« A shitshow for the ages | Main | Identity, inside or out: A post for National Coming Out Day »

October 14, 2018

Comments

Talking of ratf*cking gollums, another piece of ancient history:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/was-gary-hart-set-up/570802/

Let me put it another way - who would you rather have campaigning for President... another Obama, or Avenatti ?

I think we need both. That's, in fact, the coalition we need.

Bone saw "realism".

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pompeo-meets-saudi-crown-prince

bin Salman: "Yeah, so this will tickle your funny bone, Mr. Secretary Fat Fuck White Guy, what went wrong was that my boys ... Vinnie bin Salman, Mohammad bin Pesci, and so on.... slash that ... the rogue elements, is what I mean to say .. travel with a bone saw .. it's how business is done, I'm sure you'll agree, you never know when an autopsy opportunity will present itself .. well, dese guys ... never send boys to do man's job, huhnh, Mike ... well, they got things a little discombobulated and thought the bone saw was part of the interrogation, ya know, a persuader of sorts for the undecided ... and a, well, they did the autopsy, I'm told, while what's his raghead camel jockey, as your boss might call him, was ALIVE. The guy made a hell of a racket, geez you could hear it up and down embassy row and the MESS (crosses himself like a Sicilian priest) ... I mean you try and hold a guy down and take a bone saw to his sternum while he's fully conscious and his blood hasn't coagulated like it would if you say , strangled him first .... if ya get my drift."

Pompeo: "Look, the big man wanted this done quietly and without major hemorrhaging. He's a germaphobe, by which I mean he washes his hands after shaking hands with liberals, women, and assorted malcontents. This could have been kept on the down low and out of the papers, like the fantastic job you are doing on the Yemenis. It hadda be done, but next time, let our crew take care of it. You know what I'm sayin?"

wrs, and others as well.

Time is short. Money and energy (at least mine) are finite. I would rather hope to persuade a few people on the margins than to butt my head against the stone wall that is the R party in hopes of once in fifty years persuading someone to vote for a D now and then.

The R base isn't going anywhere. As for the persuadables: persuade yourself! It's not like good information -- especially on climate change -- isn't readily available.

russell's model of perhaps an occasional conversation across the abyss with a friend who thinks differently -- I get that, and I do that too, sort of. In that situation, the friendship might even give you some leverage, and leverage matters.

*****

bobbyp:

wj has been on this board for how many years?....and still calls himself a Republican.

I rest my case. :)

wj at least votes for Ds sometimes. If you want an example of hardcore unpersuadable, there's always Marty.

*****

Nigel says we should go after those mythical R persuadables because Politics is about building coalitions large enough to govern. My answer to that is that if the range of political views in the US ran from A to Z, the Rs would cover A and maybe half of B (okay, I exaggerate, maybe they reach slightly into D), and the Dems have got the rest, i.e. an already almost unmanageably varied coalition.

I'd rather let the Rs stew, and spend my resources 1) hoping to persuade centrists and people who don't make a habit of voting, and 2) pushing back against voter suppression and other kinds of cheating.

But -- different strokes. If someone with the right mindset can persuade a few Rs to come on over, more power to them. I'm not deciding what anyone else can/should do, only me.

To be honest, I look at the reality that 40% of eligible voters didn't even show up, and that almost half of those who did voted for Donald Trump.

And I draw the conclusion that the country is basically broken. Broken. Deeply and profoundly broken.

I have no idea how to fix it. I'm just trying to live in it.

Someone else is going to have to do the persuading, I'm all out of bright ideas.

Point of fact, though, the R base has been going somewhere for years, and that's further to the right and further away from any form of compromise. The base has been engaged in a process of dehumanizing the left for years. So far, that base has been successful at dragging the rest of the R-identified voters with them using a mixture of appeals to fear and disgust that keep the coalition going through the power of the amygdala response.

The left has not been uncivil. The left has merely insisted in living its life visibly and the right wing media has painted this visibility as an attack on civility. Keep the disgust in focus and blame the object for being disgusting, then scream that insisting on civility is suppressing expression and religious freedom.

The right lose a few people off of their leftwardmost edge every time they lurch right, but because they keep that rhetoric of disgust going, the ones they do lose merely become disgusted with both sides and sit on the sidelines.

