a plan that’s far better than Obamacare.” But his words don’t mean anything — neither his administration nor Republican members of Congress are anywhere close to unveiling a new health care plan

Seems like the Republican Party "healthcare plan" is to "own the libs" (it would be nice if they could own facts and logic first though), and maybe some across state lines nonsense thrown in there.

[Morpheus]

Would anti regulation warriors treat the disposal of large scale nuclear waste with any more caution than they treat any of the other waste and chemical products they’re happy to see handled haphazardly and cheaply because of something, something, free market?

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

The bolded is misleading - solar and wind are emissions free after production and transporting the panels/turbines, and nuclear is only carbon neutral after years of operation (building the reactors and plants and sites is carbon intensive and produces emissions).  Wind and solar production is not as environmentally hazardous as coal and oil - there is no clean coal or oil.  On the other hand, waste products from nuclear can be contained*, same goes with waste from the chemicals you mentioned used in manufacturing solar panels.  It doesn't have to get dumped into rivers.  

It's a false equivalency to say that solar and wind are equally toxic to the environment as oil or coal, especially when you consider the scale.  

*although this isn't something to handwave as an easy task

Fair enough. I guess the environment doesn't matter after the fact. It's just collateral damage as long as we get low or zero emissions?

Look, I'm as liberal as you guys, but you're handing Republicans a talking point. In reality, at this point in time there is no zero emissions from heating quartz for silicon up to installation...and that's not even getting into end of life disposal. It's better to say we're aware of it and are working on it to minimize and hand wave it away. 

[Ice Queen]

34 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, I think it depends on how the polysilicon being used for the solar panel is produced.  Btw, I believe that solar panel grade polysilicon is just a lower purity polysilicon than the semiconductor chips in every electronic device you use.  So companies that produce polysilicon often produce both (though semiconductor grade is harder to produce than solar panel, obviously).  My understanding (which is way more advanced than it should be for a tax lawyer because reasons) is that if you have a related silicon and polysilicon producer, the silicones producer acquires silicon metal, which it processes with HCl to create chlorosilanes.  Dimethyldicholorosilane makes silicones.  Trichlorosilane is used to create polysilicon using the Siemens Process.  The Siemens process produces HCl as a byproduct, which can then be fed back into the production of cholorsilanes.  If done correctly, you have a closed loop with very little waste.  The products themselves are unstable, is my understanding, such that you really want good safety regulations and to NOT be transporting the chemicals any distance whatsoever.

You can ALSO create solar grade through the DPHOST process, which does use silicon tetracholoride, and the Chinese do use this, but it will not create electronics grade (and there is more waste).

Anyhow, long way of saying that I don't think they are all equally toxic.

Ask yourself where and how they get the silicons in the first place. True, most of the chemicals used can be recycled; however, the cadmium and lead get washed out through rainwater, hail, etc and end up in the environment. The panels themselves could be recycled but the majority end up in landfills. This is a newer problem as the oldest panels (built in the 70s) reach the end of their life span. 

As to the bolded...do you think EPA or OSHA under this administration gives a damn about any of that? 

I'm all for solar and wind and I'm waiting for the day when space based solar is an option and we build them in space. Until then, we need to recognize that there are still challenges we need to overcome in production, distribution and disposal. It's taken my town 30 years to recover from heavy industry and we're still another 50 years from being clean. Polluting the rest of the world doesn't seem like a great idea to me and it's paying lip service to environmentalism.

[Zorral]

2 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

'm all for solar and wind and I'm waiting for the day when space based solar is an option and we build them in space.

O goody -- let's add more to the human-made junk and etc. already orbiting in our solar system.

A question to which I don't have any hard information and facts to answer: what is the long term effect on the water supply from cooling the system in water -- what effects on local aquifers and streams, the rivers and lakes, and ultimately the oceans?

Water is another very endangered resource, particularly drinkable water, water for irrigation (what there is in the Southwest of California, for instance, is being sold in a variety of ways to Saudi).  Water is already massively redirected to service a variety of toxic and toxin-producing industries, such as fracking.  And an awful lot of it, globally, has been bought up by global entities -- and that includes often even the municiple water supplies that belong to your town or city.

