brenthutch

I thought a wet winters and spring followed by a dry summer and fall was called California. No catastrophic man made global warming needed. As that great Scottish/American troubadour, David Byrne proclaimed, "same as it ever was".

The point is, that there was NOT some severe drought (or any state of drought for that matter) and the temperature was not abnormally high (unless you think 75 is sweltering. The fact of the matter is, despite the earnest desires of many, the Paradise fire CANNOT be attributed to man made climate change.

Where did I say anything about a conspiracy? History is full of examples of enterprising capitalists cashing in on public phobias, bomb/survival shelters to name one. Oh and BTW "Super Storm Sandy" wasn't even a category one hurricane when it made landfall.

No conspiracy, just a way to make some money off of a tragedy by characterizing it as the “new normal”. Remember after hurricane Katerina we were told that was going to be the norm due to climate change, necessitating higher premiums? What followed? A ten year hurricane drought. The insurance companies laughed all the way to the bank, having fleeced the all of the sheeple.

No just opportunists. Jump on the climate change bandwagon and justify higher premiums.

How is citing the lack of drought conditions, the temperature and wind speed weasely? The fact of the matter is that climate change had nothing to do with the Paradise fire. Even if some folks really really really wanted it to.

I said wettest rainy season, not year. Also 75 degrees is unusually warm??? Winds 2-12, unusually high???

It is worth noting that the area around the town of Paradise was not even in a mild state of drought, in fact the 2016-2017 rainy season was the wettest in 100 years, nor was experiencing unusually high temperatures. The fire was caused by power lines not climate change.

Free market capitalism requires a voluntary exchange between parties. If insurance companies can convince consumers to pay more because of climate change, well that is just marketing genius.

Electric vehicles are the transportation of the future.....and always will be. In all seriousness, I have nothing against EVs per se. I just don't think they should be subsidized by the federal government. They should also pay a road usage fee since they use the roads but don't contribute to the maintenance via gas taxs.

Now it has skyrocketed to 1.74% as the rest of the country is buying big pickup trucks and SUVs.

You have got to be kidding me. Insurance companies LOVE climate alarmism! "We have to raise your rates and cut your coverage because uh.....climate change, yeah yeah that's the ticket, climate change."

Meanwhile in the US, electric cars are less than 2% of the market.

Orange you forgetting something?

I officially and humbly withdraw "controversial" Gowlerk, it is nice that you have come around and admit that NPR leans left.

"controversial" is how the NPR interviewer characterizes the book. Of course she may have just used the publisher's liner notes.

let's set aside the word "controversial," since it is creating some confusion.

Google it for yourself, and choose the source with which you are comfortable. If I were to provide a link, I would be accused of bias.

In this controversial National Bestseller, the former CEO of NPR sets out for conservative America wondering why these people are so wrong about everything. It turns out, they aren’t. Ken Stern watched the increasing polarization of our country with growing concern. As a longtime partisan Democrat himself, he felt forced to acknowledge that his own views were too parochial, too absent of any exposure to the “other side.” In fact, his urban neighborhood is so liberal, he couldn’t find a single Republican--even by asking around. So for one year, he crossed the aisle to spend time listening, talking, and praying with Republicans of all stripes. With his mind open and his dial tuned to the right, he went to evangelical churches, shot a hog in Texas, stood in pit row at a NASCAR race, hung out at Tea Party meetings and sat in on Steve Bannon’s radio show. He also read up on conservative wonkery and consulted with the smartest people the right has to offer. What happens when a liberal sets out to look at issues from a conservative perspective? Some of his dearly cherished assumptions about the right slipped away. Republican Like Me reveals what lead him to change his mind, and his view of an increasingly polarized America. Can somebody please explain why this book is controversial?

I don't listen/watch Fox News. I was listening to an interview with the liberal/progressive/Democrat author of the book "Republican like me" the author was conveying his experiences with "Red America" and how it was not the cartoonish caricature often portrayed in the press. He remarked that "Red America" was thoughtful, kind and often surprisingly intellectual. The interviewer kept interrupting and earnestly insisted that the author had to be missing something. She wasn't being smug or pompous, she was genuinely confused. Such is the state of NPR, sadly.

Thank you. NPR rant to follow. I started listening to NPR when I was in college. I had my first "driveway moment" listening to a story about high school athletics. I noticed a subtle change after the election of GWB, all of a sudden the reporting took on a darker edge that I couldn't attribute to anything at the time. After the election of Obama, it was back to its old intellectual, light hearted self. Now it is dark again and seems nearly every story is about LGTBQA issues and climate change, with a side of hip-hop, (which is ironic since, if NPR were a State it would be Vermont).

I am waiting for a ruling from the moderators before engaging.

Is it still off limits to discuss NPR?

Obviously I'm not the only on who thought the GND was a load of horse shit, it got exactly ZERO votes in the senate, even its co sponsors were too embarrassed to support it.

It doesn't preclude him from being a psychopathic asshole.