All_Pro_Bills

Well said. I don't have an EE degree but I'm good at basic math. I just don't see how to make the numbers work with Solar and Wind when you scale it up to supporting entire population centers, States, and the country. And eventually the world. All while supporting current population levels and forecasted growth numbers into the future. It seems inconceivable. I think much of the "green" energy initiatives are based more on magical thinking than they are on science and engineering. I think they ignore the low yield, unreliable nature of the technologies that depends on the weather. The sun shining and the wind blowing. And the variation in those actions of nature both geographically and seasonally. I wonder where all the materials that need to be mined, produced, transformed into components, assemblies and parts, and then deployed coming from and how they're going to be manufactured and produced without oil and gas as energy inputs into the manufacturing process? I also think counting on some unpredictable and future technologies to "save us" is a terrible plan from the perspective of risk management and assessment. Putting all your eggs in one basket. A basket that has yet to be woven. I recall a study from the 1980's NASA performed on a project called Solar Power Satellite System (SPSS). The plan was to deploy miles long and wide solar arrays in space (something like 24 solar collectors) in orbit around the Earth that would supply uninterruptable power beamed down to the surface. Estimates of resources, time, cost, manufacturing and materials and labor and facilities, lift requirements, construction in space, personnel needed, collection and power distribution. The Reagan administration killed the study. I can't imagine how much it would cost today. Trillions I suspect. If it wasn't cancelled 40 years ago some of it might be operational today and we'd be facing a different set of circumstances.

Actually it is hearsay as it meets the definition (somebody told me something somebody else said or did) but hearsay is admissible here. The police might characterize such statements as "a lead". And if the intent of the Committee, beyond putting on a good show for the faithful, is to produce some sort of recommendation that gets forwarded to the DOJ to bring charges this kind of "evidence" and testimony won't be admissible in any judicial setting there. I suspect this witness wouldn't be called or wiling to testify in a courtroom setting. Already the statement about Trump lunging for the steering wheel has been refuted by the driver and Secret Service on duty that day. Something they've stated they're willing to testify to under oath. Will the committee call them?

Rest assured, Liz Chaney is going to land on her feet somewhere. The fact the establishment summoned her for the task of participating on the Committee in an apparent act of political suicide shows how serious they are to discredit and eliminate Trump from the political scene. Populist movements that reject the core agenda of both parties, whether initiated from the left or from the right are dangerous to the establishment agenda. Many like me whether Democrats or Republicans, see the agenda of neither major political party representing their interests. This is something more and more citizens are concluding in greater numbers. Social and economic conditions are accelerating this trend. The Washington establishment's concern is the movement gains traction, picks off candidates and current office holders representing embedded special interests and replaces them with populist office holders at all levels. Representatives that believe they are sent to serve and represent "the people". Once that happens and a majority is achieved current leadership is out on the street. And the agenda will swing in another direction. This is most likely going to happen as social and economic forces are hurtling us in the direction of a major crisis but by neutralizing Trump they buy some time.

Word Hutchinson was going to testify brought back memories of Oliver North where he skated on charges of destroying evidence in the Iran-Contra affair. His secretary, who today would be titled as an administrative assistants, smuggled out secret and incriminating documents out of government offices in her panties which were later shredded. The documents that is, were shredded. Ms. Hall while having her 15 minutes of fame in testifying to Congress, also escaped any formal punishment. Ms. Hutchinson's testimony provided no such salacious details. The 1980's were simpler times but the tradition of establishment actors breaking American law while meddling in the affairs of foreign countries going unpunished (unless they're whistleblowers exposing illegal acts of powerful players) regardless of party affiliation still remains in place today.

Well it sounds like you're okay with butchering children in late term abortions which something like 173 of 180 countries in the world prohibit. Place like China and North Korea are good with that. So my views are not exactly some fringe outlier. The idea of abortion on demand at any time for any reason regardless of circumstances pushed by fringe pro-choice advocates is the extreme. The big majority, including myself, think there needs to be limits and conditions where the "rights" of the women at some point need to be weighed with the "rights" of the child.

So your okay being a primitive savage?

As opposed to the other extreme where a doctor murders a late term aborted child and dismembers the dead body with saws and knives in a scene akin to some sacrificial ritual then sells the body parts and organs to researchers and for other purposes. Anybody got a video of that they want to share on social media?

Most likely Republicans will gain a majority in the House and Nancy will be relegated to minority leader. Assuming Democrats don't revolt against her rule and appoint somebody 100 years younger with high standards of moral and ethical character to the job. The House will then hold hearing on the escapades of Joe and Hunter. I expect complete cooperation from Federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community while all the networks will air the hearings on prime time television and lead off their nightly news shows with updates to the developing story while asking the tough questions to expose any and all corrupt activities. And expose threats to our democracy resulting from selling out to foreign powers and engaging in corrupt activities at the expense of US policy interests. Raise you hand if you believe any of this paragraph?

All I asked is for anyone supporting the idea the Constitution protects the "right" to an abortion is for them to identify which Article or Amendment grants that right. There are some 7 Articles and 27 Amendments. Pick one.

We agree on that. I've heard and seen a lot of slogans and one-liners from pro-choice supporters and advocates and politicians but no intelligent and clear argument that provides an answer to that question. I think this question is the first issue. The second is what kind and type of "protections" make sense. For the women and the unborn child. Most of the arguments I hear tend to mix the two together. One other thing I find ironic (there always seems to be something) is the same cast of characters raging on about "my body, my choice" are the same cast of characters supporting and encouraging the idea of sending storm troopers out during the pandemic in a house-to-house search to force vaccinate any non-conformers.

That's interesting because the essence of Friday's SCOTUS ruling is the Roe v. Wade precedent established by the 1970's era court was invalid because the Constitution has no such protection. And therefore, they voided the previous ruling while sending it back to Congress and State legislatures. I re-read the Constitution this morning and conclude there is no such protection, and the current court is correct. I'm curious what Article (or Section) or Amendment anyone thinks provides protection or extends the "right" for abortions.

Are you telling me to laugh at you?

Statements like this, while meant for dramatic effect are just a joke or display ignorance of the Constitution and the role played by the Supreme Court in our Republic and its three branches of government. But the question is simply preposterous. The court can't bring back slavery because there is a Constitutional amendment that prohibits and abolishes slavery. The 13th Amendment. If abortion proponents want Constitutional protection, then introduce an amendment in Congress, pass the amendment, and send it to the States for consideration and ratification. That's how our democracy works. You know. The one I see so many posts saying they revere and cherish. As long as they get their way I guess. So follow the rules and deal with it. If you can't pass the Amendment in Congress and get enough States to ratify the Amendment, then that's just democracy in action.

One of my big takeaways with the COVID vaccines is the distinction between clinical trial data vs, real world data or evidence. A disparity between the trial endpoint objectives and the results of the trial and the rhetoric used by officials. The trial objectives were to demonstrate infection free efficacy. Nowhere in the trial objectives or endpoints were the terms, measurements, conditions, or observations of "protection from serious illness and hospitalization". In the trial an observation of inflection with protection was a "fail". In the real world use interpretation of official a case of infection with protection, defined as non-critical illness and no hospitalization was a "pass". This positive outcome was something public health officials made up after real world evidence demonstrated the vaccine did not grant or provide immunity. Which leads to my opinion that the trial claimed to demonstrate efficacy and the vaccine was approved based on the trial but real world use and data demonstrates immunity is not achieved, only "protection". So that indicates some deficiency in the trial set up, incorrect interpretation of the data, and an error by the FDA regarding approval, maybe some other mistakes or errors. Approval generally being the target intervention of the trial does what it says the trail objectives state ,which it clearly doesn't in real life use. In simple terms, the vaccine doesn't work as advertised so it should not have been approved based on the trial which was invalid based on real life experience and data where the actual level of immunity appears to be a fraction of the 95% efficacy against infection the trials claimed to have achieved. So somebody's lying here. The vaccine producers, the trial managers, the FDA, public health and medical community members. Take your pick.

If we learned anything this week, it's that the extreme left has been faking it and that yesterday's court decision has forced them to reveal they do really understand what a "women" is and they admit that men cannot get pregnant. Maybe next week we're see some intelligent debate and compromise in legislatures between the extreme positions of the "right" to abortion on demand at any time during a pregnancy without limitations or conditions paid by the taxpayers vs. a complete and total ban with no exceptions. I've got confidence that can be worked through and that 99% of American's agree a proper compromise and correct decision is someplace between those two extremes.

That's odd because what I found is French law allows abortions in the first 14 weeks and requires 2 doctors to certify the women's life is at risk or if the fetus has some fatal condition afterward. Which sounds quite restrictive relative to what it is/was here. Is that correct?

If you can get that mis-information czar lady to sing and record the lyrics to music you might have a Grammy winner here!

I'll donate a thousand bucks if Nancy demonstrates her conviction to the cause by sitting in the street in front of the Supreme Court, pours gasoline over herself, and then starts herself on fire.

I expect any sympathy and support Democrats might gain will literally go up in flames with what many expect to be violent protests and attacks on churches, pregnancy center, and other organizations and facilities. Like petulant children the left has shown no restraint if they don't get their way.

Fixed. Maybe a look in the mirror and reality check for some here?

Great response and ideas. I think there are places we agree and disagree. I don't see my view as being overly negative but rather skeptical. For one I want details and some answers to critical questions. I'll just leave it at that and write down a few ideas for thought. My read of the general consensus on the "Green" plan is we're going to unplug from the oil economy and plug into the renewable economy without missing a beat. A seamless and relatively pain free transition. I think that's a linear view of things but a review of human history reveals a more cyclical perspective on the advancement of human civilization. One step back, two steps forward if you will. My expectation is the transition period will be a time of great hardship and radical changes in lifestyle which people are not prepared to face. I drive down the street and see a sign on a neighbors lawn saying "Climate Action Now!" and I see a 4K sq ft home with 5 BR's, a 3 car garage with 5 vehicles in the driveway including 2 big gas guzzling SUV's plus a gas heated built-in pool and I ask myself if these people really have any comprehension of what they're asking for and are they prepared or willing to make any changes or sacrifices. I expect the transition will require some major changes in several things. Our living arrangements with the land and nature for one. Among other things, this means an end to 5 acre suburban 4K sq ft mega-homes on the fringes of wilderness and farm areas. It might mean commerce and business arrangements on a more localized scale. It means better use of land, for forests, for wildlife, for farming, and denser developments and maybe an end to the ex-urbs. Before the early 1950's and the introduction of the federal highway system and the automobile to the masses the suburbs really didn't exist. Another main theme is the replacement of the ICE vehicle fleet with an EV fleet. My thinking is we also need to consider options that will eliminate the need for all these cars. (see above). All this requires a lot of material inputs. Where is all of that coming from? All resources are finite and generally with the mining industry most of the cheap and easy stuff is out of the ground already. So costs are high, energy needs are high, grades are relatively low, and resources can be remote or in hostile areas or jurisdictions. Not the optimal scenario. It seems obvious the administration and environmentalists are going to block any big new domestic mining operations. Is somebody going to steamroll the movement and push it through? And then there's litigation and regulations. Are materials coming from China? The sole source of many rare earth metals. All signs point to a deteriorating relationship so I have my doubts. What about other countries? Lithium for example. There are sources in places where there is just as much resistance to mining as there is domestically. Where water is a scarce commodity. What if they don't want to ruin their local environment in order to provide Americans the pleasure of driving their EV's? Are we going to war with these countries? Force them to produce the metal by some other means? My final point is the build out of the new system isn't the only cost and challenge. There's maintenance and repair expenses and resources. All those batteries need periodic replacement. And solar and wind are weather dependent. How much back up and redundancy is needed? Where are the engineering plans and write ups containing anything like detailed specs and requirements? Right now all this stuff is at the idea level, there's no proof of concept or demonstration projects at scale to show it works, and the plan just lacks detail. If there was some national effort lead by researcher and electrical, civil, nuclear engineers and scientists from places like MIT in partnership with Federal research labs I'd feel much better about the prospects going forward. Without these details and a working prototype energy self-sufficient working community to prove out the idea I just see most of it as a dangerous fantasy.

Nixon was aware of the plans of his subordinates to break into the Democratic Committee office and they actually broke into the office. And were arrested. The focus of the investigation into his actions was more on the cover up of the truth rather than the pursuit of the truth itself. Sure Trump's no Constitutional or legal scholar but from the sound of it all Trump directed or asked officials to do specific things which they declined and refused to do citing ethical and legal objections to his requests. So they didn't break the law. The vote counts and the electoral results in the States were certified. So does it all boil down to is it a crime to ask somebody to break the law regardless of the fact they either refuse or don't commit the act? It sounds like the argument is the President asked me to do something I concluded was illegal and I said no. Was Trump stupid? Absolutely. But is it criminal ? That just seems weak to me given the world of politics today.

I've got nothing against the idea of trying to clean up the environment or anything in particular against renewable energy. But I do insist on reality. And physics and math, and an acknowledgement of the available resources and limitations of the physical world. My contention has always been the resources simply don't exist in the right place, at the right amount, at the right cost to produce the amount of renewable devices like solar panels to replace all the energy output produced by oil and gas at a cost that can be paid that allows civilization to progress. Its illogical to stake the exist of our civilization on the ability of them to produce the necessary energy output at cost and scale and reliably. It always a topic environmentalists and climate activists and renewable energy advocates avoid. Their argument is based on magical thinking. I think they know it. And given I believe most of them are very smart people it concerns me they're engaging in massive and collective deception which might lead to questioning their actual motives. If you look at the evolution of human development and civilization you'll find that over time new, more efficient and cheaper energy sources have replaced the previously dominant source of energy. This supported what is characterized as progress. Given better and more efficient sources and availability of energy even the poorest American lives a comparably better life than somebody living before the oil age. Renewables just don't meet that criteria when compared to oil and gas. They are both more costly and less efficient. Its a step in the wrong direction. So you either need to downsize civilization and energy use. Its a given we need to look for a replace for oil and gas as they're finite resources that are being depleted over time while the cheapest and easiest to produce sources are mostly used up. But solar and wind aren't the answer.

I think the real bottleneck is refining capacity. Which has been falling. I suspect some of it might be a grade issue where most gulf coast refineries are configured for heavier crude grades and what might be available is lighter which is not producing as much diesel for example. But I haven't dug into the details. Given the negativity towards the industry from the President and his administration campaigning with vows to eliminate and cripple the industry. pressuring banks and investment funds to starve the industry of capital, and on day one cancelling Keystone (which if left alone would be operational today), I'd like to hear a compelling argument that might convince a refiner to spend 3 or 4 billion dollars to add capacity in the face of the we're going to eliminate oil and gas mantra. My major problem with Biden's operating style here is that nothing seems to be thought out ahead of time and there's little concern or intelligence being utilized to consider consequences of actions and policies. Like everything is a surprise and the effect is to blame but never the cause. So let's put sanctions on Russian oil exports and sales and financial transactions but not think about how that might impact supply and prices. Stupid or don't care. Pick one, both are bad. The other thing is I don't think there's a single member of his cabinet or inner circle of advisors that have any clue or understanding of how the private sector and businesses work.

That's a lot of it. Another big part of it is they've been preparing to exist outside of the dollar based reserve currency and trade settlement system for several years. And so has China. That system is what provides the US special privileges not available to other nations. As both countries have aspirations for bigger roles on the world stage they know the path to this goal requires the establishment of a new reserve/trade settlement system and the destruction and elimination of the current system of advantages afforded the Americans. This, the financial war, is what its all about. Not some conquest of territory. Control the value of money, control everything! While I think Ukraine is clearly a US proxy military confrontation against Russia I also conclude the ongoing financial battle here is a proxy war of Russia fronting for China against the US.