In the meantime we're already having national outbreaks of contaminated food because it's been washed and prepared for market in contaminated water -- and often knowingly, despite the federal rules and regs about these matters.

 

[Ormond]

23 hours ago, Zorral said:

Also -- and I really hate saying this -- quite a few of older - elderly, well-off, suburban white Dem women, hate her.  They see her as part of something else they really hate, what they call "twitter mobbing social justice warrior identity cultural racial diversity Young and New who have destroyed everything from SFFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association) to local political primaries."  

 

The idea that there are any substantial number of older women who identify as Democrats who also would consciously be against "social justice warriors" or even know about the SFFWA seems rather ridiculous to me. I just can't imagine there are even 100 such women in the USA who would see themselves as being against "social justice", even if they can be legitimately accused of being unfairly prejudiced toward Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. How many young white men who complain about "social justice warriors" would identify as Democrats, after all?

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

A group of Senate Democrats will introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College this week, the latest sign that idea is picking up mainstream support in the Democratic Party.

The amendment is being led by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and initially will be supported by Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who is running for president. It will be introduced on Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the plans.

 

Senate Dems try to kill Electoral College

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/01/senate-democrats-electoral-college-1246521

[Zorral]

You would be surprised then, if you hung out with them and listened.  They hate the people running things, but they don't like the Young Progressives generally either -- particularly the female ones of color.  They always find something to criticize and dismiss about them, and really think they make way too much of Social Justice, in their terms -- so much about diversity, who is to be called what, pronouns and all the rest.

I'm talking women in their later 60's and beyond.  A lot of them, though now are Dems, began, like Hillary did, in a very white, Republican middle - upper middle - lower upper class environment. Though in college they changed their politics to a degree, there is only so far their imaginations could let them go, particularly when it comes to diversity.

Although, ultimately, again, it is the rethugs and their cult leader that are doing more than anything else to push these women into considering further than they have heretofore been able.  Or at least it seems to me, listening to these women of my acquaintance talking among themselves.

[TrueMetis]

43 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The idea that there are any substantial number of older women who identify as Democrats who also would consciously be against "social justice warriors" or even know about the SFFWA seems rather ridiculous to me. I just can't imagine there are even 100 such women in the USA who would see themselves as being against "social justice", even if they can be legitimately accused of being unfairly prejudiced toward Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. How many young white men who complain about "social justice warriors" would identify as Democrats, after all?

If Youtube is to be believed? Quite a few of them, even as they regurgitate alt right talking points they swear they aren't alt-right.

[Martell Spy]

51 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You would be surprised then, if you hung out with them and listened.  They hate the people running things, but they don't like the Young Progressives generally either -- particularly the female ones of color.  They always find something to criticize and dismiss about them, and really think they make way too much of Social Justice, in their terms -- so much about diversity, who is to be called what, pronouns and all the rest.

I'm talking women in their later 60's and beyond.  A lot of them, though now are Dems, began, like Hillary did, in a very white, Republican middle - upper middle - lower upper class environment. Though in college they changed their politics to a degree, there is only so far their imaginations could let them go, particularly when it comes to diversity.

Although, ultimately, again, it is the rethugs and their cult leader that are doing more than anything else to push these women into considering further than they have heretofore been able.  Or at least it seems to me, listening to these women of my acquaintance talking among themselves.

I think this process has been going on for at least 2 decades, of moderate Democrats, and white ones in particular, drifting more left. I've been through the process myself, and it's mostly seeing events and their outcomes, and finding that liberals are shown to be right more than you want to admit. Eventually, you have to ask yourself why  you are not one of them. 

Whistleblower Says White House Overruled 25 Security Clearance Denials; Ivanka and Jared Are Reportedly Among Them

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/white-house-security-clearances-whistleblower.html

Quote

 

A White House whistleblower says that the Trump administration gave security clearances to “approximately 25 officials” whose applications had initially been denied by career staff—and a CNN report says that two of those officials are Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

The whistleblower, Tricia Newbold, is the “Adjudications Manger” in the White House’s Personnel Security Office. During an interview with the House Oversight Committee on March 23, she made allegations that are outlined in a letter and memo that Democrats on the committee made public on Monday. According to the memo, Newbold—who worked previously under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama—says that “she and other career officials adjudicated denials of applications for multiple security clearances that were later overturned by senior officials in order to grant the employees access to classified information.” Newbold, who says she repeatedly raised internal objections about the administration’s behavior, was suspended from her job in January.

