I can't make sense of the reporting on the blackout in Texas. What's the problem, exactly? Frozen wind turbines? Frozen equipment for burning natural gas? A frozen nuclear power plant? All of the above? Why would a cold snap take down any of these facilities?
Cold and snow are commonplace in northern latitudes, but the power doesn’t go out every time the temperature drops. I’ve read that “gas can’t make it through the pipes,” but why? Nearly half of Europe is heated by gas from Russia. The gas makes it through the pipes fine.
Were these facilities built to hugely different specifications in the belief that it would never get cold in Texas? Why would all three power sources—wind, natural gas, and nuclear—be unable to withstand cold weather? (If indeed all three are implicated?)
Why wouldn't they just use the standard industry design for facilities like these? And why is the reporting so confused--this shouldn't be hard to figure out, should it?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Has anyone come across an essay that explains to their satisfaction not *that* China is detaining its Uighurs population in camps--this is established--by *why?* What is the end goal and why does the CCP think it worth the international opprobrium?
Is it motivated by horror of any form of ethnic particularism that could lead to separatism and thus reduce China, again, to Warring States status? Is it motivated by a genuine belief that this is *good* for this population, which ultimately will be grateful?
Do they mean completely to destroy the Uighur population--physically and spiritually--to inspire terror in others? Or do they genuinely believe this will--ultimately--improve their moral and economic status?
The problem isn't confined to conservatives who don't understand what socialism is. As @SAFrancoC notes--here--claireberlinski.substack.com/p/the-moral-of…, many Americans are bandying about the term, and it isn't clear what they mean.
If this generation means "socialist" in the traditional sense of that word, we're in profound trouble if this ever translates into electoral success. I doubt this is what they mean, but it's hard to be sure, given their enthusiasm for the word "socialist."
It's not merely a conservative talking point: If they think socialism, as historically understood and practiced, is a good idea, people like @SAFrancoC need to explain why they're wrong.
Well, it can be expected. But so far, these expectations haven't been met. Perhaps they might be met if the US could manage a solid few years of political stability and economic dynamism.
Both American political parties are now committed to protectionism. No significant political constituency favors free trade. Protectionism is not a better idea because Biden endorses it. Le Monde rightly points this out-- lemonde.fr/idees/article/…
while overlooking the even greater cost to EU taxpayers of its own protectionism. (Although in fairness, they do link the document that spells it out plainly.)
My own views on protectionism have changed as a result of the pandemic; I now believe some industries need to be protected--medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, for example. We need to repatriate industries such that shortfalls can be used as a boot on our neck.
This is an extremely interesting document. What's everyone's guess about the author? Might it be Pottinger? Anyone familiar enough with his thought to hazard a guess? politico.com/news/magazine/…
The idea that Russia can be peeled off from China is delusional. Apart from that, this seems well-considered strategic advice--*except* that the US is in no position to execute a patient strategy over many administrations. For that, you need two functional political parties--
both of which are prepared to pursue a consistent foreign policy in which partisan politics stop at the water's edge. The GOP seems determined to drag the US into a low-level civil war, which will make it impossible for the US to project power this way over the coming decades.
@keithmfitz, we were discussing the phenomenon I discuss in this newsletter the other day--the emptying out of American political speech and its replacement with duckspeak.
This is what looks so ominous in retrospect. Though Americans tend to make a theistic or natural-law case for liberal democracy--we speak of rights "endowed by our creator"--in reality, the power of this has long rested upon pragmatism: