Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Unless you start throwing business leaders in jail for failing to protect the public in their public infrastructure monopoly

One can dream. But, that’s not how re-election campaigns get paid for, so I doubt there are many politicians willing to bite the hands that feed them.

Until we get big money out of politics and stop the revolving door between industry and government, this is a pipe dream. Then again, anything would be better than the absolute f-all accountability we have currently, so maybe this royal screw up could spur something? 

I’ll hold my breath. Ted Cruz should be back from his vacation to Mexico soon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

 I’ll hold my breath. Ted Cruz should be back from his vacation to Mexico soon...

My civics lessons are a bit old, but what would a federal-level politician do when his state has a problem with power generation? In what universe does this fall to a Senator to deal with?

 

If you have irrational expectations, you will get irrational politicians. If you value gestures over practicality, you will get politicians who specialize in the former and fail in the latter.

 

Our representatives represent us, often quite a bit more accurately than we'd like to admit.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

My civics lessons are a bit old, but what would a federal-level politician do when his state has a problem with power generation? In what universe does this fall to a Senator to deal with?

Because there’s nothing a federal politician can do for his electorate? You start battling for disaster relief bills to help pick your constituents back upYou figure out why the help didn’t arrive quicker or more effectively. You think of how you can help through economic relief.

You at least try to be smart enough to not be a giant hypocrite at doing what you spent a lot of time calling out other politicians for doing.

Yeah, maybe it’s symbolic, but it’s a douchebag move for a political voted to represent the people and be their leader to bounce the hell out or not follow the same rules they espouse. Same goes for Austin Mayors, California Governors, Texas Senators, any elected official on any shade of the political spectrum. 

You’re a leader; lead or at least act like you GAF when the people who asked you to lead need help. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

Because there’s nothing a federal politician can do for his electorate? You start battling for disaster relief bills to help pick your constituents back upYou figure out why the help didn’t arrive quicker or more effectively. You think of how you can help through economic relief.

You at least try to be smart enough to not be a giant hypocrite at doing what you spent a lot of time calling out other politicians for doing.

Yeah, maybe it’s symbolic, but it’s a douchebag move for a political voted to represent the people and be their leader to bounce the hell out or not follow the same rules they espouse. Same goes for Austin Mayors, California Governors, Texas Senators, any elected official on any shade of the political spectrum. 

You’re a leader; lead or at least act like you GAF when the people who asked you to lead need help. 

There's two things at play here.

1. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything Ted Cruz can do in his capacity as a Federal officer to fix/mend this situation, due to Texas' unique regulatory situation and the fact that all levers of change/power are at the state level. The Federal government has already declared an emergency.

Cruz can flex his influence, which it appears that he has, but for the Washington Post to compare him to the Governor of NJ leaving his state before a winter storm is unbelievable. Ted could have made phone calls from Cancun, and used a VPN to answer constituent emails/direct complaints or help. I mean hell... the entire country has been doing exactly that for the last year. Not to mention the Dad points he'd be gaining as a result.

2. This is bad political optics, and it's completely preventable. Any rookie politician should have seen this coming, and as a result... wouldn't have put themselves in this situation. I can't explain why he did it, but Occam's razor seems to point toward him just trying to be a good Dad. Time will show if that's correct, I'm withholding judgement until then.

3. Thinking on this for a while has me coming to the conclusion that it must be hell trying to be a decent father and a modern politician, and that applies to anyone of either party.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's two things at play here.
1. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything Ted Cruz can do in his capacity as a Federal officer to fix/mend this situation, due to Texas' unique regulatory situation and the fact that all levers of change/power are at the state level. The Federal government has already declared an emergency.
Cruz can flex his influence, which it appears that he has, but for the Washington Post to compare him to the Governor of NJ leaving his state before a winter storm is unbelievable. Ted could have made phone calls from Cancun, and used a VPN to answer constituent emails/direct complaints or help. I mean hell... the entire country has been doing exactly that for the last year. Not to mention the Dad points he'd be gaining as a result.
2. This is bad political optics, and it's completely preventable. Any rookie politician should have seen this coming, and as a result... wouldn't have put themselves in this situation. I can't explain why he did it, but Occam's razor seems to point toward him just trying to be a good Dad. Time will show if that's correct, I'm withholding judgement until then.
3. Thinking on this for a while has me coming to the conclusion that it must be hell trying to be a decent father and a modern politician, and that applies to anyone of either party.


Sure, he's trying to be a good dad, I'll give you that. He's getting his family out of a bad situation. That's generally reasonable.

I know in power outages I've gone through, I've found a hotel with power so my wife could be comfortable (and to power a medical device). But I recognize that being able to do that is a luxury, and one I couldn't always afford.

Same with being able to fly your family out of country to somewhere comfortable/vacation when a significant natural disaster hits. It's a luxury many of his constituents can't afford, so it becomes bad optics for an elected leader. It fosters a perceived divide between the common person and an elected leader. Would've been better to just send his family off without going with them.

No one would really bat an eye at anyone who wasn't an elected official getting out of the cold and going on vacation; there's no social contract that says that's not unacceptable behavior for them.

So I won't say Cruz was wrong for doing what he did. But that's not to say that the spears from the media are unfair, or that he may have a minor PR crisis to deal with. Probably won't matter though in the long run. Even if Republican voters didn't like it, what are they going to do, vote for a Democrat next election?

On your third point, that's the price of being a leader (especially an elected leader), and not just in politics. Plus, he volunteered for that job...And that means taking the bad with the good.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

So I won't say Cruz was wrong for doing what he did. But that's not to say that the spears from the media are unfair, or that he may have a minor PR crisis to deal with. Probably won't matter though in the long run. Even if Republican voters didn't like it, what are they going to do, vote for a Democrat next election?

On your third point, that's the price of being a leader (especially an elected leader), and not just in politics. Plus, he volunteered for that job...And that means taking the bad with the good.

I agree. He deserves the spears from the media for leaving, but some of the spears (comparing him to Chris Christie in the WaPo article for example) are a bit much.

Touche on the last point. That's very true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I agree. He deserves the spears from the media for leaving, but some of the spears (comparing him to Chris Christie in the WaPo article for example) are a bit much.
Touche on the last point. That's very true.


Yeah, initially i was going to say Cruz wasn't that different from Christie, but after some thinking, decided it wasn't a good comparison. Christie was the head of the executive branch as governor, with the ability to take short term emergency actions, so it is different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, if we value symbolic gestures, we get symbolic leadership. If we value leaders who chose symbolic acts over their families, what hope do we have of getting politicians who place value on the American family?

 

You don't have to give weight to a bad argument just because the opposition is making it. He does not "deserve" irrational criticism. 

 

If the only problem with what Ted did is optics, then there's no problem at all. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Like I said, if we value symbolic gestures, we get symbolic leadership. If we value leaders who chose symbolic acts over their families, what hope do we have of getting politicians who place value on the American family?

 

You don't have to give weight to a bad argument just because the opposition is making it. He does not "deserve" irrational criticism. 

 

If the only problem with what Ted did is optics, then there's no problem at all. 

At least Cruz is making an effort to own his hypocrisy.  I give him sincere credit as such a thing is rare for politicians on both sides.  

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/02/17/cruz-says-he-has-no-defense-for-mocking-californias-past-power-outages-as-texas-grid-falters-amid-historic-freeze/

Let's see if Crenshaw and Abbott admit they greatly exaggerated the impact of wind turbine issues during this recent cool weather spell. 

 

Edited by Swamp Yankee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

At least Cruz is making a token effort to own his hypocrisy:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/02/17/cruz-says-he-has-no-defense-for-mocking-californias-past-power-outages-as-texas-grid-falters-amid-historic-freeze/

Let's see if Crenshaw and Abbott admit they greatly exaggerated the impact of wind turbine issues during this recent cool weather spell. 

 

It's not hypocrisy if you're not doing something that you said others shouldn't be doing. California has had rolling blackouts for decades, as far back as I can remember. Texas had them once during a once in a generation storm. Not much of a parallel.

 

Words matter.

 

And I actually just listened to Crenshaw's podcast on the power crisis. The fact that wind turbines freeze is not the problem. The fact that they get preferential selling priority on the grid is.