 

 

[lokisnow]

Re the scalability of new nuclear power. New Nuclear cannot just be quickly deployed simply because it’s an existing technology, globally new nuclear has basically become extinct, and even if we had a dictator approve two hundred new nuclear plants today and they broke ground tomorrow it would still take ten years to build any given facility. And if you were to do this you basically run into an immediate supply chain logistics problem, meaning you can’t just build 200 new specialized megaprojects with no supporting infrastructure in place, so you’re probably looking at exploding your costs by creating shortages and expertise Mismatches by trying go fast and break things, and you’re going to be forced to wait two to three years for the whatsit makers to appear, to decide to bid, to machine for your bid  and otherwise scale up to match the new needs. So that pushes your timeline to fifteen to twenty years. That’s twenty years With magical authoritarians implementing no regulatory or other review process before hand which are usually five to ten years to go through.

so no. New nuclear is not more scalable than solar or wind (and storage). Those two are much farther along the scaling path than nuclear is. Based on their current position and what we know of how these curves operate,it will be much easier and faster and cheaper for them to go from their current five percent to forty percent than it will take new nuclear to go from its current zero percent to five percent.

so we should try and prolong existing nuclear life because of the emissions advantage, but solar and wind (plus storage) have such a head start and are so much more cheaper and politically palatable that it is virtually not possible to stop them and it would be foolish to waste money trying to get new nuclear up the curve. 

And for the forty year purchasing contracts. That’s pure insanity: brutish rentseeking from our corporate overlords. There is a phrase for that garbage, privatized profits and socialized losses, and this is always without fail a complete and total lose lose situation for the people. If this helps prolong existing plant life rather than being the baseline for new nuclear, that’s a different animal, but going from ten year contracts to forty year contracts is a massive leap, jump to fifteen or twenty years instead, forty is too long of a commitment when prices of the competition are falling so rapidly.

And thirty years from now when cost per kilowatt hour for new solar is one one thousandth the cost it is today, we would still be paying inflation adjusted rates for old nuclear that would probably be tens of thousands the cost per kilowatt hour, why would that be a good thing to lock into?! (And it’s more like fifty five years from now if we enter the agreement and it doesn’t start until twenty five years later when the new plant is finally built.

[lokisnow]

Regarding the manufacturing of clean energy. Yes, everything has costs, but foregrounding these costs as preeminent reasons to not disrupt the status quo isn’t an acceptable strategy—it’s just concern trolling.

but oh man I absolutely loved reading all those manufacturing details, I nerd out on that stuff.

The pollution costs are very real and we need strong regulatory states demanding steady improvements on these fronts, we must not do nothing and we don’t have to unilaterally disarm because the disruption to the status quo has consequences.  Equity is always of huge importance and this is a huge equity issue we have to grapple with.

[Fragile Bird]

About the 25 security clearances - this is after just over 2 years of being in office. One wonders how many refusals were overruled by the last 5 administrations, over 8, 8, 8, 4 and 8 years.

Also, apparently Ms Newbold suffers from dwarfism (is affected by? Suffers may not be the right word to use) and apparently her boss started doing things that made her work difficult, like putting files she needed on upper shelves. The conduct changed after complaints were made, but you have to wonder.

[DMC]

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

However, I don't see an argument for calling any of these "policy proposals" -- if anything, they're the left-wing version of MAGA.

Well, it's not my fault you don't know what policy proposal means.  Does MAGA take 13 pages to lay out?  I mean I guess late at night when Trump is writing it out like Nicholson in the Shining.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, it's not my fault you don't know what policy proposal means.  Does MAGA take 13 pages to lay out?  I mean I guess late at night when Trump is writing it out like Nicholson in the Shining.

All play and no work makes Donny a happy boy.

All play and no work makes Donny a happy boy.

All play and no work makes Donny a happy boy.

All play and no-MAGA MOTHERFUCKERS!!- work makes Donny a happy boy.

