So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!
This site is now closed permanently to new posts.Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 9, 2005
Location: Sebastopol, California, United States
Last Online 08-23-2024
Gratitude expressed by:
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 9, 2005
Location: Sebastopol, California, United States
Last Online 08-23-2024
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 9, 2005
Location: Sebastopol, California, United States
Last Online 08-23-2024
Gratitude expressed by 3 members:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 9, 2005
Location: Sebastopol, California, United States
Last Online 08-23-2024
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 9, 2005
Location: Sebastopol, California, United States
Last Online 08-23-2024
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 9, 2005
Location: Sebastopol, California, United States
Last Online 08-23-2024
Gratitude expressed by 5 members:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: May 20, 2013
Last Online 02-03-2021
This is a good one. And hopefully people think about it more. Because yes.... Nuclear is a much cleaner climate fuel source. Yet...having grown up down river from 3 Mile Island... we know there are serious risks. And we still haven't really figured out what to do with all that spent fuel for hundreds...and hundreds...and hundreds of years.
But of course... whether it's electric cars or nuclear power...we're still just talking about how we can best go about our lifestyles with less impact. No one's really willing to talk about whether the reality we have created is actually sustainable.
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 9, 2005
Location: Sebastopol, California, United States
Last Online 08-23-2024
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jul 23, 2011
Last Online 07-07-2024
Interesting related article in this month's High Country News:
Nuclear power is clean – if you ignore all the waste
And this doesn't even get into discussions about what electricity is used for. As Amory Lovins once said something like, using the white-hot temperatures of a nuclear reactor to generate electricity, so red-hot wire can heat a house to 70 degrees, is inexcusably crude,"like cutting butter with a chainsaw."
This is a good one. And hopefully people think about it more. Because yes.... Nuclear is a much cleaner climate fuel source. Yet...having grown up down river from 3 Mile Island... we know there are serious risks. And we still haven't really figured out what to do with all that spent fuel for hundreds...and hundreds...and hundreds of years.
But of course... whether it's electric cars or nuclear power...we're still just talking about how we can best go about our lifestyles with less impact. No one's really willing to talk about whether the reality we have created is actually sustainable.
Last edited by Barry; 01-31-2020 at 10:08 PM.
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Aug 5, 2006
Last Online 02-07-2021
I don't really like cute observations like that when they're used in a political context. There are plenty of objections to nuclear power, but this isn't one of them. Lovins seems to use this not as funny bon mot, but to imply that this process is inherently overkill and therefore obviously foolish. It's actually the reverse - taking a small, localized white-hot source and scaling it down at the point of use is actually a cunning solution. The way to measure crudity in an engineering sense is to look at wasteful byproducts. How much of the energy in coal or gas is applied to work? Inefficiency and bad side effects are the problems to consider.
.. that said, it is kinda droll...
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 9, 2005
Location: Sebastopol, California, United States
Last Online 08-23-2024
If you have been getting individual email updates of our ongoing curation of the best in political humor and you'd like them to continue, then go to the new thread for February and click "Express your Gratitude for this Post" (not on this post) and that will let me know you appreciate them and continue your subscription for this month
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jun 18, 2005
Given that your contributions to this thread seem to have as a purpose the counterbalancing of the generally democrat leaning tendency of Barry's choices, this particular set seems a little strange. It is notable, for instance, that in the first one the donkey is saying "guilty" while the elephant is not saying "innocent" but rather "acquittal" which seems only too depressingly accurate in terms of attitudes. The same is true of the third one. The donkey sees something he does not like and is doing something about it while the elephant is simply ignoring the situation: not a very good example of responsible government. The fourth one simply speaks to the fact that pretty much all public proceedings are deathly boring (Law and Order and Perry Mason do not show how things go in a real courtroom). But the one that raised my curiosity the most is the third one. I will leave aside the question of whether it is even funny (does anyone think Schiff looks particularly rodent like, and can what he is doing really be described as destructive, and are groundhogs really noted for their destructiveness or simply for their weather predicting skills? I tend to think not.)
What does puzzle me is the pencil neck thing. One skill that Trump undeniably wields is finding weak spots and capitalizing on them. He has a keen and generally accurate eyes for the wounding slur that expresses what others may feel deep down but would not articulate. In this case I do not get it. Schiff seems to me to have a pretty normal neck, and I do not think that most people associate a thin neck with any kind of moral depravity. And why a pencil? Is this some cultural reference I am unfamiliar with? It is especially odd considering the fact that Trump himself appears to have no neck whatever: one might think he would be the last to draw attention to necks. Seems like a singularly ineffective taunt. Can anyone enlighten me on this matter?
Patrick Brinton
Yes, I don't draw them, only select them from a rather slim set of choices. While they reflect, as you pointed out, a counterbalance to the predominant thread here, they aren't always totally logical, nor do they reflect the complete picture as you, I or others may see it. Certainly not philosophically complete.
Just a little fun, silly at times, and another voice among the monotone of the TDS cartoons.
I thought that diversity was a good thing. Seeing as how Barry never posts any humor contribution other than Left leaning, isn't a bit of diversity a good thing?Given that your contributions to this thread seem to have as a purpose the counterbalancing of the generally democrat leaning tendency of Barry's choices, this particular set seems a little strange. It is notable, for instance, that in the first one the donkey is saying "guilty" while the elephant is not saying "innocent" but rather "acquittal" which seems only too depressingly accurate in terms of attitudes. The same is true of the third one. The donkey sees something he does not like and is doing something about it while the elephant is simply ignoring the situation: not a very good example of responsible government. The fourth one simply speaks to the fact that pretty much all public proceedings are deathly boring (Law and Order and Perry Mason do not show how things go in a real courtroom). But the one that raised my curiosity the most is the third one. I will leave aside the question of whether it is even funny (does anyone think Schiff looks particularly rodent like, and can what he is doing really be described as destructive, and are groundhogs really noted for their destructiveness or simply for their weather predicting skills? I tend to think not.)
Can anyone enlighten me on this matter?
Patrick Brinton
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Apr 13, 2009
Last Online 07-08-2023
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Oct 5, 2006
Last Online 02-07-2021
Which is why it seems so irrational to ban natural gas in homes. How does it make sense to burn natural gas to generate electricity to heat a wire red hot rather than using the heat from the gas to heat the house.Interesting related article in this month's High Country News:
Nuclear power is clean – if you ignore all the waste
And this doesn't even get into discussions about what electricity is used for. As Amory Lovins once said something like, using the white-hot temperatures of a nuclear reactor to generate electricity, so red-hot wire can heat a house to 70 degrees, is inexcusably crude,"like cutting butter with a chainsaw."
On the other hand, excluding the capital cost, one would not rationally heat a wire red hot, instead one would use the electricity to run a motor to create a Carnot cycle transfer heat from the earth into the house (aka heat-pump). I have heard it argued that the cost per BTU of heat would be cheapest with a solar powered heat pump, but I think that includes government subsidy. Here in California the cost of electricity is already an average of 3x the national cost, if you move out of the first tier which is likely for electric heat, so it is really going to be expensive to heat houses with it.
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Sep 7, 2005
Location: occidental
Last Online 06-17-2022
I cannot enlighten you; I am equally puzzled by the things you so aptly describe. In fact, I couldn't make any sense at all out of the first two cartoons. Is it because of liberal rigidities in my brain, or are the cartoons intrinsically confusing? I would actually love to see some really clever right wing cartoons; surely they must be possible!
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Aug 5, 2006
Last Online 02-07-2021
they're just illustrations of a POV, not 'humor' in a literary sense. The same personality traits that make right-wing stuff appealing seem to be antithetical to many kinds of humor. (ed: to give two examples - too much respect for authority, discomfort with ambiguity). There have been a few funny conservatives, but not many. An attempt several years ago to make a conservative counterpart to the Daily Show failed really fast. Now, no-one thinks of themselves as humorless, so you'll find objections to this description. The biggest reason I see is that the conservatives are totally trapped by projection; this extends to the idea that it's lefties who are projecting! Now a lefty might find that idea funny, but the right-wing guys are deadly serious. It's that unwillingness to hunt for their own foibles that I've found to be the difference. Any current comedy show, all of which the Fox crowd will consider to have a lefty bias, is gleeful about making fun of "their own". I've never seen a political cartoon with any right-wing slant that pokes fun at Trump, for example, while Obama and Clinton were relentlessly targeted.I cannot enlighten you; I am equally puzzled by the things you so aptly describe. In fact, I couldn't make any sense at all out of the first two cartoons. Is it because of liberal rigidities in my brain, or are the cartoons intrinsically confusing? I would actually love to see some really clever right wing cartoons; surely they must be possible!
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Sep 7, 2005
Location: occidental
Last Online 06-17-2022
Really? Is it that obtuse?
Iowa caucus was a massive screw up.
Can't run a caucus, maybe can't run a country. After all, people like Bernie and Warren want the government to control just about everything. No soup for you!!!!
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Aug 5, 2006
Last Online 02-07-2021
you mean 'obscure'. And it is a connection that's only obvious if you're familiar with the flavors of koolaid used by the memers on the right. What on earth does Deliverance have to do with a state election official? And it's a very tenuous thread, from inexperienced officials trying to overuse technology and, (gasp) having delayed election results!!! to an indictment of government in general.
Gratitude expressed by:
I agree. Not a very good likeness of Bernie.you mean 'obscure'. And it is a connection that's only obvious if you're familiar with the flavors of koolaid used by the memers on the right. What on earth does Deliverance have to do with a state election official? And it's a very tenuous thread, from inexperienced officials trying to overuse technology and, (gasp) having delayed election results!!! to an indictment of government in general.
Was it the Russians? Was it Hillary? Was it the DNC trying to damage a Socialist? Nah, just inexperience with a simple app which cost a pittance. Yea, sure.
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Aug 5, 2006
Last Online 02-07-2021
you say 'cost a pittance' like that wasn't a sign that it's probably garbage. Everyone seems to think apps are easy and phones are reliable computers. But this was a failure that could have been seen (and was, according to some reports) coming from miles away. Ask anyone who deals with this kind of stuff on a professional level - ok, ask an engineer, not a marketing or salesperson - and it was apparent that this couldn't work well.
Throw in the impact of the Trumpian trolls, who jammed the conventional phone lines after they saw the number leaked (again, by people who had no idea of basic security practices) and it's a very predictable situation. The Russians may have used this to train some of their monkeys, but so far there's nothing here showing expertise. Actually, it's the opposite.
Gratitude expressed by 2 members: