It is a cold war that, for the last twenty-five years, has engaged my attention and energy, and continues to do so. There is no “after the Cold War” for me. So far from having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers. We have, I do believe, reached a critical turning point in the history of the American democracy.

It’s true. There is an abiding culture war in the US, although the issues of the “old” culture war are ending, while the new ones, or perhaps underlying ones, are ending.

The difference with the UK is that here the entire culture never really accepted the aftermath of the 60s/70s. That’s the basis of the culture war — it’s between people who think what happened then was great, and we need to keep pushing forward, and people who think what happened then sucked, and we need to run damage control to prevent further damage. These are two fundamentally different worldviews and are not subject to that much compromise.

On the specific issue of gay marriage, the reason why “marriage” is such a big deal for gays is because in the US marriage is a much bigger deal (in terms of % of people who marry) than in most Western countries. It’s still a sign of “cultural credibility” in the US. So gay people want that. It’s as simple as that. They’re not happy with civil unions, they want to social credibility of marriage just like straight people have.

(Of course the UK is pioneering other forms of disintegration).

What would such a moral revolution require? The transfer of funds to various victim groups would have to stop, and the desire of these groups for handouts would have to be labeled immoral and publicly shamed. Furthermore the politicians who get elected by promising these people handouts would have to be shamed and driven from office.

Not gonna happen.

Great to see some good discussion on the pros of nuclear. Thankfully, much of the rest of the world has figured them out as well and is charging ahead with aggressive nuclear building programs. This will result in the growth of a global supply base for components and engineering, not to mention plenty of experience gained from building the first wave of next-generation plants, both of which will make new nukes more affordable down the road. As the plants currently under construction and soon to enter the construction phase progress, we’ll see the U.S. jump on board in a bigger way. Lots of companies are watching and waiting but lack the financing due mostly to risks associated with cost overruns and construction/startup delays. But until then there seems to be too many risks and unknowns for a lot of companies to bite off that huge up-front cost. But with all the cap-and-trade BS going around the relative risk of nuclear is already getting lower.

Or why Canada doesn’t set up reactors on the border, to supply Seattle and Detriot. They could make a lot of money, and bypass the US restrictions.

We don’t need it here in Seattle — we have more than enough hydropower in WA from the abundant mountain snowpack and the Grand Coulee Dam. That’s actually why they put Boeing factories here in the first place — cheap electricity made it easy to smelt aluminum for airplanes.

All true. But I have always wondered why Mexico doesn’t set up nuclear reactors in Tijuana, to sell electricity to the 25 million people in Southern California.

Or why Canada doesn’t set up reactors on the border, to supply Seattle and Detriot. They could make a lot of money, and bypass the US restrictions.

Nuclear power (of the pebble reactor vastly safer variety), much more research, carbon sequestration research, and the like are the way to go. Really aside from research the only really practical widescale alternative now is nuclear – and getting the grid and cars going on becoming electric from whatever source.

The overwhelming majority of nuclear’s cost is the greenie social/legal opposition and therefor huge delay/financing costs and other costs in building the things consequent from that. If greens are serious about global warming they can get serious about a massive building program on nuclear, while we work to make other options actually viable. Nuclear is now, with social /legal changes on tolerating opposition to it.

Anyone interested in the county-based electoral maps can find them here.

The most interesting one for 2008 is the blended county one which shows how counties leaned, rather than winner take all. Obama made serious inroads in 2008, but the map is still remarkably close to what it was in 2004.

“The second factor is even more subversive. Due to the internet, people are able to group together with like-minded people and ignore everyone else, if they wish. Of course the internet also exposes people to a variety of perspectives, but if you don’t wish to be exposed to these, you won’t be. And it’s a fantastic platform for bringing together people from various different places who have a similar perspective in common. Ultimately that is subversive to the existing social order, because it replaces the more traditional loyalties (to community, local society, even country) with a more personally-chosen identification — one that is not tied to community or country and has no particular allegiance in either way. That in itself is quite subversive, and the impact is hitting already, I think.”

That is worth repeating. Viva la Internet!