The Secretary of Energy thinks that Americans must be treated like children. This is what soft fascism looks like, folks.
Do they have any idea how off putting this will prove next fall?
32 thoughts on “Mommy, Can I Turn On The Air?”
Comments are closed.
When I was in the military we had a sorta joke.
When your commander gives you an order to change how you do things. say yes sir, then ignore him and keep doing it the right way.
That’s not a universal rule, but commanders had a bad habit of giving irrational orders to change things to the only people who were useful while turning a blind eye to those who were useless.
I understand the first rule of “taking charge.” “change something, even if it’s the color of the ink. but change it, just so everyone knows you are in charge.” or something like that. I understand it, and I subscribe to it, the few times that I’ve been “in charge” of something.
but it’s way too common for commanders to johnhancock a new command, rather than william paca it.
Yet another reason to resign from the national grid. If I generate my own power, then I’m the Home Production Energy Czar, and I control the usage / over usage / any usage.
“Yet another reason to resign from the national grid. If I generate my own power, then I’m the Home Production Energy Czar, and I control the usage / over usage / any usage.”
Don’t bet anything you can’t afford to lose that they won’t declare your home power generation as “interstate commerce” and order you around anyway. The classic case was the farmer growing feed on his own land for his own livestock – “interstate commerce” the Feds declared, and butted in. Under FDR, iirc. The courts haven’t since reined the Feds in usefully on gross abuse of the interstate commerce clause. You don’t want to bet your house on them finally remembering the Constitution just as your case comes along.
Which reminds me, I need to go buy a case or two of incandescent bulbs while I still can…
cynically
Porkypine
“The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”
I hope the American public understands it “in their core” before 2010. Another point of contention is the claim that a “green energy economy” is more prosperous than a non-green one.
It looks like the classic propaganda technique where you say something aggressive and controversial in front of your following over a weekend, then your staff soothes ruffled feathers early in the new week.
Porkypine,
if they’re willing to try to control me like that, let ’em come. I have plenty of canned goods and ammo. My fear is that we’ll only be able to put the Genie back in the bottle, at gun point on this kind of socialist / nanny state tripe.
Hey, Chu! You work for me, STFU!
The only joke is the link that I followed. I saw a single sentence quote from Chu with absolutely all context removed embedded in a 10,000 word rant about the evils of government.
Does anyone have a link to the Chu transcript so that I may even begin to determine what sort of moronic wingnut Rand linked to?
“what sort of moronic wingnut Rand ”
Rand: First they ignore you, then the ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.
I won’t go galt, I’ll go adams.
Done it before. a few times cuz it was in my job description, other times cuz I wanted to vanish.
I guess Chris needs a nanny government to help him find a transcript.
Does anyone have a link to the Chu transcript so that I may even begin to determine what sort of moronic wingnut Rand linked to?
The quote came from “WSJ Blogs”. I hope this reduces the burden on your mental resources since you no longer need to care what sort of “moronic wingnut” Rand linked to. It’s worth noting that the WSJ link was prominently placed in the Hot Air blog so anyone who had actually read or even merely scanned that post would have known about the link.
Apparently, these were informal remarks spoken from the “sideline”. So there shouldn’t be a transcript available. You might be able to find other news sources with different recollections and interpretations of Chu’s statements.
“I guess Chris needs a nanny government to help him find a transcript.”
But remember: he’s a libertarian! He said so.
That depends which Chris this is. I’m still confused as to how many Jim’s we have.
“Does anyone have a link to the Chu transcript so that I may even begin to determine what sort of moronic wingnut Rand linked to?”
What are we your secretary? Go Google it yourself you twit.
“if they’re willing to try to control me like that, let ‘em come. I have plenty of canned goods and ammo.”
A workable approach only if you have a few million like-minded compatriots. And even then, it can make for getting cremated in your own house on national TV if you draw a low number in the “let’s make an example to discourage the rest” lottery.
Winning elections is more work but less often fatal as a way of discouraging quasi-religious fanatics (getting back to Chu and his ilk) from self-righteously trying to run your life.
cynically
Porkypine
Porkypine,
I think there are more of ME out there than most people think or the government cares to admit.
I see this as an example of Chu being a scientist rather than a politician. He has been expressing exasperation with the need to act like a politician since he was elected.
I’m reminded of how a friend took offense when I compared her 10 month old son’s current knowledge unfavorably to that of an adult dog. I meant no insult by it – I think her son was developing normally for a human and I was just commenting (accurately, I believe) on how much each knew about the world.
Don’t buy my explanation for Chu? Click on the link in Rand’s post, click on “Explain it to him”, and read what Chu had to say. I think he wants to be a science advisor rather than the head of a department.
Finally: Why is this about fascism? Chu didn’t express any opinion about using power (or even incentives) to make people do something. He was expressing an interest in education. Imagine that – a scientist who thinks the average public needs to be educated about science before they’ll make wise decisions.
Of course, I meant “appointed” rather than elected.
Bob-1, Chu is not an environmental scientist, so his opinion here is strictly as a politician.
Scientists are specialists, not priests. People who worship them forget that.
I certainly don’t worship scientists, of course scientists specialize, but most scientists are not exclusively specialists.
A scientist is someone who knows how to use the methods of science (and in that respect, a plumber can be a very good scientist.)
Additionally, a scientist is usually someone who has a deeper understanding of the knowledge derived from many branches of science than the ordinary politician – for example, I’d expect Chu to know more about spectroscopy than the ordinary politician, but I’d also expect him to know more about mitochondrial DNA, just as I’d expect the readers of this blog to know more about both subjects than an ordinary politician. Moreover, I’d expect both scientists and most readers of the blog who aren’t very familiar with, say, mitochondrial DNA to be better at learning by reading an article about the suject than an ordinary politician.
That doesn’t mean Chu, or any scientist, is right about any particular issue, but it isn’t surprising that he thinks he knows more than the average dog, since he probably does, when it comes to scientific knowledge.
Gosh, Bob-1, I can’t understand why your friend was insulted that you compared her son to a dog. She should simply have understood that you were coming from a higher plane of pure knowledge, where it’s okay to compare the intelligence of 10-year-old humans to mere animals!
Now Andrea, don’t give Bob a hard time for being awed by the intelligence of a dog or a 10 year old.
“I see this as an example of Chu being a scientist rather than a politician. He has been expressing exasperation with the need to act like a politician since he was elected. ”
Um, he has never dealt with an academic department? An NSF proposal review?
Folks, Bob said a 10 MONTH old child, not a 10 year old one….
That’s 10 months old, and yes, I’m awed by the marvelousness of cognition, whether it is in an infant, a canine, or a frog.
I also have a scientific interest in cognition, and if you stop with the ridicule for a moment, each of you might find that it is an enjoyable interest too.
Can a ten month old infant play “fetch”? What do you have to understand about the world to play fetch? What if you introduce elements which obscure the fetchable object — for example, if the fetchable object disappears under a blanket, a dog won’t be fooled. At some point, infants continue to believe in the persistence of unseen objects, and before that point, they apparently don’t. Why? Does whatever the infant learns generalize immediately? How? I’m just scratching the surface – there is a lot to learn here.
Only interested in space applications? Ok — learn about the minds of infants and dogs, and we’ll learn how to build smarter rovers and other semi-autonomous tools.
Paul, everyone needs to act like a politician to some extent, even people who hate having to take their turn as division head. One way to compensate for having poor political skills is to have good technical skills. Another way to handle it is to associate with people who will look past the way you said something, and think about the more interesting implications. Chu can no longer rely on either strategy as much as he might have in his previous jobs. He might not have been a good choice, but not because he because he is some sort of fascist. I don’t know if he is a good manager, but he might be of great service to our nation and to his boss even if he doesn’t have excellent political skills.
“Why is this about fascism? Chu didn’t express any opinion about using power (or even incentives) to make people do something. He was expressing an interest in education.”
That’s sort of like Bill Clinton “expressing an interest in interns”… Chu wants to use Federal national power (currently excessive in education as in so many other spheres of our lives) to preach quasi-religious political dogma as fact to impressionable school kids nationwide. The level of “we’re the experts so shut up and eat your nice doctrine” he exudes would be stunning, ‘cept at this point it’s so damn predictable.
The root tactic is to treat Anthropogenic Global Warming (oops, it’s getting colder instead, better switch to “Climate Change”) as established (revealed is more the flavor) fact, and browbeat all who fail to swallow as unmutual heretics. Can’t be advocating it on the facts, alas, because the facts tend to say loudly “climate changes – always has, always will. Deal.”
cynically
Porkypine
The intersection of science and policy in this country has a long and storied history. There have been more than a few competent scientists, recruited into administrations because of their interest in policy, who have stumbled over (1) the difference between policy and politics, and (B) the fact that their specific scientific training has not equipped them to address the policy domain in a way that is beneficial to the public interest. I know quite a few brilliant scientists who have a near-childish belief that their scientific training equips them with a keen policy sensibility (and I suppose some people might claim I fall into that class, too!) Unfortunately, this “technocratic impulse” has led to spectacular failures of policy, the Great Society coming to mind.
In Chu’s case, I sense that the little bit of press coverage that he generates is mostly negative — like the WSJ piece that HotAir linked, or the MSNBC piece that pointed out that Chu didn’t know [in February 2009] that oil production policy was handled by DoE. He was quoted a few months ago as claiming that there would be no agriculture in California by 2100. It’s hard to get a handle on his wider competency based on the few crazy things he’s said, but I’d be cautious in letting the MSM dictate any assessment. But there does seem to be some momentum gathering in the “Chu is a boob” meme.
Bob-1: yes, “fetch” is an interesting example. Reminds me of two dogs I once had, a purebred Lab and Lab-wolfhound mix. The Lab would play fetch for hours but the mutt didn’t “get” it. But in a way, neither behavior seemed “intelligent”. The Lab seemed almost genetically programmed, ineluctably, to find the ball and bring it back, while the mutt simply lacked the genes. Food for thought.
BBB
BBbbeard: it is sometimes helpful to distinguish “knowledge” and “knowing” from “learning ability” when talking about intelligence. You could say that your Lab “knew” how to play fetch right from the start, maybe because of genetic programming, so it didn’t seem to have to learn, and the other dog didn’t have the knowledge and didn’t seem to be able to learn it.
The distinction is helpful when someone asks you to build a “smart” tool.
Whoops, you’re right, he said “months” not “years.” Well I had a lot to do today… But you know, Bob, it’s interesting that you have a “scientific interest in cognition.” You might want to try doing some of that yourself someday.
Hey Bob, can you provide some cites on how the UK is like a Republic?
If Chu doesn’t like politics, I can propose a solution that will help him and everybody else.
Chu, get the @#$!! out of politics.