The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Scott , who?

    By Flavius on Fri, 12/09/2016 - 9:45am |

    Trying to square a circle  I hope/believe  Ivanka is convinced of  global warming ,thinks it will seriously blight the lives of her children and intends to side track  Pruitt's intention  to block efforts to  ameliorate it. If he doesn't  cooperate, this time next year we may be asking "Scott, who?" .

    As the world's leading expert on the care and management of Donald Trump ,she intends to "rifle shoot" at this objective not diluting  her effectiveness by any other involvement in "ecological" concerns from cleaning the Passaic to  protecting endangered alligators.

    Probably agreeing with  Don Regan (Ronald's  chief of staff , until he tangled with Nancy-mistake-)  to win a dog sled race you need 8 strong huskies.

    And a couple of  puppies to throw to the wolves.

    Got a better theory?

     

    Comments

    Ivanka will not save the planet

    https://thinkprogress.org/ivanka-trump-climate-distraction-77277d9b8ee3#...

    ​Ivanka will shoveling innpay to play dollars flowing into the Trump Organization while daddy plays at being president. Trump is a climate change denier and chose a person with similar feelings to head the EPA..

    Edit to address: 

    There was all that outrage about the Clinton Foundation. The Trump Organization was taking in profits all during the campaign. We can't expect any of the Trumps to work on environmental issues.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/09/2016 - 12:31pm

    What's even stranger are supposed liberals still calling Hillary a crook, all because she might be influenced by something somewhere, even though she couldn't legally touch the charity money and had audits to provit. Not him. He's going global so fast, 1 month already and ever day's a disaster unfolding. Our team really screwed us this time.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/09/2016 - 1:04pm

    By many reports it seems Trump can be quite charming when meeting people one on one. I suspect it's because he has no ideology to defend and can lie fluently. I think he likes having people come before him and kow tow and can be gracious in those situations. But those meetings mean nothing. Immediately after Gore, Ivanka, and Trump had their pleasant conversation Trump nominated Pruitt to head the EPA. Pruitt is such an anti-environmentalist he makes James Watt look like a rabid greenie.

    Coal won't come back, it's no longer economically competitive with natural gas from fracking. That's a good thing for the planet. Not the best but good. The trend towards renewables won't end because it's beginning to be economically viable. But that slow move towards renewables isn't enough. What we really needed right now was a big push to drive it forward rapidly. That's what Hillary, Sanders, and other democrats were proposing. At the very least I think we can count on most coastal cities being flooded and eventually abandoned. I think that's inevitable now.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/09/2016 - 1:35pm

    On Terri Gross, Megan Kelly described   acquiescing  to urgings from within  Fox , requesting a meeting with Trump- during the campaign- and, as you say,  finding him  charming . It's easy to imagine and I do,  that was   simply a campaign tactic although it didn't  sound to me  as if Kelly herself felt that.

    Perhaps a better data point:  a  by no means wealthy relative-  on all other issues  conventionally left

    wing -has  business reasons to occasionally deal with  him and equally  finds him just normal.

    Of course his election was a disaster . And it's reasonable to fear the worst. But for the time being  it's simply factual   to acknowledge  we don't yet fully know  the guy .Certainly not enough  confidently to predict his positions on every issue. Most particularly when his children are involved. Maybe most  particularly Ivanka.

    Whatever their expectations the Democratic party heavies should make the working assumption she's possibly   a "friend at court" on global warming. If you don't ask, you don't get.  

    And of course they should certainly debrief Gore as they are no doubt doing.


    by Flavius on Fri, 12/09/2016 - 10:43pm

    Of course Gore should have gone and talked to the Trumps. The opportunity presented itself and he took advantage to make his case.

    You know, if someone gave me a free lottery ticket I'd take the time to check the numbers. But I wouldn't get excited about it and I wouldn't have any hope I'd win. That's how I feel about the Gore Trump meeting and Ivanka Trump.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/09/2016 - 11:13pm

    'We don't let fully know the guy'...?

    I won't list the bad, tell us the virtuous qualities of Donald.

    You can skip the ice rink he fixed in Central Park 40 years ago because, as he said at the time, the incomplete construction work spoiled his view.


    by NCD on Sat, 12/10/2016 - 12:30am

    We do know that Trump is a pathological liar. We know that he will tweet people who disagree with him. We don't know what he will do in any given situation because he often contradicts himself while stating his position. We know plenty about Donald Trump.Trump said that Obama and Hillary were in the pocket of Goldman Sachs and that the DC swamp needed to be cleaned. He is cleaning the swamp by having two Goldman Sachs guys in his Cabinet and a former Goldman Sachs guy as his senior advisor. Only the gullible are willing to go along on this ride.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 12/10/2016 - 12:32am

    Maybe we do know all there is to know about him.

    But we don't yet know for sure whether or not we do know all there is to know about him.Certainly I wouldn't put my hand on a bible and say that I know everything  that is to known about the  guy. Maybe,  that'll come in time but so far we know a lot,but don't know whether we know all.


    by Flavius on Sat, 12/10/2016 - 12:40am

    Huh? I don't want to fuck him - I just want him to fuck off. That doesn't require uncommon knowledge or hagiography, simple familiarity will do.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/10/2016 - 5:04am

    Given the limited resources that many activist groups have, would you instruct them to prepare to prepare to use their funds to fight legal battles when The Trump administration supports destroying civil rights or the environment, or would you spend funds trying to curry favor with Trump? What information do you have from Trump's past that suggests that he is capable of responding to what you propose in a positive fashion? What evidence from the past do you have that a Ivanka is responsive when it comes to social issues? Given limited resources where would you as leader of an activist organization place your funds?

    Edit to add:

    What we have seen from Trump is that he attacked a union leader via twitter. Trump supporters joined in the fray by issuing death threats. How much of your needs funds do you want to divert to outreach tomTrump now?


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 12/10/2016 - 9:26am

    To answer speciifically. I'd rifle shoot at Global Warming . I'd make the assumption this is the last opportunity to  prevent  the earth from becoming  unlivable. So ,  however much a long shot we have to play our best cards.

    I don't know what they might be.I don't think spending money would be effective so there's no point in debating the pro's and con's of that.If I had reason to believe that spending money would be effective  

      I take him at his word that he's a deal maker so I'd try to offer him  the deal that would get him to shift,

    I know nothing about Ivanka but  I think is a normal mother with a normal mother's desire  not to sentence her children to life on an unlivable planet. And think she very likely knows what deal would cause him to support the Paris agreement.

     If the trade off is support of his stupid fence ,I'd offer to support his stupid fence.


    by Flavius on Sat, 12/10/2016 - 11:55pm

    This is a pragmatism I can believe in. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 12:27am

    Would you give him Session at DOJ and nationalized Stop and Frisk

    Would you give him his deportation plan?

    Would you give him registration of Muslims?

    Would you concede to abortion restrictions?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 1:14am

    I am amazed that people expect compromise from the GOP. Before Trump was a twinkle in the GOP's eye, they vowed to make Obama a one term President. They promised to keep Hillary in front of Congressional committees if she had been elected. Democrats wanted to improve healthcare benefits for coal miners in the recent discussions on the budget, The Republicans blocked improved healthcare. In the face of all this evidence, some are arguing that the Republicans will operate in a bipartisan manner. Good luck with that.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 9:47am

    In answer to both the above, and in line  with my reply to Peter elsewhere, my rule is "Do nothing even if it's wrong".

    We're chatting  casually about quite possibly  the end of life on the planet . Or at best an ultimate stage of a diminished life for the survivors and death for billions of people en route to that.

    What should  we agree to do as a deal to ameliorate that?

    Logic would suggest my  answer should be "anything".  It isn't. There was a grandiose expression "Death before dishonor". I agree.

    Would I agree to let what I'll call "the forces of evil" execute a victim in exchange for relenting on Global Warming .(Reminds me of Shirley Jackson's "The  Lottery" ). No. If the price for continued existence is behaving in such a manner we don't deserve to exist . No deal.

    I would  agree to put up the damn fence. To agree to stop all immigration. Or selectively to stop immigration of  particular races. Those are practices which could be reversed.

    I'd agree not to oppose Sessions.He won't be the first or the last bigot in that position.

    I wouldn't agree with restrictions on abortion that's the  sole right/responsibility/ choice of the woman concerned.

    I'd agree  to let the loud mouth run unopposed in 2020.

    Is it likely he'd refuse to deal. Sure. That would leave us, and the world, in the same position we're already in. and stay in, if we pre-emptively  give up. 

     

     

     

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 1:57pm

    Thanks for having my back with Sessions. Regarding the environment, you may not be paying attention to the characters Trump is putting in his Cabinet.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 2:28pm

    You are willing to do a contortion act for Trump that would be considered capitulation if you did it for Hillary.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 2:40pm

    Trump doesn't "believe" climate change is real. Trump will try to destroy the environment. To successfully fight devastation we need a United front where no group is thrown under the bus.

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralf-michaels/climate-change-denial-and_b_...


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 5:52pm

    I understand the United Front argument and agree with it up to a point. The Left like the Right will always include a  fringe wing which  brings it discredit.

    Sort of like the anecdote about Wellington's supposed comment reviewing his forces on the eve of Waterloo: "I don' t know whether they will frighten Bony but by God they terrify me. "


    by Flavius on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 12:32am

    What is fringe about opposing Sessions and ushering in a DOJ that will ignore police abuse? The division of civil rights will be gutted. Voting machines in Detroit did not function and could have swayed the election,Sessions will not investigate the case fully.

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/12/10/what-if-michig...


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 7:11am

    Nothing what so ever is  wrong  or"fringe" about objecting to any of those. We should.

    What's  wrong, or at least dumb, is to  ally with objectors who  weaken our case.

    For example in 2004 thousands of us , tromped up Madison to protest W's  coming Iraq War.    The police, shivering ,channeled us to one  side of the pavement. Naturally we cooperated.  The point of the demonstration  obviously was to show  there were lots  who were on our side ; not  to maximize the inconvenience  of those who weren't .

    Many quietly  thanked  the cops and sympathized with their  being stuck out there. Some of whom  thanked us back   saying "It's my job". Or in a few cases : "If I weren't on duty, I'd be doing the same thing.". 

    An enthusiastic young man started shouting " let's take over the whole street."  Spontaneously the shuffling crowd said  "shush"  ,the universal polite direction to be quiet. 

    He was fringe.

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 8:33am

    That is a dodge. You originally shoved opposing Sessions under the bus. You said having a bigot at DOJ was no big deal. You wanted full attention paid to your issue. The problem is that change often requires votes. If Sessions is part and parcel of organized voter suppression, you will have fewer allies at the state and local level to oppose legislation damaging the environment. Van Jones, among others, has been in the forefront of these issues. Opposing Sessions is not fringe. You dismissed the concept.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 8:41am

    We have a president-elect who is a con man and a racist. John Bolton, a possible nominee for a slot at the State Dept, alleges that Obama hacked the DNC. Trump is appointing lunatics.Trump wants to destroy a multitude of Progressive programs, and your first instinct is to attack the Left. You need the people you are attacking because you need their support. Trump does not care about your concern for the environment. Ivanka doesn't care about the environment. You are ready to attack the Left in the belief that you will present a more acceptable picture to Trump. Trump does not deal in reality. You mean crap to him. If you criticize Beyoncé or Black Lives Matter, you will still be crap to him. He made his appointment to EPA because he does not think climate change is real. Wake up.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 10:04am

    .All the issues you raise are serious. I don't categorize any  as fringe . Although In  some cases  their proponents are,

    But when  Trump want's Schumer's  help on some issue or appointment, Chuck should  not settle for a little bit here, a little bit there. His object  should be a complete win on Global Warming

     

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 5:01pm

    Flavius, Martin Luther King Jr. was considered fringe. He was labeled a Communist. He had a black, homosexual adviser. W.E.B. DuBois was fringe. Leaders of the women's suffrage movement and Women's Liberation were considered fringe. We are battling reactionaries. Trump sees no difference between the NAACP, the Urban League, or Black Lives Matter. If you fall for the reactionaries' ploy of la belting something fringe, you are falling for the diversion. The focus is on the issue, not the reactionary attempt at diversion. Martin Luther King was fringe and in the streets. In order to get your environmental issues addressed, you may need the fringe picketing sites of pollution. How can you look at a fringe movement like the Indian tribes in the Dakotas and not be proud. Those Brave souls and the military people who joined them are proudly fringe and they are heroes. The fringe is where the true change begins. How can you be missing current events? Your proposed capitulation to Trump is doomed to failure. They brave souls in the Dakotas did not bend over, they fought.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 5:34pm

    You make the mistake of believing that the Paris agreement has much if anything to do with stopping or even slowing GW. If you watched the news about the meetings you saw the Technocrats selling their Big Green industrial revolution which would produce huge new emissions and destruction promising some reductions in CO2 sometime in the future.

    Obama's Clean Power Plan, his contribution to the NWO, depends on fracked natural gas to replace coal along with some Chinese solar and a little efficency. The conversion to natgas has been underway for years but this plan is trying to force the speed of conversion which will make it very expensive for consumers and the SCOTUS has blocked its implimentation on constitutional grounds. Natgas may procuce much less CO2 and other pollutants when burned but leakage from its pipeling infrastructure appears to be huge and it may actually be adding to overall greenhouse gas emissions not reducing them.

    The only viable way to even slow GW is a large reduction in consumption which no one in power whether in the US or China will address because it would be political suscide. The end of growth which is already upon us may offer some hope.

     


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 12:57pm

    So life on this planet is doomed.  Unless you're wronging. Or unless we start doing something that you think is ineffective  and then either you're wrong or we realize you were right and  we go to plan B whatever that is.

    In OCS the mantra was "Do something even if it's wrong". Based on WW2 experience that even if you start by doing the wrong thing there's a chance to adjust; if you're frozen in inactivity you lose.

    I was convinced.

     

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 1:16pm

    That's simply not true. You haven't kept up with the advancement in renewables, the downward shift in costs and the increased capacity. It's doable now to replace hydrocarbons with renewables but it will take big push and a major investment to do it rapidly. The plans that exist today to make the shift are based on a 100% conversion to renewables which isn't necessary. Some small use of hydrocarbons wouldn't be harmful if the majority was renewables. They also don't include the most recent advances in battery technology nor do they include any estimates on future advances in renewable technology.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 1:51pm

    You are confusing financial costs with environmental costs in producing this mega industrial conversion. The competitive costs of solar production is why it is being expanded and most of it does well during the day, not so well at night. Most people who are uninitiated to the wizardry of how things are made see only the glowing solar panel installations and conveniently ignore the trail of pollution from the mine to the mill to the smelter and on to the sweatshops in China. If this conversion takes place all of these mega tons of CO2 produced to build these things will be added to the atmosphere before they produce any clean energy if they actually can pay down this debt that will stay in the atmosphere.

    There is no viable replacement for gasoline and  biodiesel is an ecological nightmare.  The affordable 500 mile battery necessary for the real introduction of the electric fleet is only promised but never produced so unless you are going to buy everyone a $50,000 Tesla EC's are not a solution yet and they may never be.

     


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 3:06pm

    Again you're wrong. Have you looked at any of the analysis of the CO2 costs of solar panel manufacturing? It's true that China has the highest carbon costs of most countries due to it's reliance on coal for power generation. France is on the low end with it's large use of nuclear power. A lot also depends on where the panel is installed. It takes longer to generate enough electricity to pay back carbon costs in more northern areas. It can be as little as one year in Arizona. I've seen no figures but I suspect less as one moves even closer to the equator. Even in northern UK the pay back cost is at most 6 years which leaves more than 20 years of carbon free generation over the life span of a panel. 2 to 3 years is generally considered the average.   With advances in thin wafer solar panels the pay back time might be less.

    It's possible that we'll never have a 500 mile battery that is affordable for the average person. Most people only travel over 500 miles a couple of times a year when they go on vacation and even then only when the vacation spot is relatively near. So I don't see that as a major impediment. Perhaps we need to find cheaper less polluting means for long distance travel, like high speed electric rail.

    No one is saying the transition will be easy or without costs and life style changes. But your data is mostly incorrect and exaggerates those costs.

    eta: Yes, solar doesn't work at night but wind turbines tend to produce more at night so the two work well together. Natural gas power plants could fill in the gaps. If most of the generation was from renewables that wouldn't be a problem. When we add things like geothermal and hydro the diversity increases the variety of solutions. I read a paper some years ago that claimed that putting a turbine on every pre-existing dam of 20 foot or more head could generate 60% of America's current electric capacity. But power companies were reluctant to invest in thousands of small generating facilities. Solutions abound if we're willing to work to make it happen.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 5:56pm

    I looked at some of the so called analysis of this issue and saw some pure propaganda masquerading as science, one pop-science site skipped looking at China completely while another looked like a real study but drew conclusions without investigating NF3 or SF6 emissions from solar cell production.

    A translation of a German analyst's real investigation was informative and the numbers he produced from available data were worse than i ever imagined. NF3 is 16900 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2. SF3 is 23900 as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2 and both are used and emitted in solar cell production. Already every year 70 million tons of co2= of these extremely powerful greenhouse gases is emitted from solar cell production.

    Adding this to the other CO2 emitted from the production and transportation of solar cells produced these comparative numbers and this is based on the 25 year lifetime of solar cells.

    Each KWH produced by solar produces or already produced  998 grams of CO2=

    Each KWH produced by a modern high quality coal plant produces 846 grams of CO2.

    Each KWH produced by a gas fired power plant produces 400 grams of CO2.

    This is one of the problems with modern high tech manufacturing, we might be able to clean up some of these problems but the Chinese and other producers, especially if they are pushed into exponential production growth, will not.

     


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 7:20pm

    Yeah whatever, I call bullshit. You never produce a single link to verify any of the information you post here. Until you do that you might as well be telling me there's a pizza place that's a front for a Clinton child sex ring.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 8:06pm

    I didn't expect you could digest 'whatever' when you find the post-truth hyperbole and propaganda so much more palatable, you'd love the report that claimed a 90% CO2 reduction from solar. I don't know for sure if the numbers i transcribed are accurate but this was the only source that even attempted to produce actual data to ponder.

    I'll continue to support a dispersed solar conversion with local production and strict emissions standards but that isn't what Big Green is selling or the government promoting.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 9:46pm

    What source peter? I didn't see any source. I read pretty thoroughly from multiple sources, I'm skeptical of both the right and the left. You really can't insult me because I know how often I've had heated debates with my absolutist environmentalist friends about organic vs chemical fertilizers and GMO's. I have a more nuanced view and try to follow the science. I've never seen anything like the numbers you claim. So yeah, I call bullshit until I see a link. Once I see your source I'll consider it.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 11:45pm

    Sure, Peter, billion dollar energy sector in flux but all English scientists and researchers are lying, "propaganda", only 1 noble German chap willing to tell the truth, that solar's footprint is greater than coal's.

    So tell me how much energy is required to mine a ton of coal and transport it to that efficient plant? How much of the produced energy is lost in production or in the miles of transmission/distribution cables carrying the energy to where it's used, vs solar's being used where produced (and of course it comes from the sun anyway).

    Combining solar cell transportation with these other figures tells us you're lying - the transportation costs of solar cells amortized over their lifetime is so low to be sub-negligible.

    Here's a link I found in 2.7 microseconds that gives NREL's test numbers, notes that NF3 & SF6 are  not spewed in the air so can be mitigated, while 86% of SF6 is from conduction, only 7% from solar cells - where are your similar stats from miles of trans/distro conduction vs a few feet for PV from a rooftop? Sorry it's not in German - must be rigged.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 12:43am

    "Most people who are uninitiated to the wizardry of how things are made" - didn't you wake up in a most pretentious mood this morning.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/11/2016 - 5:50pm

    We are posing the question about Ivanka as if we are in a normal situation. The Trump's are not normal. Donald is a climate change denier. He will nominate a foe of the EPA to head the EPA.  there is a memo circulating that suggests Trump wants to track down and punish people at the Department of Energy who supported Obama's climate change policies. That does not bode well. I have seen nothing that indicates that Ivanka has ever engaged in a positive way in any activist movement that did not directly benefit her. I expect that her future interest in climate change will be a repeat of her past.

    No matter who Hillary would have selected for the EPA, her critics would have said the nominee was not radical enough. Yet here we are trying to normalize what Trump is about to do. Trump will destroy the environment. We should prepare for the worst.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/09/2016 - 7:51pm

    Absolutely spot on.

    Ivanka only wants to protect her brand and make money. This is a family of grasping sociopaths.


    by NCD on Sat, 12/10/2016 - 12:33am

    From Wikipedia

    Social and political causes

    Trump at Seeds of Peace 2009

    Trump has said of her political views, "Like many of my fellow millennials, I do not consider myself categorically Republican or Democrat."[38] In 2007, Trump donated $1,000 to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.[39] In 2012, Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president.[40] In 2013, Trump and her husband hosted a fundraiser for Cory Booker. The couple bundled more than $40,000 for Booker's U.S. Senatecampaign.[41]

    Trump says she is an advocate for women and Israel.[42]

       end of quote

    ..................................................................................................................................

    And also enjoys reading Ayn Rand !

    Sure Ivanka is a weak reed to put it mildly. But  in the kingdom of the blind etc. etc.

       

     

     


    by Flavius on Sat, 12/10/2016 - 9:30am

    Comment to Flavius reposted from above secondary to column width restriction:

    Flavius, Martin Luther King Jr. was considered fringe. He was labeled a Communist. He had a black, homosexual adviser. W.E.B. DuBois was fringe. Leaders of the women's suffrage movement and Women's Liberation were considered fringe. They all wore the badge of being fringe proudly. We are battling reactionaries. Trump sees no difference between the NAACP, the Urban League, or Black Lives Matter. If you fall for the reactionaries' ploy of la belting something fringe, you are chasing the diversion. The focus is on the issue, not the reactionary attempt at diversion. Martin Luther King was fringe and in the streets. He got results. In order to get your environmental issues addressed, you will need the fringe picketing sites of pollution. How can you look at a fringe movement like the Indian tribes in the Dakotas and not be proud? Those Brave souls and the military people who joined them are proudly fringe and they are heroes. The fringe is where the true change begins. How can you be missing current events? Your proposed capitulation to Trump is doomed to failure. They brave souls in the Dakotas did not bend over, they fought. The Tribes got results. The Tribes were the fringe. Take note and stop attacking the Left attack your enemy. As of January 20, 2017, it will be Donald Trump, not the fringe. Focus.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 5:39pm

    Noted but I think I'll now move on. 

    Fl


    by Flavius on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 10:01pm