FragilousSpectunkery

FragilousSpectunkery t1_jd7ipfm wrote

National park status usually places a moratorium on hunting and some/all fishing, so I guess I would be opposed to this. Parks are supposed to protect special and unusual places from overuse or destruction. This are has been used for centuries without destruction, and our harvesting laws have mostly prevented overuse.

7

FragilousSpectunkery t1_j9tfj16 wrote

If only my dash cam could issue citations….

But really, you don’t have to catch all the violations, just enough that people start to notice and react by clearing the snow. Or stopping at red lights. Or removing illegal lights. It’s a long list of things we want stopped but the cops are unwilling to both about.

8

FragilousSpectunkery t1_j5whbsu wrote

Remember that AG in S Dakota that killed a pedestrian while driving his car and using his phone to check emails? His name is South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg. He was impeached and tossed out of his office. It's not about party, it's about doing the right thing.

That said, it's remarkably easy to say "of course they did it, since otherwise our party would look bad." Just like you said about the PPH making hay for some Democrat. Stop saying shit like that, stop guessing motives. Stop using a reporter's or editor's decision in phrasing to justify YOUR bias. Just be the person who starts with "Good, they deserved it" and let it go with that. That is what you are hearing a bunch of people doing in this thread, and yet you persist in "I'll believe it when I see it." It's you. You are the problem.

7

FragilousSpectunkery t1_j5wfhmm wrote

And he is a male. And he is (apparently) a fisherman. And he is caucasian.

None of them are linked to his fraudulent behavior. That is the only thing that matters. If he's guilty, persecute and prosecute. Dragging his choice of political affiliations into it is, quite frankly, small. I dare say most registered Dem voters have no interaction with ANY Dem politicians. Likewise with Republicans. Creating a relationship where none exists is one of the big reasons our country is such at odds today.

2

FragilousSpectunkery t1_j5rfevn wrote

I'm not versed in the vagaries of state PUC rules, but most have a list of allowable expenses for inclusion in the "cost to deliver" electricity rates. In Oregon they can expense maintenance of right of ways, but it's a fixed amount. Like, the total for maintenance is capped, and how much they do is proportional to the cost per mile. They also have to maintain the entire network, and not just the easy bits. Indiana might be different, as might Maine. I do know CMP hires local ROW maintenance crews.

1

FragilousSpectunkery t1_j5ov8md wrote

Yes, but also the line clearing would be passed on, as would the undergrounding of lines. There is no part of the capital infrastructure owned by the Avangrifters that we, the ratepayers, haven't given them through "cost of delivery". It's the biggest lie told by CMP and the PUC. Allowing for-profit infrastructure is harming the economy, and enriching the already wealthy.

8

FragilousSpectunkery t1_j5o9vxb wrote

The overarching reason for snowstorm power issues are trees. There are 2 solutions. First is to trim trees back from lines so that it is impossible for anything to fall on the lines. In residential areas this means a LOT of decorative trees will be gone. Or, spend a lot more money and underground the lines. Neither is cheap, neither is easy. It really doesn't matter, in the moment, who owns the lines. Storm response is a process, prioritizing different lines based on how many are downstream. They obviously want to first do the things that improve the most connections.

59