Unlike others in this thread, I've been hearing about this issue for quite some time in my Houston TX NPR station My take before today (that i still maintain) is that this was a matter of trying to obtain very short term gains without pausing ten minutes to think the whole thing through, together with a total misunderstanding (by the EM and/or the other authorities involved, from the Governor to the city council) about how public utilities really work.
I don't blame Detroit at all. Once Flint announced that it was switching water sources, the correct response by the Detroit utility was to suspend the contract in order to minimize ongoing obligations and liaÿbilities (*) I will bet dollars to donuts that one year is the advance notice for the unilateral termination of the contract. Probably nobody in Flint took the time to read the water supply contract with the Detroit utility and think to negotiate a grace period until the new infrastructure was completed (even assuming there will be no delays)
The cheapest, fastest solution was probably to try to renegotiate the contract with Detroit. Without knowing anything else about Flint's water needs, I'm guessing the high prices are related to paying for an infrastructure that surpasses Flint's current needs. So, assuming a reduction in demand compared to the current contract, I would have offered Detroit a major extension of the duration of the contract (20 years or more) with a progressive reduction in the total water that Detroit must make available (and that probably Flint is not taking anyway). This would allow Detroit to progressively reduce the investments and expenses related to the Flint spur assets. I would have requested a price reduction today at a level lower than the current median cost (including existing asset charges) in exchange for overpaying the asset charges 15 years or so into the future, when the asset base would be lower.
But all of the above was probably too convoluted and nuts and bolts for the people involved in the decision. Instead, blowing away contractual obligations without reading them and signing in for a new -and yet to be built- utility infrastructure sounded like the bold and manly decision. Nothing can be wrong when you make bold and manly decisions. Reading contracts and worrying about take-or-pay and capacity fee charges is for wusses.
This has nothing to do with implicit or explicit racism, and (probably) a lot to do with the fact that reading long documents and making 20 year Excel (tm) spreadsheets is boring. As a US heroine once said: "math class is tough".
(*) Think about it. One of your customers announces it will start buying from someone else, but you still have to maintain operate and perhaps improve an infrastructure that it will soon become redundant. Utilities are very asset heavy (**). Investment decisions are made years in advance, and infrastructure maintenance is paid over several years. Detroit's obligation to its EM and creditors was to minimize any expenses related to the Flint service, given that there would be no future revenues from that contract. For instance, major maintenance to the Flint line would not be recovered if Flint switched providers, so we better not maintain that spur, so we better cut off our obligations as fast as possible.
(**) I manage power and gas utilities for a living
On a completely separate issue, there is an underwater MP player. Several guys in my club use them and they all swear it's great. Not cheap, I'm told. About $200. But will probably help you.
As a frequent flyer with super duper elite status and with no children, I think this is absolutely the best suggestion so far. I've seen so many infants boarding ahead (with me) and then fret for half an hour while the plane is full of noise, people walking by, and excitement all around, while they are essentially tied up. Kids calm down very quickly once everybody s sitting, and there is no more movement and noise around them , and the hum of the plane quickly soothes them? The boarding chaos is very hard on infants. If you can avoid exposing them to it, you, and them, will have a much better time.
When it was pointed out to him that the Obama Administration was in his side and was granting all the requested waivers, he doubled down:
"[NFR: The victory will be defeat if this or the next administration decides that the activists are right, and there will be no accommodations made. — RD]"
So now it is possible to have two revelations that reveal contradictory things: Jesus is God incarnate, no, Jesus is the 2nd to last prophet.
So how can I know the True revelation? Maybe the true revelation is actually The Kojiki, and we should revere The creators Izanagi and Izanami.?
I don't see any way out but to believe that revelations (plural) are either good faith efforts to describe ethical truths, or are but partial glimpse of a God so far beyond our mere understanding, that we see very little of God and more a reflection of what we ourselves put there.
Would the Qur'an be included in that list? If not, why not? If yes, how we reconcile it with the Bible, when the Qur'an specifically says that Jesus is just one prophet among several, and not One with God himself?
There's a great sci-fi novel, Ringworld, that has the best description of this issue:
(Paraphrasing) "Louis became aware of the background music. Beethoven. Or the Beatles. Something classic"
When Mozart wrote music, he wasn't composing classical music. He was doing music. Contemporary, as it happens. But sometime in the early 20th century it was decided that classical everything was stuff made by dead people or in the style of dead people. Anything made by someone not dead was not and could not become classical, even if the guy subsequently died. And posh people could only like classical stuff, because otherwise they would not be posh.
We are probably splitting hairs in this particular example of what/who we are looking for. but I was tought that "a mi esposa" in your example is indirect object because it answers who are you looking for. You would never say "Busco a mi carro" but "busco mi carro" (I look for my car) because carro is a thing (a what) and not a person (a who)
In Spanish the prepositions "a" and "para" mark indirect object complements. In Spanish grammar (not completely sure about English) the indirect object answers not only the "to whom" or "for whom" question but the "where to" question,
Voy para Francia (I go to France)
Voy a Francia (I go to France)
Voy a Francia en el juego (I go for France in the game, meaning I support France in this game)
Hice el juguete para Gabriel (I made the toy for Gabriel)
Di un juguete a Gabriel (I gave a toy to Gabriel)
You are more than half right. Hogar implies that it's lived by someone, whereas casa is just a house in the street. In that respect it ties with home and house. But they are grammatically used in the same way, and you can always use casa instead of hogar. However the inverse is not always correct, because hogar implies that someone or something the speaker is talking about lives or is based there.
I would argue that chez is the possessive case of maison (house). You never talk about a chez, it's always a maison. But chez Pierre or chez moi is Pierre's house or my house.
Out of the top of my head, I can only think of another possessive case example, cal' (with the apostrophe) is "house of" in Catalonian. Again, you don't buy a cal', you buy a casa, but you go cal'Pere ((Peter's house). Unlike French, you don't have the "my house" case. it's casa meva (my house) not cal'me.
Caer bien/care mal are essentially phrasal verbs. The best translation I can think of right now is "suits with me/doesn't suit with me".
It's mostly used in two contexts: people and food/drinks. If a meal disagrees with you, la comida cayo mal (in general) or la comida te cayo mal (to you). Same with caer bien. It is not the same as to like. It means that after eating/drinking it there is a noticeable since of wellness or, conversely, you feel indisposed.
By extension, people also cae bien/mal if other people like/dislike him. Caer mal is more generally used, meaning someone gives repeals me in an almost physical way. Caer bien is milder, it here rally means that others quickly react positively to that person.
My high school (late 70s) had uniforms for girls, but we boys could wear essentially anything, as long is it included long trousers, a shirt or t shirt, and shoes.
Having said that, several girls wore their skirts so short they barely covered their underwear, which I think defeated the whole idea.
The Romance languages I'm familiar with (five or them) do not have a word for home that is different from house. Normally home is translated into Spanish, for instance, as "hogar" and house as "casa", but it is form over substance. Both hogar and casa are grammatically equivalent (and more equivalent to house than to home) and are used the same way, so "going home" cannot be translated into Spanish except as "ir a (mi) casa" (the possessive mi (mine) can be dropped if it is clear through context), that is, "go to my house".
On a more general note, you English speakers would have a much easier time if you had a proper Academy of Language, like we all civilized people do :-)
With respect to becoming green or becoming mad, the translation is the same, volver(se) verde, or volver(se) loco. The "se" suffix (properly declined for verbal person and number) just indicates a reflexive action (I, we, you am/are becoming myself/ourselves/yourself/ mad ) or non reflexive if it is absent (I am making someone else -the object- mad)
What your friends want is a PACS ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact ). A marriage lite version that is definitely different from marriage (or from civil unions that are "equal-to-marriage-except-the-name")
Created in France for the benefit of gay couples that couldn't get married, it ended being extremely popular with straight couples that wanted an intermediate stage, while keeping marriage as an option for the future. 94% of PACSs are opposite sex.
I would strongly support PACSs in the USA. I think they meet a social role. However, I don't know how you would establish them in this country, given that they wouldn't be portable from state to state. A pacsed couple in CA would suddenly become single in OR. it would be the whole gay-marriage in-some-states-conundrum-again.
i am old enough that I remember my parents and other adults telling me that when they were children lefthandedness was very frowned upon, and that lefthanded children were forced to use their right hand, even using quasi brutal methods like tying the left hand behind their back. So there was a lefthandedness closet too.
Later in life, I had a southpaw boss only a couple of years older than me. He wrote with his left hand, but used his right hand for things like, for instance, to handle the knife or the glasses at table. He told me his parents had forced him to use the right hand for these more "social" activities, though he was allowed to use the left hand for things, like writing, that required more dexterity (he could also write quite decently with his right hand too). However, when confronted with something new, he would instinctively use the left hand.
He has other quirks, that might or might not be interrelated. He is truly very much like Sheldon Cooper. Not the least of his quirks is being gay, but, like Sheldon, very asexual. On the other hand, he once flew from America to Helsinki and back in one weekend in winter, just to go to a particular opera that was being showed there, for the first time in a century or something like that. I don't think he slept at all during those 48 hours.
If there is a universal immutable morality, but neither me nor anyone else can find out what that morality is, then it's the same as if the morality list doesn't exist.
Either there is a deductive or inductive method that will yield an irrevocable, universal, answer before before the sun turns Nova, or, for practical purposes there is no universal, eternal, external, morality.
In that case you are stuck with what you can negotiate with your fellow humans. I propose the following: 1. the interactions between you and other humans must be consensual; 2. every consensual interactions must, in principle, avoid harm, particularly harming third parties, and, for the avoidance of harm, societies might oppose certain consensual interactions ; and, 3. when harm occurs, there should be mechanisms by which society tries as best as possible to remediate the harm.
You can build a lot out of these three (and a half) principles, and they are flexible enough that they can be moved around different circumstances. However , i don't know if they are THE universal principles.
A friend of mine, a very successful woman that has risen to be CFO and then CEO of a Power Generation company, is very active in a charity called Dress for Success.
She will tell you how important is for a women applying for a job, even to deep fry onion rings in McDonalds (TM) , to look as polished and nice as possible. This includes proper hairstyle and proper nails in addition to proper clothes.
A man just needs a shave (no limitation in KS) and a haircut (no limitation either). But our society requires more of women. It might be good or bad, doesn't matter. It just does.
My friend Ingrid would be appealed that Kansas is making it more difficult for women to apply for a job. And feeling morally satisfied to boot
I'll take this opportunity to make my own complain about OT
The way the nested comments work, make it impossible to read them in either my iPhone or my BlackBerry. After two or three comments, I get only a long (as in veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long) column of letters.
I enjoy OT, and I wish I could read it in my phone.
The current Jacobite claimant Is also the claimant of the Bavarian throne. The claim passed to the Savoy family (later Kings of Italy), then to a collateral branch of the Habsburg family (the Habsburg-Este) and then to the Wittlesbach.
After Queen Anne died they skipped about 50 people with a better claim until they found George of Hannover who became George I. All the rest were either Catholics or had converted to Catholicism (Charlotte, sister in law of Louis XIV was one of these)
The reason the claim has jumped through several families is that women are allowed to transmit the claim. In several occasions only daughters married out while their father's throne went to their male cousins.
On “A Tragedy with Many Fathers”
Unlike others in this thread, I've been hearing about this issue for quite some time in my Houston TX NPR station My take before today (that i still maintain) is that this was a matter of trying to obtain very short term gains without pausing ten minutes to think the whole thing through, together with a total misunderstanding (by the EM and/or the other authorities involved, from the Governor to the city council) about how public utilities really work.
I don't blame Detroit at all. Once Flint announced that it was switching water sources, the correct response by the Detroit utility was to suspend the contract in order to minimize ongoing obligations and liaÿbilities (*) I will bet dollars to donuts that one year is the advance notice for the unilateral termination of the contract. Probably nobody in Flint took the time to read the water supply contract with the Detroit utility and think to negotiate a grace period until the new infrastructure was completed (even assuming there will be no delays)
The cheapest, fastest solution was probably to try to renegotiate the contract with Detroit. Without knowing anything else about Flint's water needs, I'm guessing the high prices are related to paying for an infrastructure that surpasses Flint's current needs. So, assuming a reduction in demand compared to the current contract, I would have offered Detroit a major extension of the duration of the contract (20 years or more) with a progressive reduction in the total water that Detroit must make available (and that probably Flint is not taking anyway). This would allow Detroit to progressively reduce the investments and expenses related to the Flint spur assets. I would have requested a price reduction today at a level lower than the current median cost (including existing asset charges) in exchange for overpaying the asset charges 15 years or so into the future, when the asset base would be lower.
But all of the above was probably too convoluted and nuts and bolts for the people involved in the decision. Instead, blowing away contractual obligations without reading them and signing in for a new -and yet to be built- utility infrastructure sounded like the bold and manly decision. Nothing can be wrong when you make bold and manly decisions. Reading contracts and worrying about take-or-pay and capacity fee charges is for wusses.
This has nothing to do with implicit or explicit racism, and (probably) a lot to do with the fact that reading long documents and making 20 year Excel (tm) spreadsheets is boring. As a US heroine once said: "math class is tough".
(*) Think about it. One of your customers announces it will start buying from someone else, but you still have to maintain operate and perhaps improve an infrastructure that it will soon become redundant. Utilities are very asset heavy (**). Investment decisions are made years in advance, and infrastructure maintenance is paid over several years. Detroit's obligation to its EM and creditors was to minimize any expenses related to the Flint service, given that there would be no future revenues from that contract. For instance, major maintenance to the Flint line would not be recovered if Flint switched providers, so we better not maintain that spur, so we better cut off our obligations as fast as possible.
(**) I manage power and gas utilities for a living
On “Swimming like Frankenstein’s Monster”
On a completely separate issue, there is an underwater MP player. Several guys in my club use them and they all swear it's great. Not cheap, I'm told. About $200. But will probably help you.
On “Traveling with Children”
As a frequent flyer with super duper elite status and with no children, I think this is absolutely the best suggestion so far. I've seen so many infants boarding ahead (with me) and then fret for half an hour while the plane is full of noise, people walking by, and excitement all around, while they are essentially tied up. Kids calm down very quickly once everybody s sitting, and there is no more movement and noise around them , and the hum of the plane quickly soothes them? The boarding chaos is very hard on infants. If you can avoid exposing them to it, you, and them, will have a much better time.
On “Only the Right Believes in Class Conflict Anymore”
There was an NPR program some months ago, in which yacht owning families making several millions a year, described themselves as middle class.
"
When it was pointed out to him that the Obama Administration was in his side and was granting all the requested waivers, he doubled down:
"[NFR: The victory will be defeat if this or the next administration decides that the activists are right, and there will be no accommodations made. — RD]"
On “Reason & Revelation (and Something Else)”
So now it is possible to have two revelations that reveal contradictory things: Jesus is God incarnate, no, Jesus is the 2nd to last prophet.
So how can I know the True revelation? Maybe the true revelation is actually The Kojiki, and we should revere The creators Izanagi and Izanami.?
I don't see any way out but to believe that revelations (plural) are either good faith efforts to describe ethical truths, or are but partial glimpse of a God so far beyond our mere understanding, that we see very little of God and more a reflection of what we ourselves put there.
"
Would the Qur'an be included in that list? If not, why not? If yes, how we reconcile it with the Bible, when the Qur'an specifically says that Jesus is just one prophet among several, and not One with God himself?
