To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, a pretty smart guy by all accounts: Rebellion to that socialist Obama is obedience to God. Obama needed a hobbling and has received it. Now we need to move from hobbling to hogtying, and thence to the extinction of Socialism as a worldview and a school of economic thought.

Otherwise the Republic perishes and the Oligarchy takes over. True, the Republic is going to be harder to kill than the Oligarchy might hope, and in this lies the hope for thee and me. I have never been especially worried that Obama would succeed in his Sixties-model pro-socialist demolition of the Republic, and this midterm election bears me out. The repairs are not yet complete, however.

The people who actually inhabit the center-right, and who did some reading and listening, will not tell you Obama did any such thing. And you've seen just how much "compromis[ing] from there" actually went on.

Cap and trade was a center-right idea (GHW Bush plan. Don't ban pollution, make a market for it). The health care plan was a center right idea (Bob Dole's plan. No public option, let alone single-payer, some decent tweaks but mostly still hoping that the market will sort things out). He continued the wars. He continued Guantanimo.

On the left, maybe the consumer financial protection agency?

I saw how much compromising there was, and it was far too much, considering how little he got in return.

Bull shit. Cap and trade is a product of the Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange.... guess who is in on that scheme?

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

For carbon, sure. But it was based on the successful acid rain program from 1990.

Who will gain financially if Cap and Trade goes through?

Any industry that can reduce their carbon output, or help others to do so. They're all big industries, but solar and wind are more associated with "left" and nuclear is more associated with "right".

Ever since the 3-Mile Island accident my wife and I have been opposed to nuclear power. But now we are beginning to argue about it again. She is still opposed, and I have started to feel pragmatically that it may be necessary, as wind and solar each have such a long way to go to meet the nation's needs.

BUT, it is amazing to me how during the previous administration the nuclear industry started gearing up again quietly and without any public discussion. It's as if there is no institutional memory of what it was like during the 3-Mile and Chenoble incidents, and no assurances that anything different will be done in building the new reactors over what was done before. Again, just one disasterous event will probably be enough to kill the industry.

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/if-al-g...-make-a-sound/

http://www.examiner.com/orange-count...-to-fleece-usa

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...abs%3Dcomments

So many forget why those (and other less documented accidents and near accidents in the UK, Canada, outside of Detroit, Davis Bessie near Toledo, Brown's Ferry, etc) accidents occurred. In every case, management failures.

In Three Mile Island, management was so negligent that Three Mile Island 1 could not restart until all Met Ed management resigned. When the last of the problems did resign - and he kept refusing to - then Three Mile Island 1 restarted two days later.

Three Mile Island 2 is a perfect example of why failures happen. Management refused to replace a leaking valve that keeps coolant inside. All in the name of cost controls. Three Mile Island failed literally days after a restart. After a refurbishment that should have replaced that defective valve. Management (no different than GM's) was so business school brainwashed as to refuse to replace that valve. Everyone here should know that story. Because everyone should know why failures happen.

Are you listening to the Government inquiry into Deepwater Horizon? Engineering plans were changed ad hoc. The term 'unbalanced' should be a glaring fact in anyone who discusses that disaster. In every case, a classic management fubar. Fundamental violations of what William Edward Deming taught even 50 years ago.

There are no accidents. These are human safety failures only possible when management is not doing its job.

Today's reactor designs are even more human resilient. So how to make anything resilient when a worker decides to put a lit candle under electric control wires to find an air leak?

It is called education. And it is why America's more productive industries need so many immigrants from India and China. The problem is not that technology. Problem is so many Americans educated, for example, wastefully as communication and business majors. Who cannot even do a quadratic equation. And then get angry when their MBA school professor asks them to solve one.

So, do you know who created the NE American (2003) blackout? From Indiana, Michigan, Ontario, to NYC? If you do not, then you are also the reasons for 'accidents'. Because anyone informed from any newspaper (or equivalent) should have known that well understood fact. Most do not. It should be obvious. But most would rather call it an accident rather that learn the reason why accidents exist. Nuclear reactors are not dangerous. Business school types - uneducated managers - are the #1 reason for disasters.

They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch Challenger. So they ignored every engineer. Launched anyway. Why? Because so many Americans would call it an accident rather than blame the only reason for that disaster. So many Americans said it is always good to have incompetent management. Since we do not hold the problem criminally negligent, then more *accidents* must happen.

you coulda saved a lot of space and just said 85%...

TW, I agree with most everything you have said... except I called them "incidents", not "accidents", for a reason.

I just watched a CSPAN Hearing of the National Traffic Safety Board which was focusing on drivers in my age-group (elderly).
The "experts" testified about how cars are going in the direction of measuring the driver's situation (sleep, distracted, night-glare) etc.
and either giving the driver a warning or actually taking charge.

They also described how each age group responds to technical innovations.
Older folk have more trouble learning and understanding new gadgets, but once self-trained they then tend to use them.
Young folk seem to accept new gadgets immediately and rely on them completely.

One example given was the gismo that detects a child or bike or car when the car is in reverse.
Elders tend to look back and use mirrors, but young folk will just back up until the alarm goes off !

If this is even close to being true, then the new nuclear plant control rooms are going to have to be a lot like HAL in the movie, 2001
... able to fend off the MBA's working the night shift.
Unfortunately, the BP-type supervising engineers haven't given me a whole lot of confidence.

Interesting is the word 'incident'. It implies a professional spokesperson underplaying the disaster. But then I cannot think of a better word to describe it.

Most interesting was an incident in 2004 when we reelected George Jr.

Oh, I liked doing that. The Dems are daily proving tw's 85-percent notion...

Which tells me I was right to do that! Anti-Republicans can just all join the List Of People Who Can Suck It until mud comes up.

Is it rude to keep the winner's bumper sticker on your car after the election ?

... or just delicious !