 

For all the ceaseless babbling about renewable energies and the green new deal, no one on the left seems interested in discussing exactly how renewable energy would have made the Texas power crisis better. Spoiler alert, it wouldn't.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, if we value symbolic gestures, we get symbolic leadership. If we value leaders who chose symbolic acts over their families, what hope do we have of getting politicians who place value on the American family?
 
You don't have to give weight to a bad argument just because the opposition is making it. He does not "deserve" irrational criticism. 
 
If the only problem with what Ted did is optics, then there's no problem at all. 


It's it wrong he's being criticized? Nope. Does he deserve it? Irrelevant question, he's a public figure, and people are going to chuck spears if his actions don't align with their beliefs. Doesn't mean he has to respond.

The notion of "valuing the American family" is vague to begin with. We'd have to define and agree on what valuing family means, because there are lots of different meanings for it, based on how you were raised, religion, culture, location, etc.

How do you feel about people that manage to find a way to dodge deployments at the last minute? Arguably, that's the right thing to do for their family. Conversely, does that also mean someone that goes on a deployment does not value their family?

What about AF generals telling pilots to go ahead and quit because you're replaceable...I mean, that was true until it wasn't, but doesn't mean it's a good leadership policy to say that publicly.

Plus, Cruz could've done both (take care of his family, while giving at least the appearance of working), and pulled his family up to DC.

Symbolism and symbolic acts are important within societies/communities; it reflects what is valued in that society/community.

Look at graduation ceremonies-there's no reason to do them except for the symbolic act of receiving a piece of paper and being publicly recognized for earning that piece of paper. But that paper does not grant you any knowledge you don't already have, nor any new skill. And your family/friends likely would've already been involved in your work towards earning that piece of paper, so it's not me information to them.

We can have and should expect both, leaders who value their family, but also understands the importance of symbolic acts in public leadership and governance.

Optics also matter, since there's already a general sense of distrust in government and that our elected leaders are in a different class than the common person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not hypocrisy if you're not doing something that you said others shouldn't be doing. California has had rolling blackouts for decades, as far back as I can remember. Texas had them once during a once in a generation storm. Not much of a parallel.
 
Words matter.
 
And I actually just listened to Crenshaw's podcast on the power crisis. The fact that wind turbines freeze is not the problem. The fact that they get preferential selling priority on the grid is.
 
For all the ceaseless babbling about renewable energies and the green new deal, no one on the left seems interested in discussing exactly how renewable energy would have made the Texas power crisis better. Spoiler alert, it wouldn't.


You're right, renewable energy would not have fixed Texas' current problem.

You know what would? Regulating the power industry to handle extreme events with historical precedence. Just because it's once in a lifetime doesn't mean it's should be a surprise when it happens, that's why we study history and keep records. What Texas did was ignore history (including recent outages due to cold in 2011) to minimize short term costs.

Even preferential selling priority for wind power is good and very rational from a grid design standpoint: wind power can not be easily stored with current technologies, so it's use it or lose it. Unlike fossil fuels or nuclear power generation, where you can store the energy in the fuel itself by not consuming the fuel. So you *actively* manage the grid to take advantage of the strengths and benefits of each power source.

Even if Texas had zero renewable energy sources, they'd still be in the situation they are now, because they failed to make infrastructure investments.

And yes, California has problems too, and needs to address them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's not hypocrisy if you're not doing something that you said others shouldn't be doing. California has had rolling blackouts for decades, as far back as I can remember. Texas had them once during a once in a generation storm. Not much of a parallel.

This same thing happened 10 years ago and no changes were made.

Texas grid fails to weatherize, repeats mistake feds cited 10 years ago (houstonchronicle.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 


You're right, renewable energy would not have fixed Texas' current problem.

You know what would? Regulating the power industry to handle extreme events with historical precedence. Just because it's once in a lifetime doesn't mean it's should be a surprise when it happens, that's why we study history and keep records. What Texas did was ignore history (including recent outages due to cold in 2011) to minimize short term costs.

Even preferential selling priority for wind power is good and very rational from a grid design standpoint: wind power can not be easily stored with current technologies, so it's use it or lose it. Unlike fossil fuels or nuclear power generation, where you can store the energy in the fuel itself by not consuming the fuel. So you *actively* manage the grid to take advantage of the strengths and benefits of each power source.

Even if Texas had zero renewable energy sources, they'd still be in the situation they are now, because they failed to make infrastructure investments.

And yes, California has problems too, and needs to address them.

 

These are all good considerations. One of their nuclear plants had a sensor freeze and shut it off from the grid; colder parts of the country have nuclear plants that continue to run during winter weather, so it seems cost-saving infrastructure shortcuts were taken in design which was the real limfac. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 


It's it wrong he's being criticized? Nope. Does he deserve it? Irrelevant question, he's a public figure, and people are going to chuck spears if his actions don't align with their beliefs. Doesn't mean he has to respond.

The notion of "valuing the American family" is vague to begin with. We'd have to define and agree on what valuing family means, because there are lots of different meanings for it, based on how you were raised, religion, culture, location, etc.

How do you feel about people that manage to find a way to dodge deployments at the last minute? Arguably, that's the right thing to do for their family. Conversely, does that also mean someone that goes on a deployment does not value their family?

What about AF generals telling pilots to go ahead and quit because you're replaceable...I mean, that was true until it wasn't, but doesn't mean it's a good leadership policy to say that publicly.

Plus, Cruz could've done both (take care of his family, while giving at least the appearance of working), and pulled his family up to DC.

Symbolism and symbolic acts are important within societies/communities; it reflects what is valued in that society/community.

Look at graduation ceremonies-there's no reason to do them except for the symbolic act of receiving a piece of paper and being publicly recognized for earning that piece of paper. But that paper does not grant you any knowledge you don't already have, nor any new skill. And your family/friends likely would've already been involved in your work towards earning that piece of paper, so it's not me information to them.

We can have and should expect both, leaders who value their family, but also understands the importance of symbolic acts in public leadership and governance.

Optics also matter, since there's already a general sense of distrust in government and that our elected leaders are in a different class than the common person.

 

Mostly false parallels here.

It is absolutely wrong that he's being criticized. He is a federal official that has *nothing* to do with the power crisis in Texas, and other than getting an emergency declared, which he did, he's useless.

 

When exactly would you like our politicians to spend time with their families? When they're needed most, or when they are not? Ted Cruz is not the leader of Texas. If Abbott had run away to Mexico we'd have a very different conversation.

 

Dodging a deployment? That's your parallel? Do better. No one had to be there in Ted's absence, hell the reduced power usage from his family leaving marginally *helps* the crisis. 

 

Generals telling people to quit? What on Earth does that have to do with anything? 

 

Acting like "giving the appearance of working" is somehow a virtue is *exactly* the problem I'm identifying.

 

If you want a military analogy that actually applies, how about the generals that expect their staff to stay at the office till 8pm even when they could get some of that work done at home, with their families? How do we feel about that?

 

Saying that "symbolism matters" implies that *all* symbolism matters. It does not. A graduation ceremony recognizes a particular accomplishment of individuals to the people who care. If I forced you to go to my cousin's graduation, would the symbolism matter to you then?

 

We can and should expect our leaders to be where they are needed, when they are needed. We should stop pretending like our government officials are supposed to be superhuman public servants. 

 

For the people, *by* the people. Regular citizens engaging in the practice of self governance. We need to stop holding them to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to. 

 

This is just a case of people not liking the person first, and finding reasons second. It was nonsense when conservatives did it to Obama for golfing, it's nonsense now.

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 


You're right, renewable energy would not have fixed Texas' current problem.

You know what would? Regulating the power industry to handle extreme events with historical precedence. Just because it's once in a lifetime doesn't mean it's should be a surprise when it happens, that's why we study history and keep records. What Texas did was ignore history (including recent outages due to cold in 2011) to minimize short term costs.

Even preferential selling priority for wind power is good and very rational from a grid design standpoint: wind power can not be easily stored with current technologies, so it's use it or lose it. Unlike fossil fuels or nuclear power generation, where you can store the energy in the fuel itself by not consuming the fuel. So you *actively* manage the grid to take advantage of the strengths and benefits of each power source.

Even if Texas had zero renewable energy sources, they'd still be in the situation they are now, because they failed to make infrastructure investments.

And yes, California has problems too, and needs to address them.

 

That's all well and good, except the most regulated parts the the country still have grid failures. 

 

This is where conservatives start talking themselves into knots. Do I want my power costs to go up so I can avoid a blackout every one or two decades? No thanks. I'll spend a few hundred bucks on a generator.

 

Obviously ERCOT fucked up. But the measure of a fuck up is not how far it is from the perfect hypothetical. It's how far it is from other functioning systems. By that measure, not much to see here.

 

We don't need government regulation to weather proof a nuclear reactor sensor that government wouldn't have caught beforehand anyways. That sensor will never freeze again, no red tape required.

 

The beautiful thing about government is they can blame failures (that government also failed to recognize) on a lack of government. Then they claim the addition of government, not the usual process of identifying a new problem and solving it, was what prevented a reoccurrence.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It is absolutely wrong that he's being criticized. He is a federal official that has *nothing* to do with the power crisis in Texas, and other than getting an emergency declared, which he did, he's useless.

When exactly would you like our politicians to spend time with their families? When they're needed most, or when they are not? Ted Cruz is not the leader of Texas. If Abbott had run away to Mexico we'd have a very different conversation.

Yep. It's misdirected fire. Invalid at pickle. And this is coming from someone who thinks Ted Cruz is basically a schmuck.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's not hypocrisy if you're not doing something that you said others shouldn't be doing. California has had rolling blackouts for decades, as far back as I can remember. Texas had them once during a once in a generation storm. Not much of a parallel.

 

Words matter.

 

And I actually just listened to Crenshaw's podcast on the power crisis. The fact that wind turbines freeze is not the problem. The fact that they get preferential selling priority on the grid is.

 

For all the ceaseless babbling about renewable energies and the green new deal, no one on the left seems interested in discussing exactly how renewable energy would have made the Texas power crisis better. Spoiler alert, it wouldn't.

You've got to be kidding me.  Words do matter.  This is a textbook example of hypocrisy.  Cruz ridiculed California's  energy planning and his state was equally unprepared.  How many times it happened in one state versus another is immaterial.  Even Cruz himself acknowledges this. 

I've listened very closely to Dan Crenshaw in particular as I think (thought) that he has the potential to be a great President.  He focused on wind turbine icing as if it is an inevitable problem and a major factor in the grid collapse.  Icing is easily addressed.  In my view he's trying to score some easy, though inaccurate, points with his base.

I encourage you to be objective rather than just reflexively supporting "your guy" as the first instinct.  Politicians don't deserve blind loyalty.   Hence why I'm an independent.  Politicians have to earn every one of my votes.  

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Yep. It's misdirected fire. Invalid at pickle. And this is coming from someone who thinks Ted Cruz is basically a schmuck.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's all well and good, except the most regulated parts the the country still have grid failures. 

 

This is where conservatives start talking themselves into knots. Do I want my power costs to go up so I can avoid a blackout every one or two decades? No thanks. I'll spend a few hundred bucks on a generator.

 

Obviously ERCOT fucked up. But the measure of a fuck up is not how far it is from the perfect hypothetical. It's how far it is from other functioning systems. By that measure, not much to see here.

 

We don't need government regulation to weather proof a nuclear reactor sensor that government wouldn't have caught beforehand anyways. That sensor will never freeze again, no red tape required.

 

The beautiful thing about government is they can blame failures (that government also failed to recognize) on a lack of government. Then they claim the addition of government, not the usual process of identifying a new problem and solving it, was what prevented a reoccurrence.

It's good to see you've figured out how to log out of one account and back in with the other so quickly. 

Politicians could learn from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

You've got to be kidding me.  Words do matter.  This is a textbook example of hypocrisy.  Cruz ridiculed California's  energy planning and his state was equally unprepared.  How many times it happened in one state versus another is immaterial.  Even Cruz himself acknowledges this. 

I've listened very closely to Dan Crenshaw in particular as I think (thought) that he has the potential to be a great President.  He focused on wind turbine icing as if it is an inevitable problem and a major factor in the grid collapse.  Icing is easily addressed.  In my view he's trying to score some easy, though inaccurate, points with his base.

I encourage you to be objective rather than just reflexively supporting "your guy" as the first instinct.  Politicians don't deserve blind loyalty.   Hence why I'm an independent.  Politicians have to earn every one of my votes. 

Plus, the fact he lied again about how long he was going to be gone, and said it was his kids fault.
 

Quote

Ted Cruz is not the leader of Texas

Oh, good. I thought he was a US Senator or some other kind of leader. Tons of those in TX.  Not like he could organize help in his neighborhood/city (instead of planning to flee for a week while leaving the dog), or raise some funds to help those who'll have massive bills coming, or home repairs.

Nope, only thing he could do as "just a normal guy with a pretty bland, do nothing job."

Quote

No thanks. I'll spend a few hundred bucks on a generator.

Pray tell what you're going to do when you run out of gas.

Yep, nothing could be done in this situation. Just gotta deregulate more, and disconnect from the power grid...more?  Didn't work for El Paso at all.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the California vs Texas energy deals:

As someone who has lived in both states, they are not even comparable. California has rolling blackouts every single summer for predictable and annual heat waves. You literally have to factor the power going out into your summer planning here. Texas had an energy issue for a once in 80-100 year cold snap.  
 

Could Texas have been better prepared? Absolutely. Has Cruz made a fool of himself during this, yes. Is comparing the Texas snow storm power issue to the decades of power grid mismanagement in California fair? Not really. 

 

Edited by kaputt
Typos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kaputt said:

On the California vs Texas energy deals:

As someone who has lived in both states, they are not even comparable. California has rolling blackouts every single summer for predictable and annual heat waves. You literally have to factor the power going out into your summer planning here. Texas had an energy issue for a once in 80-100 year cold snap.  
 

Could Texas have been better prepared? Absolutely. Has Cruz made a fool of himself during this, yes. Is comparing the Texas snow storm power issue to the decades of power grid mismanagement in California fair? Not really. 

 

Shack. This isn't an us vs. them debate because the situations aren't even remotely the same. I lived in Del Rio for five years and saw probably three snow flurries in that time. 6 inches of snow and a week of single digit deep freeze is absolutely unthinkable for most of the state. 
 

Meanwhile, California's power grid shits the bed most summers due to completely standard hot weather.  If there were routine rolling blackouts in Texas in the summer, the situations would be analogous, but that isn't a thing.

 

I'd love to see what would happen to LA if they got six inches of snow.. likely hundreds if not thousands of deaths, complete grid failure, and almost certainly a few decades worth of shitty climate change documentaries.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pooter said:

Shack. This isn't an us vs. them debate because the situations aren't even remotely the same. I lived in Del Rio for five years and saw probably three snow flurries in that time. 6 inches of snow and a week of single digit deep freeze is absolutely unthinkable for most of the state. 
 

Meanwhile, California's power grid shits the bed most summers due to completely standard hot weather.  If there were routine rolling blackouts in Texas in the summer, the situations would be analogous, but that isn't a thing.

 

I'd love to see what would happen to LA if they got six inches of snow.. likely hundreds if not thousands of deaths, complete grid failure, and almost certainly a few decades worth of shitty climate change documentaries.

In Oklahoma we had cold like this back in 83 but not the snow, we had rolling blackouts for one day and businesses shutdown exterior lighting. This is our first time that I can remember us having snow on top of snow followed by a week long cold snap. Usually we have a big snow at night and by the afternoon most of it melted, that didn't happen. I believe in the future and changing weather patterns this will be a regular occurrence, I notice it when we do compass swings on the 135's at PDM, the magnetic north pole changes so much lately we are continuing moving the noses of the jets more in a northeast direction to accomplish it. I believe Mag North is now somewhere in Siberia plus the Fukishima earthquake changed the axis where the KTIK main runway changed its numbers from 17/35 to 18/36. The Earth is changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...