USA Politics (redux)

[SimonNZ]

How many times does it need to be said?  Nukes are the safest energy source that we have -

Hang on : solar and hydroelectric don't irradiate Europe. So nuclear can't be called " the safest" even if things have been improved since Chernobyl.

[Fëanor]

Hang on : solar and hydroelectric don't irradiate Europe. So nuclear can't be called " the safest" even if things have been improved since Chernobyl.

Don't get me wrong.  Wind and solar are preferable to nuclear.  The problem is that in many localities, weather-dependent source cannot provide all the continuous power of the sort to accommodate demand.  In these instance, (which are most), a base of continuous generation is necessary and nukes are far preferable to continued use of fossil fuel.

Sometimes hydro, geothermal, and tidal may be used, but they often have very negative environmental impacts that nuclear does not.

[milk]

How many times does it need to be said?  Nukes are the safest energy source that we have -- that's base on real statistics that include both Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Old design and flaw designs were responsible in both case.  Chernobyl was an inherently archaic and dangerous design that was operated by engineers who both broke procedures and were also ignorant of dangers that they ought to have been made aware of.

Fine, Chernobyl was nasty but more people die every year from basic aspects of coal mining, transport, burning than died as a result of Chernobyl, and that's not even including resulting environmental pollution.  There is the concept of weighing of relative threats.

People ought to encourage their governments to select and build appropriate nuclear facilities -- and stop peeing themselves over exaggerated, avoidable threats.

Japan has a pretty bad history with nuclear power. There's a "cultural" factor too maybe. I live In Japan. It's very rigid and consensus-based and hierarchical and venal. People just looked the other way because that's the way it's done. There's also this amakudari, "descent from heaven," thing where people in academia parachute into energy companies or vice versa. No one wants to piss anyone off. It doesn't inspire confidence that competence wins the day. I'm skeptical of the whole system of engineering as well. They spent 10 billion dollars on a plant in Fukui that never operated (due to a debilitating accident there). Power companies came into small areas and bought off the local pols and built these things and it's really up in the air if they have the ability to build and regulate them safely. It's a shame because I agree that Nuclear energy would be helpful to counter global warming. But an independent regulator with real power is needed.     

[drogulus]

     Nuclear has the advantage of safety and and massive scalability. If we wanted to build thousands of small nuclear modules and clump them wherever it's cost effective to put them, they could provide as much electrical generation as we will need well into the future and for as long as our ability to plan affords us. It's not only for climate change reasons this would be ideal. We'd have a growth path in place all the way to whatever comes next. If the future refuses to show up (it never does, but just saying), we'll still have a better present.

[krummholz]

The question of how useful nuclear power will be in countering global warming really comes down to how quickly and affordably new plants that incorporate passively safe designs can be planned out, built, and brought online. And there I'm pessimistic, mostly because of the regulatory burden (at least in the US, and I assume, in most western countries) that adds both years to the certification process and hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars (or euros) to the overall cost. I'm not sure we have the time to muddle through that process. I have long taken a very dim view of the alarmist talk of "climate emergency" and the "we have only 12 years to avert disaster" slogans of climate activists, but it's becoming clear that this is a very serious problem and that at least some of the more dire claims of the activists are starting to look very plausible. For example, a year or so ago a new study was published that did a very careful calculation of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) incorporating several important feedbacks and arrived at something like (from memory) a 66% confidence interval of 2.4 to 3.9 degrees (C) per doubling of CO2. If that study bears out, it rules out all of the low-end scenarios favored by the "lukewarmist" camp (e.g. Curry et al.) and puts us on track to easily exceed the 2 degree mark and likely reach 4 degrees by perhaps the next century. What is not so clear is the time to equilibrate, by how many years the very large heat sinks called oceans will cause the atmospheric temperature to lag behind. The current rate of warming tends to support the notion that the time lag is on the order of years not decades, and if so, that means we just won't have the time to get enough new nuclear plants online to make a significant dent in our carbon footprint.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Japan has a pretty bad history with nuclear power. There's a "cultural" factor too maybe. I live In Japan. It's very rigid and consensus-based and hierarchical and venal. People just looked the other way because that's the way it's done. There's also this amakudari, "descent from heaven," thing where people in academia parachute into energy companies or vice versa. No one wants to piss anyone off. It doesn't inspire confidence that competence wins the day. I'm skeptical of the whole system of engineering as well. They spent 10 billion dollars on a plant in Fukui that never operated (due to a debilitating accident there). Power companies came into small areas and bought off the local pols and built these things and it's really up in the air if they have the ability to build and regulate them safely. It's a shame because I agree that Nuclear energy would be helpful to counter global warming. But an independent regulator with real power is needed.   

I have to be candid. Some American people living in foreign countries believe that they know the countries very well, or even better than the locals. Can you speak and understand Japanese like locals, in Japanese peoples' opinion, not in your opinion? Have you studied any methodologies in sociology or political science? I met many Americans in Japan (and other countries.) A great majority of them even don't say good morning or thank you in local language. They only talk in English and read (non-professional) publication in English. I don't mean to be critical, but I just want to present a realistic figure.

[drogulus]

The question of how useful nuclear power will be in countering global warming really comes down to how quickly and affordably new plants that incorporate passively safe designs can be planned out, built, and brought online. And there I'm pessimistic, mostly because of the regulatory burden (at least in the US, and I assume, in most western countries) that adds both years to the certification process and hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars (or euros) to the overall cost. I'm not sure we have the time to muddle through that process. I have long taken a very dim view of the alarmist talk of "climate emergency" and the "we have only 12 years to avert disaster" slogans of climate activists, but it's becoming clear that this is a very serious problem and that at least some of the more dire claims of the activists are starting to look very plausible. For example, a year or so ago a new study was published that did a very careful calculation of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) incorporating several important feedbacks and arrived at something like (from memory) a 66% confidence interval of 2.4 to 3.9 degrees (C) per doubling of CO2. If that study bears out, it rules out all of the low-end scenarios favored by the "lukewarmist" camp (e.g. Curry et al.) and puts us on track to easily exceed the 2 degree mark and likely reach 4 degrees by perhaps the next century. What is not so clear is the time to equilibrate, by how many years the very large heat sinks called oceans will cause the atmospheric temperature to lag behind. The current rate of warming tends to support the notion that the time lag is on the order of years not decades, and if so, that means we just won't have the time to get enough new nuclear plants online to make a significant dent in our carbon footprint.

      I see no reason why the US shouldn't be the first adopter of the best new nuclear technologies, unless I count the politics of it. As climate change disasters become more frequent and severe the public will abandon the position of not knowing very much about what is endangering them. Minds are being sharpened by brute necessity.

     When the weight of opinion shifts towards realism about what just demolished your house it will be possible to implement a Manhattan Project for power generation. It will be very expensive and thus generate vast wealth and employment. That's what building the future does.

[krummholz]

      I see no reason why the US shouldn't be the first adopter of the best new nuclear technologies, unless I count the politics of it. As climate change disasters become more frequent and severe the public will abandon the position of not knowing very much about what is endangering them. Minds are being sharpened by brute necessity.

     When the weight of opinion shifts towards realism about what just demolished your house it will be possible to implement a Manhattan Project for power generation. It will be very expensive and thus generate vast wealth and employment. That's what building the future does.

I agree, my point was that it may not help avert climate disaster, if that is where we are headed, because of the mountains of red tape involved in bringing a new nuclear station online. And, the cost may be a significant deterrent as well. In the end, we seem not to be choosing that route for reasons of (IMO unreasonable) fear. If we had had the will and the good sense to begin building new nuclear plants 20 years ago we'd be in a better position now to start weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, at least for electricity generation, likely in time to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. I think it is probably too late now to hope for nuclear to be a major part of the solution, but that's not a reason not to take advantage of this energy source, and in the long run, we may be thankful we did.

I'm mainly pessimistic that we are going to be able to cut emissions enough and in time to stay under 2 degrees, much less 1.5, and I don't see nuclear as the answer for the reason stated above.

[Karl Henning]

Wondering why nobody asked earlier, who invented this term and why? Or, will uber-progressive nannies sink the Democratic Party, and by extension, American democracy?

Opinion: The debate over 'Latinx' highlights a broader problem for Democrats


By Megan McArdle, Columnist
Yesterday at 6:14 p.m. EST

Monday saw the release of yet another poll showing that the term "Latinx" is unpopular among Hispanic voters — only 2 percent preferred to use it, while 40 percent found it off-putting and 30 percent said they'd be less likely to vote for a politician who deployed it. Naturally, the rest of the week was spent arguing over how much this mattered.

The term has been growing in popularity lately, often used by White politicians or columnists like myself who want to politely defer to another group's preferences. But it appears that Latinx is not, in fact, what that group wants to be called; a majority of them say they prefer the already gender-neutral "Hispanic."

This seems particularly relevant as Hispanics have begun deserting Democrats for the GOP (a Wall Street Journal poll out this week showed them evenly split between the parties). One potential culprit is the kind of progressivism that Latinx represents — hyperfocused on language policing and divisive identity issues rather than bread-and-butter policy. But one can also argue, as New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie did, that the critics are the ones displaying a professional wordsmith's fixation on minor word choices, rather than the substantive issues that actually decide elections.

Yet this in turn invites an obvious retort: If word choice is such a minor matter, why does this graceless and unbeloved neologism keep showing up in newspaper headlines and stump speeches? And the obvious answer — to keep peace with other parts of the progressive coalition — in fact points us toward a growing problem for Democrats and the left.

Over the years, elite American institutions have grown more and more scrupulous about achieving certain kinds of demographic representation — particularly those that lean left. That's something for which they should be applauded because America's elites need to look like America.

But whatever rainbow hues of race and sexual orientation are visible in the group photos, American elites across the political spectrum are actually becoming less representative in one way: Most of them hold college degrees, and many also have advanced degrees, often from highly selective institutions.The college-educated are only about a third of the population, so they cannot build a durable majority without wooing other voters into the fold. With educational polarization rising — and older dividing lines like race beginning to fade — the left cannot afford to forget just how different educated people are from whatever demographic group they are supposed to represent.

On average, the interests, values and concerns of college-educated women differ significantly from those who aren't — and the more exclusive their education, the bigger the gap. The same is likely to be true of basically any major demographic category you'd care to name: race, immigration status, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Of course there are commonalities that the college-educated can still speak to — women with doctorate degrees worry about unwanted pregnancies and sexual assault, as do working-class women. But that doesn't mean women with college degrees can effectively represent the broader voices of "women" when issues arise in the boardroom, editorial meeting or campaign strategy session.

Educated voices often focus on aspects of common problems that are unique to themselves — witness how much coverage of sexual assault focuses on college campuses, even though college women do not appear to be at higher risk than their non-college peers. Or consider how much pro-choice rhetoric concentrates on disruptions to education or career, which may not be the top concerns of a high school dropout.

Consider, too, that the dropout is actually less likely to support liberal abortion laws than the graduate — something you wouldn't necessarily glean from listening to her educated counterparts talking about what "women" think.

And so too with "Latinx." College-educated people of any ethnicity are noticeably further left on social issues, better able to keep abreast of constantly shifting language norms, and more likely to work and socialize with the professionals who use such language. So college-educated Hispanics are probably quite a bit more comfortable with "Latinx" than working-class Hispanics are. They're also the ones likely to be sitting at the table when an institution or a politician decides to use it.

By itself, that's relatively harmless. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll showed that fewer than 1 in 4 Hispanics had even heard the term, so I doubt it's moving many votes today. But these sorts of problems also show up in policy — which might be how both political parties decided that ultraliberal immigration policy was the key to the Hispanic vote.

Turns out Hispanics' views on immigration are complicated, and relatively few of them rank the issue as their biggest worry. That might have been clear had the educated people consulted working-class Hispanic voters rather than their college-educated peers or their imaginations. While it may not matter what bespoke terms the left invents to please this or that constituency, it matters a great deal to whom they are talking — and to whom they listen before they start to speak.

[Karl Henning]

I monitor Trump's die-hard base. They're still plotting out in the open.

[Daverz]

By Megan McArdle, Columnist

Wow, haven't seen that twit's name in a long time.  What venue is still paying for her slop?

[greg]

Monday saw the release of yet another poll showing that the term "Latinx" is unpopular among Hispanic voters — only 2 percent preferred to use it, while 40 percent found it off-putting and 30 percent said they'd be less likely to vote for a politician who deployed it. Naturally, the rest of the week was spent arguing over how much this mattered.

The term has been growing in popularity lately, often used by White politicians or columnists like myself who want to politely defer to another group's preferences. But it appears that Latinx is not, in fact, what that group wants to be called; a majority of them say they prefer the already gender-neutral "Hispanic."

Nice to see a poll was done, otherwise people using this term would be lacking so much awareness. "Hispanic" is fine if you want to bypass the possible gender-whatever people out there. "Latinx" is just a sign of virtue signaling being out of control.

[drogulus]

     

Nice to see a poll was done, otherwise people using this term would be lacking so much awareness. "Hispanic" is fine if you want to bypass the possible gender-whatever people out there. "Latinx" is just a sign of virtue signaling being out of control.

     It's as ephemeral as the outrage manufactured about it. There are only a couple of possibilities, that new terminology will be widely adopted or it will just be in-group code for sophistos you wouldn't want to hang out with. I monitor progressive chat room shenanigans through YT and there is some freakazoidy shit going on there. But what this has to do with base progressive goals on climate, jobs, minimum wage, infrastructure etc., I know not.

[Karl Henning]

     
     It's as ephemeral as the outrage manufactured about it. There are only a couple of possibilities, that new terminology will be widely adopted or it will just be in-group code for sophistos you wouldn't want to hang out with. I monitor progressive chat room shenanigans through YT and there is some freakazoidy shit going on there. But what this has to do with base progressive goals on climate, jobs, minimum wage, infrastructure etc., I know not.

One trouble with inventing a word like Latinx is, only the "in" crowd know how to pronounce it. It becomes yet another buzzword which my eye glosses over, to pass on to actual content.

[T. D.]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-12/california-to-use-texas-abortion-ruling-as-anti-gun-law-model

This could get interesting.

California governor Gavin Newsom has called for a new California law that will effectively bar the manufacture and sale of assault rifles in the state, modeled on Texas's victory in the U.S. Supreme Court that keeps in place state legislation banning most abortions.

Newsom has directed his staff to work with the state legislature and Attorney General Rob Bonta to create a law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers, distributors and sellers of assault weapons, according to a statement Saturday.


The proposed California law would be shaped on the Texas legislation that makes abortions illegal after six weeks of pregnancy and allows private citizens to sue doctors or anyone who helps facilitate an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday narrowed a legal challenge to the Texas law and left it in force.

[Fëanor]

One trouble with inventing a word like Latinx is, only the "in" crowd know how to pronounce it. It becomes yet another buzzword which my eye glosses over, to pass on to actual content.

It seems to me that Americans are curiously obsessed with precise names for things.  A couple of years ago on another forum I used the term "oriental" with respect to someone or other in question.  I was immediately and vehemently denounced as a probable racist for using a racist term. I was initially bewildered.

I explained that I am not a racist nor did I have  racist thoughts regarding the person being discussed;  that my own daughter-in-law of whom I am very fond is Chinese.  My denouncer eventually conceded that I wasn't purposely racist, but that I ought to have used the term, "Asian".  I assured him that I stood corrected.

I guess it goes back to Negro -> Black -> African American, whence Hispanic -> Latino/Latina -> Latinx.  (By the way, how is it pronounced?)  Perhaps it's just me who is bemused by Xe / Xem / Xir apparently preferred by some of the 'Q' community.

[Spotted Horses]

It seems to me that Americans are curiously obsessed with precise names for things.  A couple of years ago on another forum I used the term "oriental" with respect to someone or other in question.  I was immediately and vehemently denounced as a probable racist for using a racist term. I was initially bewildered.

I explained that I am not a racist nor did I have  racist thoughts regarding the person being discussed;  that my own daughter-in-law of whom I am very fond is Chinese.  My denouncer eventually conceded that I wasn't purposely racist, but that I ought to have used the term, "Asian".  I assured him that I stood corrected.

I guess it goes back to Negro -> Black -> African American, whence Hispanic -> Latino/Latina -> Latinx.  (By the way, how is it pronounced?)  Perhaps it's just me who is bemused by Xe / Xem / Xir apparently preferred by some of the 'Q' community.

It's been a long time since oriental came to be considered offensive when applied to a person, at least in the U.S. I recall having this pointed out to me around 1980. Supposedly the movement to replace the term "Oriental" with "Asian" originated in 1968. In an abstract sense you could argue the term is not inherently offensive since it just means "from the east." But it begs the question, "east of what?" There is an implicit assumption that Europe is the location relative to which other places are located. At the very least it is implicitly Eurocentric. But I think the bottom line is that the community came to a consensus that it wanted to chose how to refer to itself, rather than accept a label that was applied to them by others.

And no, the fact that you used the term doesn't prove you are racist, although if you insisted on continuing to use it after being made aware of cultural overtones, that would be problematic. I take it that is not the case.

[Fëanor]

It's been a long time since oriental came to be considered offensive when applied to a person, at least in the U.S. I recall having this pointed out to me around 1980. Supposedly the movement to replace the term "Oriental" with "Asian" originated in 1968. In an abstract sense you could argue the term is not inherently offensive since it just means "from the east." But it begs the question, "east of what?" There is an implicit assumption that Europe is the location relative to which other places are located. At the very least it is implicitly Eurocentric. But I think the bottom line is that the community came to a consensus that it wanted to chose how to refer to itself, rather than accept a label that was applied to them by others.

And no, the fact that you used the term doesn't prove you are racist, although if you insisted on continuing to use it after being made aware of cultural overtones, that would be problematic. I take it that is not the case.

I assure you I have never since used the term, "Oriental".

Of course the term, Asian, versus "Oriental", avoids any implication of outsider perspective.  Though I should say that I've heard the term, "Occidental", used non-pejoratively.

Certainly terms assume negative connotation that they did not necessarily have originally.  So the word "Negro" simply means "black" in Spanish, yet on account of use by undoubted racists especially in America, it has become repugnant, (especially in its diminutive form  ).

You say, "But I think the bottom line is that the community came to a consensus that it wanted to chose how to refer to itself, rather than accept a label that was applied to them by others."  I guess so, so steel yourself to use Xe/Xem/Xir.

[Karl Henning]

Opinion: Mark Meadows's coverup of Trump's coup attempt is falling apart

By Greg Sargent, Columnist
Today at 10:02 a.m. EST

In his new book, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows offers up a version of Donald Trump's conduct on Jan. 6 that is almost comically sanitized. In his telling, the rioters attacked the Capitol with "absolutely no urging" from Trump, and the notion that Trump sought to incite them to disrupt his loss is purely an invention of the "Fake News."

In a passage that would embarrass a North Korea disinformation specialist, Meadows writes that the mob assault left Trump "mortified." But, Meadows piously insists, this didn't distract Trump from focusing only on the welfare of the country in his final days as president, a noble and selfless impulse that "never wavered."

The House select committee examining Jan. 6 has just released its report recommending contempt charges against Meadows for defying its subpoena. It blows a big hole in Meadows's pleasing little propaganda piece.

More broadly, the report will render the various GOP whitewashing devices we've heard — Trump didn't really want to overturn the election, Trump never countenanced the violence, the violence was no biggie anyway, and so on — much harder to sustain.

The report reads like a blueprint for a coup — not just for the attempt that just happened, but also for a future one. It provides a glimpse into the story the committee is piecing together about this effort to thwart a legitimately elected government from taking power, first through almost unimaginably corrupt pressure on many government actors, and then through mob violence.

What Meadows is covering up

First, the report demonstrates how frantically Meadows and Trump's other co-conspirators are covering up Trump's own reaction to the violence as it unfolded. It shows this by describing documents the committee obtained from Meadows before he decided to refuse cooperation.

For instance, the report notes that Meadows received "many messages" urging him to get Trump to issue a statement that might quell the attack. It also says Meadows was with Trump or nearby as Trump learned about it and weighed what to do in response.

Indeed, the report discloses that the committee has obtained a text message indicating that Meadows was "pushing hard" to "condemn this s--t," meaning Meadows was urging Trump to publicly call off the rioters.

Here's what this really means: Meadows almost certainly has direct knowledge of how Trump responded to all these repeated demands that he call off the violent assault. The report says the committee wants to question Meadows about this, but he's refusing to answer any questions.

What is it that Meadows does not want to testify to?

Well, we know from press accounts, such as this Post report, that Trump watched the violent assault unfold on TV and ignored many frantic pleas that he step in. One Trump adviser told The Post that Trump was enjoying the spectacle of his followers fighting on his behalf.

We also know from CNN that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) apparently screamed similar pleas at Trump by phone as rioters tried to break into McCarthy's office. McCarthy subsequently recounted that Trump responded: "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."

Could it be that Meadows does not want to confirm these reports that Trump enjoyed the spectacle of the mob threatening extreme violence to lawmakers who were in process of making his loss official, and that Trump even treated their cause as a just one?

If so, it would of course make Meadows's book account appear even more laughably dishonest. This also hints at what Meadows may be concealing from the committee investigating the worst outbreak of U.S. political violence in modern times, thus showing how malicious and depraved the coverup on Trump's behalf has become.

A blueprint for a stolen election

Underscoring this point, the committee report discloses the existence of other documents it obtained from Meadows that deepen our understanding of the stolen election attempt.

For instance, the report says Meadows was on text and email chains that addressed efforts to get GOP legislators in some states to send alternate electors to Congress, potentially subverting Joe Biden's electors.

Meadows apparently declared his "love" for this scheme and wanted a "team" devoted to it. Relatedly, Meadows also appears to have pushed the idea that the vice president could subvert those electors.

What's more, the report says, Meadows sent emails urging the Justice Department to investigate claims of voter fraud, which would validate the idea that the election's outcome was dubious. (There's also some suggestion that people around Trump talked about sending in the National Guard to "protect pro-Trump people," but this is very vague.)

You can see how all this fits together: The Justice Department would manufacture the impression that Biden's win was dubious — through investigations and public statements, which Trump also pushed for — and this would create the pretext for invalidating Biden's electors in Congress.

This would be accomplished by getting Republicans in Congress to invalidate them, or by getting Trump's vice president to abuse his power to delay the count, allowing states to send rogue electors, per the plot outlined in the now-notorious coup memo.

The whole coup blueprint is right there in black and white. And so is the scope and reach of what Meadows and others stonewalling the Jan. 6 committee are so eager to cover up. But we've now learned the committee has extensive receipts, and soon enough, we'll see all of them.

[Spotted Horses]

I assure you I have never since used the term, "Oriental".

Of course the term, Asian, versus "Oriental", avoids any implication of outsider perspective.  Though I should say that I've heard the term, "Occidental", used non-pejoratively.

Certainly terms assume negative connotation that they did not necessarily have originally.  So the word "Negro" simply means "black" in Spanish, yet on account of use by undoubted racists especially in America, it has become repugnant, (especially in its diminutive form  ).

It goes without saying, I have never had any impression of racism from your participation.

You say, "But I think the bottom line is that the community came to a consensus that it wanted to chose how to refer to itself, rather than accept a label that was applied to them by others."  I guess so, so steel yourself to use Xe/Xem/Xir.

First I have heard of those, I guess I am still a cave man. We are headed for a complicated world in which everyone will have to specify what pronouns they apply to themselves. Worse things have happened. Unlike some other languages, there is no official specification of English, so we have to follow usage.