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

About the 25 security clearances - this is after just over 2 years of being in office. One wonders how many refusals were overruled by the last 5 administrations, over 8, 8, 8, 4 and 8 years.

Also, apparently Ms Newbold suffers from dwarfism (is affected by? Suffers may not be the right word to use) and apparently her boss started doing things that made her work difficult, like putting files she needed on upper shelves. The conduct changed after complaints were made, but you have to wonder.

They are probably in the process of hiring this guy.

Man sues for $1.3 million over boss’s ‘stinky’ farts

https://wqad.com/2019/03/28/man-sues-for-1-3-million-over-bosss-stinky-farts/

Quote

 

Can regular farting equal bullying?

An appeals court in Australia will have to decide based on a nearly $1.3 million lawsuit filed in 2017 by the former employee of a construction company, who refers to his ex-boss as “Mr. Stinky.”

David Hingst, a 56-year-old former engineer of Melbourne’s Construction Engineering, says supervisor Greg Short would enter Hingst’s small, windowless office to fart “five or six times a day” as part of a larger conspiracy to terminate his employment, the Washington Post reports.

Before Hingst was eventually laid off, “I would be sitting with my face to the wall and he would come into the room … fart behind me and walk away,” the engineer says, per News.com.au, adding he eventually sprayed deodorant at his superior.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Every once awhile, I think it's useful exercise to leave liberal land and to take a stroll in conservative kookville, just to see what kind of crap conservatives feed each other

Stanby for some big laughs.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/federal-reserve-stephen-moore-economist-board/2019/03/28/id/909212/

Quote

An economist whose policies have helped revive the U.S. economy, drive unemployment to record lows among minorities, and contributed to a long-awaited jump in wages might expect a pat on the back if not a ticker-tape parade.

 

Quote

Conservatives are already rallying to defend Moore's pro-growth record in a bid to push his confirmation through the Senate. 

So Moore is a victim of liberals and not that he generally is a moron.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 hours ago, Ice Queen said:

Fair enough. I guess the environment doesn't matter after the fact. It's just collateral damage as long as we get low or zero emissions?

Look, I'm as liberal as you guys, but you're handing Republicans a talking point. In reality, at this point in time there is no zero emissions from heating quartz for silicon up to installation...and that's not even getting into end of life disposal. It's better to say we're aware of it and are working on it to minimize and hand wave it away. 

What?  No of course the environment matters.  You just claimed that solar and wind are as bad as coal.  That is objectively untrue.  Yes, there are opportunities for pollution, and the production involves emissions.  This is very different than coal or transporting petroleum- there are environmental contaminants that always pollute in both the extraction/production process AND when creating the energy.  A wind turbine or a solar panel aren't polluting after the fact.

No one is saying "use solar and who gives a fuck if it pollutes".  I'm sure we all would like to see regulations in place that make it worth it for companies making solar products to manufacture them in such a way as to minimize pollution.  This is especially bizarre because you initially were also saying that fission is zero emission (there are emissions involved building the plant).  There are emissions and pollution involved in manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants.  But that doesn't make them the equivalent of coal.

[lokisnow]

15 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What?  No of course the environment matters.  You just claimed that solar and wind are as bad as coal.  That is objectively untrue.  Yes, there are opportunities for pollution, and the production involves emissions.  This is very different than coal or transporting petroleum- there are environmental contaminants that always pollute in both the extraction/production process AND when creating the energy.  A wind turbine or a solar panel aren't polluting after the fact.

No one is saying "use solar and who gives a fuck if it pollutes".  I'm sure we all would like to see regulations in place that make it worth it for companies making solar products to manufacture them in such a way as to minimize pollution.  This is especially bizarre because you initially were also saying that fission is zero emission (there are emissions involved building the plant).  There are emissions and pollution involved in manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants.  But that doesn't make them the equivalent of coal.

BUT WHAT ABOUT COW FARTS!?!?!

WHATTABOUT CEMENT!?!?!?!

 

[Kalbear]

Honestly, this sounds like a really excellent AI extermination of humanity story. Humans program AI to maximize environmental help and minimize emissions, it decides to kill everyone and reduce usage of electricity by 99.99% as well as almost all travel as the endpoint. It obviously does less extreme things first and gains humans trust.