On “Getting Myself in Trouble: Some Thoughts on Aesthetics and Culture and the Revolt against the Intellectual”
There's a great sci-fi novel, Ringworld, that has the best description of this issue:
(Paraphrasing) "Louis became aware of the background music. Beethoven. Or the Beatles. Something classic"
When Mozart wrote music, he wasn't composing classical music. He was doing music. Contemporary, as it happens. But sometime in the early 20th century it was decided that classical everything was stuff made by dead people or in the style of dead people. Anything made by someone not dead was not and could not become classical, even if the guy subsequently died. And posh people could only like classical stuff, because otherwise they would not be posh.
On “Modern English Grammar”
We are probably splitting hairs in this particular example of what/who we are looking for. but I was tought that "a mi esposa" in your example is indirect object because it answers who are you looking for. You would never say "Busco a mi carro" but "busco mi carro" (I look for my car) because carro is a thing (a what) and not a person (a who)
"
In Spanish the prepositions "a" and "para" mark indirect object complements. In Spanish grammar (not completely sure about English) the indirect object answers not only the "to whom" or "for whom" question but the "where to" question,
Voy para Francia (I go to France)
Voy a Francia (I go to France)
Voy a Francia en el juego (I go for France in the game, meaning I support France in this game)
Hice el juguete para Gabriel (I made the toy for Gabriel)
Di un juguete a Gabriel (I gave a toy to Gabriel)
"
You are more than half right. Hogar implies that it's lived by someone, whereas casa is just a house in the street. In that respect it ties with home and house. But they are grammatically used in the same way, and you can always use casa instead of hogar. However the inverse is not always correct, because hogar implies that someone or something the speaker is talking about lives or is based there.
"
I would argue that chez is the possessive case of maison (house). You never talk about a chez, it's always a maison. But chez Pierre or chez moi is Pierre's house or my house.
Out of the top of my head, I can only think of another possessive case example, cal' (with the apostrophe) is "house of" in Catalonian. Again, you don't buy a cal', you buy a casa, but you go cal'Pere ((Peter's house). Unlike French, you don't have the "my house" case. it's casa meva (my house) not cal'me.
"
Caer bien/care mal are essentially phrasal verbs. The best translation I can think of right now is "suits with me/doesn't suit with me".
It's mostly used in two contexts: people and food/drinks. If a meal disagrees with you, la comida cayo mal (in general) or la comida te cayo mal (to you). Same with caer bien. It is not the same as to like. It means that after eating/drinking it there is a noticeable since of wellness or, conversely, you feel indisposed.
By extension, people also cae bien/mal if other people like/dislike him. Caer mal is more generally used, meaning someone gives repeals me in an almost physical way. Caer bien is milder, it here rally means that others quickly react positively to that person.
On “And so it begins.”
My high school (late 70s) had uniforms for girls, but we boys could wear essentially anything, as long is it included long trousers, a shirt or t shirt, and shoes.
Having said that, several girls wore their skirts so short they barely covered their underwear, which I think defeated the whole idea.
On “Modern English Grammar”
The Romance languages I'm familiar with (five or them) do not have a word for home that is different from house. Normally home is translated into Spanish, for instance, as "hogar" and house as "casa", but it is form over substance. Both hogar and casa are grammatically equivalent (and more equivalent to house than to home) and are used the same way, so "going home" cannot be translated into Spanish except as "ir a (mi) casa" (the possessive mi (mine) can be dropped if it is clear through context), that is, "go to my house".
On a more general note, you English speakers would have a much easier time if you had a proper Academy of Language, like we all civilized people do :-)
With respect to becoming green or becoming mad, the translation is the same, volver(se) verde, or volver(se) loco. The "se" suffix (properly declined for verbal person and number) just indicates a reflexive action (I, we, you am/are becoming myself/ourselves/yourself/ mad ) or non reflexive if it is absent (I am making someone else -the object- mad)
On “A Proposal For Privatizing Marriage”
What your friends want is a PACS ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact ). A marriage lite version that is definitely different from marriage (or from civil unions that are "equal-to-marriage-except-the-name")
Created in France for the benefit of gay couples that couldn't get married, it ended being extremely popular with straight couples that wanted an intermediate stage, while keeping marriage as an option for the future. 94% of PACSs are opposite sex.
I would strongly support PACSs in the USA. I think they meet a social role. However, I don't know how you would establish them in this country, given that they wouldn't be portable from state to state. A pacsed couple in CA would suddenly become single in OR. it would be the whole gay-marriage in-some-states-conundrum-again.
On “Ignorant Bullies Censor Art Exhibition”
I hear you cannot say "Kardashian" here. Is that true?
On “Sexual Orientation and Human Nature”
i am old enough that I remember my parents and other adults telling me that when they were children lefthandedness was very frowned upon, and that lefthanded children were forced to use their right hand, even using quasi brutal methods like tying the left hand behind their back. So there was a lefthandedness closet too.
Later in life, I had a southpaw boss only a couple of years older than me. He wrote with his left hand, but used his right hand for things like, for instance, to handle the knife or the glasses at table. He told me his parents had forced him to use the right hand for these more "social" activities, though he was allowed to use the left hand for things, like writing, that required more dexterity (he could also write quite decently with his right hand too). However, when confronted with something new, he would instinctively use the left hand.
He has other quirks, that might or might not be interrelated. He is truly very much like Sheldon Cooper. Not the least of his quirks is being gay, but, like Sheldon, very asexual. On the other hand, he once flew from America to Helsinki and back in one weekend in winter, just to go to a particular opera that was being showed there, for the first time in a century or something like that. I don't think he slept at all during those 48 hours.
On “Society must be defended!”
If there is a universal immutable morality, but neither me nor anyone else can find out what that morality is, then it's the same as if the morality list doesn't exist.
Either there is a deductive or inductive method that will yield an irrevocable, universal, answer before before the sun turns Nova, or, for practical purposes there is no universal, eternal, external, morality.
In that case you are stuck with what you can negotiate with your fellow humans. I propose the following: 1. the interactions between you and other humans must be consensual; 2. every consensual interactions must, in principle, avoid harm, particularly harming third parties, and, for the avoidance of harm, societies might oppose certain consensual interactions ; and, 3. when harm occurs, there should be mechanisms by which society tries as best as possible to remediate the harm.
You can build a lot out of these three (and a half) principles, and they are flexible enough that they can be moved around different circumstances. However , i don't know if they are THE universal principles.
On “In which Kansas reveals our Id”
A friend of mine, a very successful woman that has risen to be CFO and then CEO of a Power Generation company, is very active in a charity called Dress for Success.
She will tell you how important is for a women applying for a job, even to deep fry onion rings in McDonalds (TM) , to look as polished and nice as possible. This includes proper hairstyle and proper nails in addition to proper clothes.
A man just needs a shave (no limitation in KS) and a haircut (no limitation either). But our society requires more of women. It might be good or bad, doesn't matter. It just does.
My friend Ingrid would be appealed that Kansas is making it more difficult for women to apply for a job. And feeling morally satisfied to boot
On “Regarding Web Pages & Unnecessary Complexity”
It works!!!!!!!!!!
You are my hero. Thank you for giving me O. T. onthe go!!!!
"
I'll take this opportunity to make my own complain about OT
The way the nested comments work, make it impossible to read them in either my iPhone or my BlackBerry. After two or three comments, I get only a long (as in veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long) column of letters.
I enjoy OT, and I wish I could read it in my phone.
On “England has a bad History with Kings named Charles”
@burt-likko
The current Jacobite claimant Is also the claimant of the Bavarian throne. The claim passed to the Savoy family (later Kings of Italy), then to a collateral branch of the Habsburg family (the Habsburg-Este) and then to the Wittlesbach.
After Queen Anne died they skipped about 50 people with a better claim until they found George of Hannover who became George I. All the rest were either Catholics or had converted to Catholicism (Charlotte, sister in law of Louis XIV was one of these)
The reason the claim has jumped through several families is that women are allowed to transmit the claim. In several occasions only daughters married out while their father's throne went to their male cousins.
On “Outliers!”
A Connecticut Yankee is also told in the first person
"
#4. Prince and Pauper is the only one in which no character is from the U.S.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.