This would eventually end up biting the GOP in the electoral ass if it weren't counterbalanced by the party's campaign of gerrymandering and voter suppression disenfranchising just enough people to keep power within their grasp.

There may be a remedy for all this, but civility and reason have not put a dent in it or slowed it down one bit in over a decade.

Yes, it is hard. For example, with regard to health care, Kentuckians loved Obamacare (and Medicaid Expansion), but voted for the Republicans who dismantled it in their state.

But, having dismantled it and failed to replace it as promised the next election might turn out slightly different. Perhaps not massively, even not enough to flip the state legislature. But in a less red state? Different deal.

Nigel: It's not hard.

bobby: wj has been on this board for how many years?....and still calls himself a Republican.

I rest my case. :)

Before you get too triumphant, not that calling myself a Republican, which I do, isn't the same as voting a straight Republican party ticket, which I don't.

Try to grasp this. You don't really care what people call themselves. You care how they vote.

You don't really care what people call themselves. You care how they vote.

1) It's not up to you to tell us what we care about.

2) What you call yourself does matter, even if not as much as how you vote. Calling yourself a member of a certain party helps give standing and validity to that party, for starters. It helps that party keep going as a major force in our politics even when it has been taken over by a cabal of lying, grifting, abusive, probably treasonous criminals.

They are only staying together for the sake of the kids. They will divorce once Fetus, Box Magazine, and Laffer Curve are out of high school.

1) It's not up to you to tell us what we care about.

I stand corrected. If it's more important to you what they call themselves, so bet it. I'm amazed, but it's hardly the first time I've misunderstood someone here.

Try to grasp this. You don't really care what people call themselves. You care how they vote.

Indeed. But if you vote for Democrats, then why not call yourself a Democrat? If the D party is "too far left" for you, then perhaps you should join in the fun (yes, we have fun indeed!) and sign up and try to push it to the right.

What, exactly, is stopping you?

It's not what you say, it's what you do. You vote for (some) Republicans. Good as you might think they are, this is simply lending legitimacy and credibility to the brand.

It deserves neither.

Try to grasp that.

a little mp music for everyone:

http://time.com/5421576/donald-trump-trumpism/

wj,

I am as sure as can be that you would NEVER say:

"Calling myself a Nazi, which I do, isn't the same as voting a straight Nazi party ticket, which I don't."

I'm sure of it because you're obviously NOT a Nazi. But I wonder whether you would say, of a person who does call himself a Nazi:

"I don't care what you call yourself; I care how you vote."

Maybe you would say that to such a person, for good tactical reasons. But I bet you'd cringe just a little.

Your hoped-for version of the GOP is plainly not remotely equivalent to the Nazi Party, and I'm not saying that even the actual current GOP of He, Trump and Mitch McConnell is so equivalent -- yet. I only want to point out that even a hard-headed, pragmatic political tactician may possibly care what people call themselves.

The current GOP does share your view in one respect: "We don't care if you call yourself a Nazi, as long as you vote Republican."

But I do wish you all possible luck in remaking the GOP to your own taste. Your fight won't be with me in that effort.

--TP

a little mp music for everyone

ha! these guys stumbled across "pay people more" and they think they're geniuses.

you heard it here first, folks.

and if they can't leave their nazi goon friends behind, they can kiss my rear end.

But if you vote for Democrats, then why not call yourself a Democrat? If the D party is "too far left" for you, then perhaps you should join in the fun (yes, we have fun indeed!) and sign up and try to push it to the right.

What, exactly, is stopping you?

I guess, primarily, the fact that I see having two sane political parties as vital to the political health of the United States. Simply having a broader tent Democratic Party, with no alternative , won't do it.

If I saw a better prospect for a new political party than I do for rebuilding the Republican Party to once again be the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower, (and let's face it, that ain't that high a bar) I'd go for it. But I don't see that yet.

wj, why don't you just come on over. If we're lucky, the R party will continue to dwindle until it's nothing but a lunatic fringe ("we" need to keep it from staging a literal coup in the meantime, of course), and the D party will get so big and unwieldy that it will split, and you'll have two sane parties again.

QED. ;-)

At least, I think that's about as likely a path to what you want as relying on magic to turn the Republican party away from Clickbait-ism.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/how-to-write-about-a-vanishing-world

ack, it's all hoaxes, is what it is. All of this fake news crying and weeping into their diving masks by fake scientists with fake political agendas like letting toads take over the world.

Let me know when the last rhino is spotted.

I have a recipe for rhino three ways ... tartare, kebabs, and the shanks pan broiled ... I been wanting to try, but only for my friends who can afford the rarity of it.

ok. we're doing that over here...

interesting Time article. but it fails to acknowledge what study after study has shown: Trump voters weren't actually motivated by economic insecurity. they were motivated by the obvious things: racism, sexism, xenophobia, tribalism, loss of "status", etc.. as HRC noted.

the Time author is still clinging to that hope that the GOP's problems can be solved with better economics. well, the economy has been accelerating for 10 years now, and the GOP is no closer to sanity now than it was in 2007.

I'm surprised by this. I didn't figure it would come up until after the mid-terms.

Enjoy that tax cut!

I didn't figure it would come up until after the mid-terms.

They can't resist.

wj, why don't you just come on over. If we're lucky, the R party will continue to dwindle until it's nothing but a lunatic fringe

I'm trying, without much success I'm afraid, to figure out the benefit of "coming on over". (Other than reducing the irritation of a few folks here who can't understand why I don't, of course.)

Will it somehow contribute to reducing the GOP to a small, insignificant lunatic fringe? Not that I can see -- there are way too many lunatics for that. Will it cause some notional Party superstructure to get worried enough about dwindling numbers to stop playing to the bigots and lunatics? Not sure there really is one with that capability. But if there is, figuring out that they have a party with a majority of sensible people, but which cannot win without turning its back on the crazies, seems far more likely to work.

I guess what I'm saying is "But you agree with us on so much" isn't being persuasive for me. But showing how doing so would help might be.

But showing how doing so would help might be.

any chance you climbing off would influence anyone else who might also be on the fence?

Proud boys hide behind Il Duce

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/collins-hunter-indicted-congressmen-negative-campaigns-trump

Time is short. Money and energy (at least mine) are finite. I would rather hope to persuade a few people on the margins than to butt my head against the stone wall that is the R party in hopes of once in fifty years persuading someone to vote for a D now and then.

I live in a region where states generally adopted broad citizen initiative powers a hundred years ago. Even in red states the Republicans get spanked by initiative. Arizona voters took redistricting power away from the legislature, and then passed an increased minimum wage plus guaranteed sick time. This year they're voting on whether to increase the required level of renewable electricity to 50%. Not many analysts expect it to pass -- this time -- but something like it will pass within not too many years.

I know all the arguments against initiatives. Still, there's something very satisfying about being able to force the legislature's hand from time to time on specific issues, without worrying about party baggage.

As I said in the other thread, I didn't mean to be calling you out. What worries me (about you, not so concerned about most of the others) is that the way American politics works is that you/we have to make sure that the fringe gets so toxic that no one wants to associate with them.

There's a quote about the French Revolution that I remember, but I've tried to find to get the exact wording, but it was something like when the volcano blew off the mountaintop, it took the good and well-meaning who also happened to be there trying to fix things. (you can see why I want to get the exact wording). It seems like we are facing that point.

I have no idea how to fix it.

Fox and Sinclair are close to the root of the problem.

The First Amendment prevents the government from doing much about that.

But citizens have more agency. spocko got horrible right-wing radio pundit Debbie Schluessel dropped from almost every station that had carried her stuff, all by himself, just by writing letters.

It will help when Rupert Murdoch dies (may it be soon), but Sinclair is a tougher nut.

We, as citizens, must find a way to combat these organizations that are intentionally dripping the poison of propaganda and the Big Lie into the veins of our national politics.

I was going to post the Count's link, but he beat me to it.

Are these guys total assholes, or what? How in the world anyone can vote for either of them is incomprehensible.

We, as citizens, must find a way to combat these organizations that are intentionally dripping the poison of propaganda and the Big Lie into the veins of our national politics.

I wonder if there is a way to apply libel/slander sanctions. In particular to the companies which own the media, not just to individual presenters.

It would be deliciously ironic if Citizens United could be used for that purpose.

I wonder if there is a way to apply libel/slander sanctions. In particular to the companies which own the media, not just to individual presenters.

My opinion, based on up-close observation over many years, is "don't take on corporations that are big enough to have an entire department full of lawyers trying to justify their salaries."

Michael Cain @6:36: Maine has a relatively easy path to referenda and people's vetos , and we've had a lot of them over the years. Sometimes I'm glad -- for instance, a few years ago we overturned a Republican-inspired law that made it harder to register to vote. People just didn't swallow the fear-mongering about voter fraud, and I was proud of my adopted state for that.

On the other hand, we're having our second referendum in recent years that would enact a targeted tax on high earners -- a couple of years ago it was for spending on education (it passed, but the legislature repealed it and took some money from somewhere else for education), this year it's to fund home care for the elderly and disabled.

"Experts" can't even agree on what this tax would be applied to (joint earnings, or not?), among other things. But leaving campaign shenanigans aside, and despite the fact that the "cause" hits home for me in more ways than one, and also that I don't disapprove of higher taxes by any means, I think referenda are a bad way to make tax policy. Maybe, as you say, this one will at least serve to focus the legislature's attention, but other than that I think it's a bad idea to do it this way.

That's my thought as an amateur (and citizen), but I'm curious what you think given that you have experience in state government.

Janie, even though this wasn't addressed to me, allow me to observe that the legislature is indeed a better place to make tax policy. IF, and it's a huge if, your state hasn't fallen for the folly of legislature term limits. Because what that gets you is a legislature where the members are, essentially, amateurs. So the laws, including tax laws, get written by the available experts: lobbyists. As we have seen way too much of here in California since we went (via initiative) for term limits.

wj, we have term limits. But for better and worse, they don't prevent people from making the legislature a long-term gig.

I think referenda are a bad way to make tax policy.

Well, maybe. That presumes that the legislature is serious. If it's not then I don't know that referenda are worse.

I think referenda are a bad way to make tax policy.

I agree entirely. How do you hold your legislature accountable, if they can be overridden every time they try to raise funds. This happened in WA for the past decade, most famously with Tim Eyeman. If you want roads, and you constantly have voters choosing lower taxes that pay for roads, you are stuck with a crappy infrastructure.

I am from the east, and used to voting for people who could make decisions. In the West, you not only vote for taxes, but judges, port commissioners, and mosquito districts that there is no reasonable way to know which choice is better.

I just filled out my ballot, spent a bunch of time trying to research each person (judges and justices especially) and it was difficult to find information on the candidates.

During it, I saw a quote from Sandra Day Oconnor chastising MT for having elected justices. Given the shenanigans in Florida and West Virginia this year I don't think it is always clear that appointed justices are better, but it is hard to be worse than electing them with no information.

I think referenda are a bad way to make tax policy.

on the NC ballot right now:

"Constitutional amendment to reduce the income tax rate in North Carolina to a maximum allowable rate of seven percent (7%)."

(it's currently Constitutionality limited to 10%, though the actual rate is ~5.5%)

There are some leaving the Republican party for reasons of conscience:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/411790-ex-republican-lawmaker-i-left-the-gop-because-of-trumps-flirtations-with

'flirtations'. He must have been fun on a first date...

Any news stories of people leaving the Democratic party because the Republicans are on the right track? (Joe Manchin doesn't count...)

The other well known example, of course, is Max Boot:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/16/1804832/-My-Conversation-With-Max-Boot-About-Why-the-Republican-Party-Needs-to-be-Burned-to-the-Ground
Dr. Boot and I discuss the "Never Trump" movement and why so many "traditional" and "principled" conservatives continue to support a dangerous and radically deranged and authoritarian Donald Trump and Republican Party. Dr. Boot also explains why it took him so long to acknowledge and confront his own Republican Party's long history of racism, bigotry and other authoritarian tendencies. Dr. Boot and I also ponder if the Republican Party in its present form can ever be salvaged or should it instead be burned down to the ground...

I think referenda are a bad way to make tax policy.

To be more precise, you are saying that embedding things in the state constitution is a bad way to make tax policy. Once tax policy is there, referendums and initiatives are the only way to make changes. Well, short of calling a convention and rewriting the whole thing, which has its own set of problems. I agree in part, and disagree in part.

Speaking broadly, I have no problem with having the constitution set out broad limits. Then the legislature's job is dealing with the balancing act of staying within those limits, or explicitly asking for relief. At least IMO, it's a superior system to depending on politicians to set the limits. Politicians come with baggage, largely because of our party system. Voting a party into power in order to get the tax policy that I would prefer seems to always mean empowering them to make a whole bunch of other policy changes I disagree with.

