It’s extortion, the entire Texas energy system (well, the entire US, but that isn’t the subject) is extortionate, but that is only for any of this excess power that is needed that would go over pollution controls, not every watt generated.
I was typing out another response to you, I’ll drop it at the end of this because it gets into the discussion of “waiver” I was being kinda lazy with what is a very specific term of art in the federal government. This is technically an “order”, but if you want to play ‘gotcha’ with a dictionary then this won’t get anywhere. You’d have to go to the federal register to figure out what a waiver is to the DOE anyway, that don’t just copy and past from Webster’s... The request was made on the 14th and it came through on the 14th. Read the primary source. “ On February 14, 2021, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the Independent System Operator (ISO) whose service territory includes 90 percent of the electric customers in the state of Texas, filed a Request for Emergency Order Under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (Application) with the United States Department of Energy (Department) “to preserve the reliability of bulk electric system” Yeah. The rest of the document, after, “do what needs to be done” does ask for a report of what happened after the 19th. One of my main beefs with the federal government is that too often transparency leads to a slow moving process. It’s tough for me. If there is going to be a massive federal bureaucracy, I like to know what they are doing. Also, where did I say that the DOE order was, “unconditional” but more importantly, why was it not brought up that Abbots request was granted, however feebly, by no one else in the thread. I don’t understand the relevance of the price fixing link. Edit: sorry, moving too fast, responded to another person and came back to this. Yes, every watt generated that resulted in “excessive” pollution was extortion.
What? Sure I’ll do these weird exercises for you. When answered sufficiently will you acknowledge that you posted fake news?
-
“Waive”, in this instance, is to grant a reprieve (give a waiver) from certain pollution reduction measures as requested by Governor Abbot for the duration of the emergency.
-
Yes and I linked it because I like to check primary sources and not listen to nobodies on twitter. It’s four pages long and was attached to the tweet.
-
Sure. ERCOT requested a waiver to emit more of certain pollutants as the deemed necessary in order to provide the public with uninterrupted power. Specifically; “ ERCOT anticipates that this Order may result in exceedance of emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon monoxide emissions, as well as wastewater release limits.”
-
It was issued on Valentine’s Day at 8:51pm and was scheduled to remain in effect until 11:59pm on 2-19.
But why take my word for it? Read it yourself https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/02/f82/DOE%20202%28c%29%20Emergency%20Order%20-%20ERCOT%2002.14.2021.pdf
Abbot didn’t have to tell them to fuck themselves. The emergency waiver was granted. Read the attached letter to the tweet, or see the full letter here.
Would it surprise you that this tweet isn’t true and that actually the Biden administration did grant the waiver request?
Start at the second full paragraph on page two. Biden didn’t stop them from generating more electricity and waived the pollution control standards.
This is what the order said, from page 2 of the letter cited in the tweet.
“I direct ERCOT to dispatch such unit or units and to order their operation only as needed to maintain the reliability of the power grid in the ERCOT region when the demand on the ERCOT system exceeds expected energy and reserve requirements.”
They asked for and were given permission to keep the lights on.
This tweet isn’t true and if you read the letter linked the tweet you would clearly see on the second paragraph of page two that the emergency waiver of pollution standards was granted.
Here is the letter from the acting DOE secretary. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/02/f82/DOE%20202%28c%29%20Emergency%20Order%20-%20ERCOT%2002.14.2021.pdf
And here is the quote. My apologies for typos, transcribing from PDF.
“I have determined that additional dispatch of the Specified Resources is necessary to best meet the emergency and serve the public interest for purposes of FPA section 202”
And then in the next paragraph.
“I direct ERCOT to dispatch such unit or units and to order their operation only as needed to maintain the reliability of the power grid in the ERCOT region when the demand on the ERCOT system exceeds expected energy and reserve requirements.”
Why can we not fact check what we post?
Ok. So she said shit you and I disagree with. I acknowledged that. President Trump let Mnuchin, Pelosi and McConnell parlay the COVID shutdown into the largest straight transfer of my tax dollars to multinational corporation in the history of the United States. Shit happens. I disagree on things with many people here and many people in public office, including some I admire. Do you actually want 435 people saying the same thing?
So far as the “casting call” thing. I’ve discussed this with people here before. The right/Republicans do the same thing. When it’s people we like we say, “dedicated political professionals knew this seat was an opportunity for someone with X, Y and Z values. They met with many inspiring, bright activists and Person X demonstrated their talent and passion.” The real problem with this is that the barrier to entry is so high for most federal seats you or I can’t just say, “I’m running for Congress”, raise a few thousand bucks for signs and literature and then hit the doors to talk to your neighbors. We have to plucked from obscurity by people with connections to money, power and influence.
“Highborn”?Maybe? Is that a problem now? I can think of another NYC native who was certainly way more “highborn” than her with whom this site has exactly zero problems with. All I know for certain is that it is true she went from an ‘elite’ NYC public school to BU. Her family prioritized education and she is more successful than her parents. Strip away her name and TDW would be praising it as a fine example of the American Dream.
My only point here is that we must accept some amount of ideological and stylistic diversity in a country this large (well, we don’t have to, we could reject the idea we should be one country under a federal government, but that isn’t the conversation we are having.)
We just need to be consistent. Is she some airhead who ditzed her way into a congressional seat she doesn’t deserve and is unfit for? or is she some socialist Manchurian Candidate ushering in Biden’s (who she was very critical of) New World Order.
And she has some definite upsides.
She happens to be the only Democratic elected official in the New York delegation calling for Cuomo to be investigated for his handling of COVID in nursing homes.
Her legislation won’t pass. Despite what that paranoiacs here say, Joe Biden has very explicitly rejected her Green New Deal. So if we are going to have a handful of moonbat Dems from very lefty districts, I’ll take the ones that will call out their own party any day.
If we, as we claim, represent the values and beliefs of most Americans, then she won’t get very far in DC. There are two models of success in the swamp. Pave your way and demonstrate you are an effective leader, DJT style, or kowtow to the uniparty (everyone else). She is neither of those.
TDW: “Congress is a bunch of out-of-touch-elites. More real Americans who work for a living should represent us.”
Also TDW: “AOC is a dumb waitress, LOL.”
We may not like her solutions, but at least she’s willing to name the problem; elected officials more interested in making oligarchs comfortable that serving their constituents.
On a level playing field, the views of 435 members of Congress would be as diverse as the 435 districts they represent. Of course her views will be different than the person representing the Florida Panhandle or Western, CO.
I’d trade Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer, Graham, McCarthy and a dozen more of the uniparty Hacks we have in DC for half a dozen more Boeberts and Ocasio-Cortez’s.
Does art only have merit if it is financially successful? Robert Mapplethorpe was a wildly successful artist financially. I’m not saying I love the NEA, it’s probably not a thing I want the federal government to be a part of, and so long as we have a federal government with an NEA, I’d at least like more of the grant awards to be decided at a more local level. But we could liquidate the NEA tomorrow, shift the entire budget to the southern border wall, and it would only get 20 feet longer before funds had dried up.
It’s like if you were trying to lose weight and asked for a banana split, hold the sprinkles.
Some of the most iconic American Art in the 20th century was paid for by Roosevelt’s WPA, and wouldn’t exist otherwise. You can approve of the New Deal or not, but the artistic legacy of the WPA is now priceless.
“To tamper” as in, “to interfere” is not the same word as “to tamper” dirt down. They are homographs.
“The Chinese ate a bat and created COVID.” In this sentence it is clear I don’t mean a baseball bat.
“Joe Biden Tampered with the election.” In this sentence I clearly don’t mean, “fortified”. Actually, I just realized the easiest way to tell which verb I’m using, “tamp” or “tamper” you can look at the conjunction I used. “To tamper” uses “with” to describe the object of the sentence. “to Tamp” does not. One can use ‘with’ after, ‘to tamp’, but only to describe the object I am using to do the tamping. One doesn’t say, “I Tampered with the ground so I could build a house.”
You got a sticky on your first day, congrats! Take your W and start a new account tomorrow.
Thanks for pointing me to the article, it’s a fascinating read that shows just how much we are up against, but until you can explain how this is a smoking gun, then it really doesn’t matter how well you understand what words means.
My work is done here, I got the mods to unsticky this before the east coast journalists wake up to scour this site looking for more evidence that we are a group of bonus-chromosome mongoloids.
As a critique, I’m fine seeing an archive link to a very relevant Time story. It’s a puff piece for a bunch of behind-the-scenes lefties, but it’s hard to see how it’s, “fake”. Basically the subjects of the article feel pretty clever and were flattered Time wrote about them, so years from now, when I’m waiting for my kids at the dentists office, I can read the story of how the AFL and some big corporations “saved” the election.
We’ve always had our own fake news problem, at t_d and now here.
I’m unclear which is worse. Are some of the mods idiots? Or are they derailing on purpose.
Occams Razor says idiots, but there are a lot of bored alphabet boys who have to justify a federal paycheck somehow.
It happens all the time. I don’t care that people make mistakes. I care that they are promoted by mods so when lurkers or newbies swing by we look stupid.
I get that good, quality posts take time and effort, and lots of us are so jonesing for new content, we consume more than people can create, so the mods have to “feed the beast” so to speak.
But in this instance there are better posts directly below the stickies.
Probably. Mostly I just don’t like looking dumb, so I double checked with an etymology dictionary. I was excited for a “smoking gun”. Unfortunately I feel dumber after reading this post.
Guess I should tamp down my expectations for what counts as a sticky-worthy smoking gun around here.
Why is this stickied, and yet some interesting data put together by the Media Research Center and reported on by the federalist (https://patriots.win/p/12hReJAFBp/big-info-was-enough-for-the-stea/c/) was not? Perhaps that post was stickied earlier, judging by the number of comments I’d guess not, but I’m not here 24/7. Right now we’ve got some words circled on a Time Magazine article stickied, and real research done by people devoted to overseeing the media down below it. I regularly the question the judgment of some of the mods. Is there a way we can see who stickies what? I wanna know who is keeping us on track and who is just derailing our efforts.
Edit: mods... this has gotta be a troll. Guy just starting posting today. Good job MAGAthor, your shitpost got stickied.
There isn’t one. This is lefty media story telling. To read this it looks like a huge civic coalition of labor and Capital came together to save the election from the disaster Trump was trying to create.
It’s pure hagiography in the same way the “Brad Parscale is the most brilliant digital strategist in history” stories after ‘16 were really just Parscale (I do respect the work he has done, to be clear) convincing the media to suck his giant genius dick.
You kinda cropped some important bits from this article, no?
“ extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.” Then it quotes a Republican who supported Trump but ultimately participated in the efforts described by the article.
I’m only halfway through, it’s a long-ish read. I’d suggest it to everyone here, it’s a very thorough account of who the players are behind the left who are working to influence elections and and our political system.
I like etymology as much as the next guy, but to say, “fortify=tamper” but you’re really straining credulity here.
fortify has its own etymology from latin through French as “strong/strength” (see: Fortification, forte, fort).
I’d further suggest that there are about 6,000 ways to fortify something, from adding ethanol to wine, building a wall around a country, adding vitamins to milk, etc. Deciding that there is some root related to “to tamp” feels like a stretch. Suggesting it’s a “smoking gun” is kind of absurd.
Regarding the modern English words, “tamper” and “to tamp”, they aren’t related. “Tamp” comes from the French, “Tampion” or “tampon” (we use the same word to describe a different thing, but the concept is similar) derives from the tool used to tamp down powder in a gun. “Tamper” is first seen in the 1500’s as a migration from “temper”. It’s a verb that originally was just someone working on or with something and ultimate landed at the meaning we have today implying “interference.”
Beyond that, in the context of the piece, this article is not painting a picture that portrays the MAGA movement particularly well when you read the entire thing.
Fun little exercise in words and history, but far from a smoking gun.
I really hate to say this, but they are dressing up the same numbers that have failed in AZ courts already because of disagreement over the way these estimates for bad votes of each type were calculated/arrived at. I’m interested in the last three numbers, where they list people voting at the wrong address in stats, out of state and then double votes. The double vote number is sound, I’m sure the others are too, but do you have the Braynard and Zhang declarations referenced in the document?