You know. That's what I'm talking about.
Things are so one sided. And VERY hypocritical.

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:
 

Its envy.

 R_P wrote:
 
Your avatar is looking a little orangey. 

Bring back the dotard!

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:

Exactly.  We can laugh at our side - while turning an original low-brow insult from the left into something we mockingly shove back in their faces, repeatedly.



 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:

It's indeed a tough job.  And it's certainly not the job for a barely walking, stair-tripping,  elderly dementia patient - or even a distant-ran VP candidate who barely mustered 2% support before dropping out. 

A second term for Trump would have been tremendous.  Consider the first term a break-in period.  :)

I just love that line... "You suck! Bring back Orange Man with hot wife!" 

I really do feel sorry for Joe.
Why would anybody want that job?

 sirdroseph wrote:
 I agree. Just like everything else (including politics)... there needs to be a balance.
I'm with you on the nuclear.
An article in our local paper today...

Finding compatibility for condors and wind energy


CalMatters Commentary

Jane Braxton Little Guest columnist...

The young California condor stood patiently in a makeshift field
laboratory, tolerating the team of biologists taking a blood sample to
test for lead poisoning. I could feel the bird’s composure through the
feathers of his blackish folded wings as I hunched behind him, providing
an extra set of hands. The next morning he was back in the air,
sketching circles across the Southern California sky in one of nature’s
most majestic spectacles.

This juvenile joined just 75 other condors flying wild over the
mountains of western North America in 2002. Today there are more than
340. Reduced to 22 birds in the 1980s,

Gymnogyps californianu s has become the poster child of the Endangered Species Act . Using VHF transmitters, GPS wing patches and $5 million a year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has

revived the species
from near extinction. California condor chicks have been born in the
wilds of California, Arizona, Utah and Baja California, Mexico.

Ironically, these birds are poised to become victims of their own success.

While their population was recovering – first entirely in captivity,
then with tentative releases at sites where they were closely monitored –
their traditional territory in the Mojave Desert was overtaken by wind
turbines. Once the exclusive domain of condors, golden eagles and other
raptors, today the air east of the Tehachapi Mountains is whirling with
blades half the length of a football field on about 5,000 wind turbines.

The Fish and Wildlife Service was approving wind farms in the Mojave even as it was releasing condors into the wild.

The turbines are part of a surge in alternative energy development that
has nearly quadrupled in the last decade, producing more than half of
California’s wind energy. Encouraged by a state committed to reducing
carbon emissions to zero by 2045, California’s wind farms have been
embraced by conservationists for shifting energy sources from fossil
fuels to renewables.


For condors just reclaiming their roosts in the mountains west of the
Mojave, wind generation is a mixed blessing. They benefit from anything
that reduces the effects of climate change, one of the greatest overall
threats facing wildlife. But those spinning blades are killers. They
have slaughtered numerous golden eagles and hawks, and pulverized
countless migratory songbirds. Scientists and wind industry
representatives say it is simply a matter of time until a turbine claims
one of the 518 condors on the planet.

Avangrid Renewables
officials are acutely aware of the danger – and the liability. Condors
are protected under federal law; killing one could result in fines up to
$250,000.

At the Manzana Wind Power Project
, company biologists have spotted North America’s largest flying land
birds on the Tehachapi ridgeline a mile and a half away. To detect and
minimize conflict between wildlife and wind generation, they have
installed artificial intelligence devices . In 2018 they erected a geofence , which tracks GPS-tagged condors entering the wind farm area and shuts down the turbines.

Now Avangrid is proposing a first-of-its-kind measure to mitigate condor collisions. In a draft conservation plan
pending Fish and Wildlife Service approval, it predicts that up to two
adult condors will die by a fatal injury and each of their two chicks or
two eggs will be lost accidentally over the next three decades.
Anticipating that tragedy – and the potential fines – Avangrid will
protect condors for the next 30 years by providing $527,000 to produce
six condor chicks and raise them at the Oregon Zoo until they are
released into the wild, according to the plan.

The Avangrid proposal puts the condor-wind energy tradeoff in stark
perspective. Boiled down to its unsavory essence, it is a plan to raise
new birds to allow killing others. It inadvertently establishes a value
for condors at $87,833 per. That’s about $4,391 a pound.

This is the paradox of the condor: The successful recovery of the
species may sanction the sacrifice of several individual birds.

Most conservationists agree we have to find a way to make wind energy
and condor recovery compatible to stave off catastrophic climate change.
And they reluctantly concede that the Avangrid proposal is the best
alternative. But why stop at six? Why not breed 30? And why not impose
the same requirement on every wind farm operating anywhere in
traditional condor country?

The collision of condors and wind energy may be the most wrenching but
it is one of an increasing number of compromises made to accommodate
expanding conservation goals on a finite landscape. Painful as it is to
put up condors for sacrifice, the Avangrid plan is an acknowledgment of
two conservation successes: increasing renewable energy and recovering
the iconic condor.

The
juvenile bird I encountered 20 years ago has long since traded his black
bill and grey-black head for the ivory bill and shocking pink head of
an adult. His wings have stretched to their full 91/2-foot span. He may
have reared six chicks of his own, and they, too, may be breeding by
now. The resilience of this species, its endurance and sheer grandeur in
the air, offer lessons as we learn to live with conservation trade-offs
of our own creation. May we learn them well – and quickly.


Jane Braxton Little, based in the northern Sierra Nevada, is an
independent journalist covering science and natural resource issues for
publications that include the Atlantic, Audubon, Discover, National

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
And the messed up thing is those environmentalist are spot on, the damage to the environment is so extensive with renewable technologies especially when you throw in the lithium mining that the cost benefit analysis as opposed to climate concerns from fossil fuel emissions is really a no win proposition either way, but in the end it will take a mix of both to ween us to the eventual conclusion that nuclear is the only way to go in the long run.

 KarmaKarma wrote:
 

Classic..... If it wasn't so sad it would be even funnier.

I see a kind of abuse going on here, to be quite frank.

 KarmaKarma wrote: 
And coal miners ...

And that is just funnier than all get out    

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:
 

You could always learn to code!    Though you may have trouble finding room - as most classes will already filled with pipeline & auto assembly workers.

 kcar wrote:
 
I'm saving my checks to pay my increase in taxes.
And when the work quits because of the job killing policies of this administration.
Oh wait. I can get retrained to work in the Green New Deal.
Oh wait. The environmentalist here in California don't want to build this new tech because it's harmful for the environment.

 kurtster wrote:
 

 Looks like you lost the plot—again.


You effectively posted that Biden's cancellation of the XL pipeline was causing a rise in gas prices. I rebutted that claim by posting the NYT article that blamed the rising prices on declines in domestic and international oil prodction. XL had nothing to do with it.

BTW: saw your post about Biden's goal of imposing serfdom via government checks and handouts. Had a real good laugh about that.

Did you refuse to cash those checks, oh great freedom fighter? Did you decline the free vaccination shots? Are you refusing government regulated healthcare?

Ron Reagan gave a famous speech about the end of freedom coming in the form of government-run healthcare and that new program called...Medicare.

You'd never take part in that, would you Kurt?!? 

No, I am not whipping you towards my opinion. Smoke less dope you Wild Thing.

 kurtster wrote irrelevant stuff:
 
PS: that includes the orange Assassinator-in-chief.

“There are a lot of killers,” Trump replied. “Do you think our country is so innocent?”

 kcar wrote: 
You don't have to wait until summer ...

According to GasBuddy.com the average gas price in the San Francisco zip code of 94103 is $4.036 per gallon as of this moment ...

Try again ...

 R_P wrote: 
Wondering how long it would take before you started in on Biden ...  IIRC, I already brought this question up to you directly.

Predictably, you have not disappointed me.  You just cannot resist dissing the USA, period.

IIRC, Biden was vehemently against taking out Bin Laden ...

.
Biden’s Bad Foreign-Policy Ideas

Joe Biden has been wrong a lot on foreign and defense policy. A lot. This year’s presumptive Democratic presidential nominee voted against the 1991 Gulf War, in which the United States and a broad multinational coalition quickly achieved their goals, and in favor of the 2003 Iraq War, and regretted both votes. Years into hostilities, he opposed the troop surges that brought some stability to both Iraq and Afghanistan and even insisted that “the Taliban per se is not our enemy.” He argued for carving Iraq into sectarian statelets even as Iraqis voted for cross-sectarian political lists. And he opposed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. These stances suggest not only that he lacks a philosophy of how to use military force effectively, but also that his instincts on when to use it are often faulty.

Perhaps for that reason, Biden was seldom a major force in American foreign and defense policy during more than three decades in the Senate—even though he served as the chairman of its Foreign Relations Committee. But he has shown an embarrassing tendency to embellish his contributions, such as claiming he was responsible for ending genocide in Bosnia.

Robert Gates, who served as the secretary of defense under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, wrote in his 2014 memoir that Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Last year, Gates reiterated his concerns. “I think that the vice president had some issues with the military,” he declared on CBS’s Face the Nation.

Gates Stands By Statement That Biden Has Been Wrong On Nearly Every Major Foreign Policy Question

Robert Gates, who served as defense secretary for the Obama administration, paused for a moment and said "I don't know" in an interview Sunday when asked if he thinks former VP Joe Biden would be a good president.

CBS's "Face The Nation" host Margaret Brennan asked Gates if he stood by a statement from his memoir that Biden has "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."

"I think I stand by that statement," Gates said.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I was rereading your memoir before we sat down to talk and you said in your memoir, Joe Biden is impossible not to like.

Quote: "He's a man of integrity, incapable of hiding what he really thinks, and one of those rare people you know you could turn to for help in a personal crisis. Still, I think he's been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."

Would he be an effective commander-in-chief?

ROBERT GATES: I— I don't know. I don't know. I— I think I stand by that statement. He and I agreed on some key issues in the Obama administration. We disagreed significantly on Afghanistan and some other issues. I think that the vice president had some issues with the military. So how he would get along with the senior military, and what that relationship would be, I just— I think, it— it would depend on the personalities at the time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: He's a peer of yours. Does that mean you're older?

ROBERT GATES: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You think he's right for this moment?

ROBERT GATES: I think I'm pretty busy and pretty active but I think— I think having a President who is somebody our age or older, in the case of Senator Sanders, is- I think it's problematic. I think that you don't have the kind of energy that I think is required to be President. I think— I'm not sure you have the intellectual acuity that you might have had in your sixties. So, I mean it's just a personal view. For me, the thought of taking on those responsibilities at this point in my life would be pretty daunting.

Back to you ...

 Isabeau wrote: 
People who live in glass houses better be careful ...

ME

YOU

Who's the last U.S. President that wasn't a killer?


"Biden spoke out about the Russian president in an ABC News interview this week."

Glass houses. Stones.

 miamizsun wrote:
 

Sure, but there is no doubt that regardless of who is in the seat at our house, he is not our friend. This little outburst just shows that he paid attention to what causes divisiveness around here.