Just for the record, I think an initiative system at the national level for the US would be a disaster. It works up to a certain scale; 330M people across the width of a continent is too big.

Michael Cain quoting cleek (I assume) who was quoting me: I think referenda are a bad way to make tax policy.

Michael Cain: To be more precise, you are saying that embedding things in the state constitution is a bad way to make tax policy.

cleek might have been saying that embedding things in the state constitution is a bad way to make tax policy, but I was not. The tax policy provision to fund home care being voted on in Maine isn't a constitutional amendment (nor was the previous one, to fund education).

I still think it's a bad way to make tax policy. The legislature may be even more incompetent than "the people," or more beholden to interest groups, but I think we (or our representatives) should decide what to spend our collective money on by looking at the big picture, not by targeting one need at a time and making a big noise about that one, at the expense of all the others. I suppose I'm being an idealist.....

A citizen's referendum that requires state legislators to hold regular (quarterly!) town meetings, might result in some accountability, without setting tax rates by plebiscite.

"Strong 2nd Amendment supporters" would have to allow citizens to attend while armed, also, too.

...but I think we (or our representatives) should decide what to spend our collective money on by looking at the big picture, not by targeting one need at a time and making a big noise about that one, at the expense of all the others. I suppose I'm being an idealist.....

Now that I've stopped laughing... Almost no one understands their state's budget. Here in Colorado, on the legislative side, I claim there are 19: the six members of the Joint Budget Committee and their 13 staff analysts. Those 19 prepare the Long Bill (600 pages of most of the dollars that will be spent) and the accompanying analysis (800 pages of explanation). Even then, some large-but-limited programs are not included (eg, the bulk of the state/federal unemployment insurance program). Everyone else looks at the budget from the perspective of a single category (eg, higher ed) or one program at a time (eg, home care for the elderly).

When I was one of those 13 analysts, one of my side jobs was helping with one of the programs for high-school students who spend a week pretending to be the state government. One whole day is spent with the students doing adjustments to a dumbed-down version of the state budget. Naturally, the students all have priorities that they want to spend more money on. They have to do it, though, within the (greatly simplified) rules of the zero-sum annual game of splitting up the revenue pie. The kindest thing I had yelled at me was, "This is impossible!" To which I smiled and said, "Welcome to my world. Now you know why the entire legislature hates the JBC staff."

Contemporary society is enormously complex. It should be no surprise to anyone that government has to be complex in response. And the budget is almost certainly the most complex aspect of the government. But people want things to be simple. One of the initiative items on the ballot in Colorado next month is the "Just Fix the Damned Roads" amendment. It requires the state government to issue bonds and do road repairs (some projects specified, some left to the discretion of CDOT). The bond repayment price tag is $260M per year for 20 years. Not one word about where that money will come from. I can't say for sure, but based on history, I feel comfortable saying that it will come out of higher ed. Tuition will be going up, and a whole bunch of building maintenance will be deferred.

Well, I don't look at this vermin republican cuck's croaking so much as him DODGING a bullet as much as the resistance SAVING a bullet for the millions of other cucks who need it:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/pro-trump-pimp-and-nevada-gop-politician-dennis-hof-dies-after-rally.html

http://juanitajean.com/and-theyre-gonna-do-an-autopsy/

Ron Jeremy AND Grover Norquist in attendance at his passing. (The Only Good) Tucker (Is a Dead) Carlson wanted to be there but couldn't handle sucking off BOTH Jeremy and Norquist) in the same weekend.

In other news, black voters in all 50 states need to travel in very heavily armed convoys to the voting booths this season and if any republicans stand in their way, shoot to goddamned kill.*

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23867072/georgia-virginia-midterm-campaigns/

We need to open an inquiry to investigate whether or not Brett Kavanaugh dismembered any women as well during his formative years and whether or not Khashoggi was raped during his attempt to get a marriage license as well as, you know, eaten:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/trump-calls-the-saudis-as-innocent-as-brett-kavanaugh.html

I guess this means there are similarities between Khashoggi's and Blasey Ford's and the other Kavanaugh victims' fates.

I contend the common factor was that they were both mortal enemies of murderer and rapist Donald John Trump.

I'm using his full name in this instance, as he will be introduced to his firing squad.

*This message approved by the National Rifle Association

"It should be no surprise to anyone that government has to be complex in response"

And yet 300 million dumbass Americans wake up every morning and yell "Surprise!" to themselves and any right wing talk show audience within earshot.

"But people want things to be simple."

Simpletons want things to be simple. One outcome of supply side napkin economics is that we now have an infinite supply of simpletons.

If you can't fit "War and Peace" on a postcard, then all novels should be abolished.

So the laws, including tax laws, get written by the available experts: lobbyists. As we have seen way too much of here in California since we went (via initiative) for term limits.

Also legislative staff. In a typical state, statute is a huge twisted mass of interconnected parts that must be treated largely as a whole. That is, making a change at one point will require making changes in a number of other places, which will require changes in still more places,... (This is why bills that touch money in particular get so long -- you wouldn't believe some of the long tortuous paths money follows from the point of collection to final expenditure.) Staff are the ones that are paid to work through all of those cascading changes and keep things consistent. If the staff are rushed, mistakes happen (eg, some people got screwed by the Republican tax bill because one line of changes was overlooked).

In my state, the vast majority of the numbers in the budget bill become official when some member of the Joint Budget Committee says, "Move staff recommendation for X." One day when I was scheduled for two hours to present my proposed budget for the Dept of Labor to the committee, I had taken my seat but before I could open my mouth a member said, "Move staff recommendation for the Department of Labor." No one objected, so I noted the date and time it was approved and went back to my office.

One of the reasons some people quit the JBC staff after their first year was that they couldn't deal with the fact that while their analysis might include options, they had to finish with a concrete recommendation, and the legislature might well adopt that without any further debate anywhere.

Oh my God, it's complicated!

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-is-brexit-and-why-is-it-so-complicated-2018-10-17?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

Sir, can you tell me why you expect all things to be simple.

Scratches his head and scrunches up his face and says "Well, that's a very complicated question."

Sir, can you tell me why you expect all things to be simple.

Answer: because my constituents won't understand it otherwise. If it isn't simple, I'll have to simplify it -- and when I get something wrong, I'll have to blame you so I don't have to take the blame. That's why I expect you to make it simple.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/17/a-natural-instinct-for-science/

I had a great uncle who mucked out stables, so I have a natural instinct for identifying horseshit when it's withers deep all around me.

Also the bullshit and pigshit emitted from this fraud's rabid gob.

Entire red states are set aside as holding ponds for the effluence issuing forth from filth.

'Jeremy, a longtime friend, is the one who discovered Hof’s body in his bed at the ranch, where the group had gone after the rally. He told the Associated Press that Hof’s body was cold and “totally stiff.”'

Does Jeremy have to bring the titles of his movies into everything?

With self-promotion like that, mp should name him to a Cabinet position. Perhaps to head up the XXXLarge Business Association.

The Hof rally was held in a town called Pahrump.

Of course it was.

Republican Evangelicals from across the country are converging on Pahrump at Hof's Love Ranch and asking all of the women in town to get down on their knees.

An optional prayer session will also he held later this week.

The Ranch sports a replica of the mp/Putin Moscow hotel room to host the racially incontinent among the faithful.

Joe Arpaio will be checking I.D.s and then Arpaio, Norquist and Heidi Fleiss will saddle up Tucker Carlson and ride him reverse cowboy on down to the saloon for rousing games of Taunt the Redskins, followed by Got a Nigger By the Toe, two, sevens and jacks wild.

Since this has become the 'why we can't have nice things' thread, TPM's look at the most misleading ads of this campaign cycle

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/worst-campaign-ads-2018

Back on topic.

In today's Denver Post, a story describing how some of the electric coops in the state (there are a bunch of them) are working to break contracts with their principal supplier over that suppliers' failure to shift to cheaper renewable sources, and restrictions on the amount of renewable power they are allowed to generate locally. Near the end of the piece the situation is compared to Xcel Energy, the largest utility in the state, who expects that by 2026 55% of all the electricity they deliver in the state will be from renewable sources.

OTOH, yesterday they reported still another round of delays and court cases for getting the light rail line that will serve my suburb open. The system has been finished for two years, but the various regulatory bodies are fighting over whether the at-grade crossing software is safe enough.

With the Shitshow for the Ages unfolding and the Saudi threat of $400 a barrel oil, I guess those battery storage costs are looking a little better about now.

Next step would be to develop battery technologies that are less reliant on conflict minerals.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad