Not in 2024. Maybe never.

Bookmarking

Not to go all Andy, but would you like to bet on whether Rick Scott runs for president in 2024, Bivens?.

92. I don't think you really understand colonization. We've never tried to colonize anyone.

While the US technically ruled the Philippines for a few years after 1898, the planning for independence began immediately after the war and would have been completed in the 1930s had it not been for the war. To suggest an interim transition period is colonization is misrepresenting the topic. It was certainly a Spanish colony.

Puerto Rico is largely self -governed and they have had plenty of opportunities to vote on independence. It's the closest thing you can find to a colony but it's not that in any sense of the word - they've missed their chance to become a state as it is now bound up with dem- rep politics. Independent nationhood is a more likely answer but I don't think people there want it. My personal opinion is that both sides should agree them to become a state. It was also certainly a Spanish colony.

Samoa ? They rejected incorporation after wwii. It's an island of 30k people - you can have that one. Woopdedoo.

If that's what you consider the US history of colonization, acquiring PR and Philippines in a war and not making them independent fast enough for your liking, ok. Arguably the same applies to Samoa.

78. I'm not implying it. I'm saying it outright. An overwhelming majority of Americans were perfectly complacent about what was being taught in (grade) schools until about 20 years ago. Maybe not so much in college - liberal viewpoints have dominated college campuses since the 1970s but parents assume you can think for yourself by then. But the changes in pre college teaching has gotten much more divisive. Whether you agree or disagree with what kind of things are in the curriculum, everyone can agree there is much more heated debate about it now than there ever was.

I'm not implying it. I'm saying it outright.

You don't say!

Not to go all Andy, but would you like to bet on whether Rick Scott runs for president in 2024, Bivens?

Betting on politics is worse that betting on the WWE.

Shall I quote Mencken?

For 20 years I was promised that Republicans wouldn’t really overturn Roe v. Wade, because doing so is so unpopular, and because it would disrupt society and kill or maim many sentient American women to benefit blastocysts.

Now I’m being told that Rick Scott’s plan, designed to sunset expensive government programs like Social security and Medicare, wouldn’t hurt them at all. And that Mike Lee, when he talks on video about strangling social security and Medicare doesn’t mean them any harm. And that the many relentless efforts of the GOP to shrink every social welfare program in order to cut taxes for the “job creators” in the top 1% is just a coincidence.

How could I think that Biden, by quoting Republicans, is telling the truth about their clearly laid out plans? He must be lying.

3. Why regulators are banning gas stoves

What regulators? Where?

Let’s not play dumb. Richard Trumka, Jr., a Biden appointee to the Consumer Product Safety Commission pushed the idea in a memorandum to the entire Commission:

The Biden administration seriously considered banning natural gas-powered stoves before it received widespread criticism for considering such a move, according to an internal memo obtained by Fox News Digital.

In the memo dated Oct. 25, 2022, Richard Trumka Jr. — whom President Biden appointed to serve on the five-person Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) — wrote to a fellow commissioner that there was sufficient evidence for the agency to move forward with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to ban gas stoves in the near future. Trumka's memo was titled, "NPR Proposing Ban on Gas Stoves (Indoor Air Quality)."

"The need for gas stove regulation has reached a boiling point," the CPSC commissioner wrote in the October memo. "CPSC has the responsibility to ban consumer products that emit hazardous substances, particularly, when those emissions harm children, under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act."

"Emerging evidence is sufficient to conclude that gas stoves in homes emit toxic gasses that cause illness and that lower-cost, safer alternatives are available," Trumka added.

IOW one commissioner wrote one memorandum. By that standard, the Republicans have repealed Medicare.

The loud and immediate outcry was sufficient to cause the Administration to back off, with the midterm election looming, but it is pure gaslighting to now pretend that this wasn’t a serious proposal.

Yes, it was a serious proposal by one CPSC Commissioner.

It’s also ridiculous to try to minimize the proposal’s effect by suggesting that it would only apply to new construction.

Jesus H. Christ, you sure can read a lot into one regulation by one city government that specifically does apply only to new stoves. Not even Trumka, let alone the entire CPSC, let along Biden, let alone any Democratic Senator or Representative, let alone any government anywhere in the United States, was suggesting the confiscation of existing gas stoves, and you know it.

Why should new consumers be denied the option of cooking with gas?

Nice goal post shifting. First you're implying that it was almost a done deed, when it was just one Commissioner's proposal. And now you're trying to argue the substance of the proposal against someone (me) who's had a gas stove for nearly 30 years and has no intention of getting rid of it. I can only think that you're auditioning for the next opening that comes up on Fox News.

Duke...we colonized the entire US of A.

Betting on politics is worse that betting on the WWE.

Certainly for you. Just FYI, Rick Scott has already declared that he’s running for reelection to the Senate, not for President, in 2024.

I did not realize real people cared about the gas stove fauxtroversy.

Funny. Hey, remember when Ron DeSantis wouldn't answer whether he would finish his term as Governor? I know this isn't the same as Scott declaring for the Senate vs the presidency...but never say never.

It was worse, for me. I underestimated the stupidity and moral decay of the general populace. Never again! (I know, I just said "never say never", but remember: just when you think you knew all the answers, *I* changed the questions.)

I did not realize real people cared about the gas stove fauxtroversy.

Anyone who's capable of worrying over "woke" M & M's and the "War on Christmas" is pretty much capable of worrying about anything. Or at least pretending to be worried.

IOW one commissioner wrote one memorandum. By that standard, the Republicans have repealed Medicare.
. . .
Yes, it was a serious proposal by one CPSC Commissioner.
. . .
Jesus H. Christ, you sure can read a lot into one regulation by one city government that specifically does apply only to new stoves.

Thats just more gaslighting - not even close to factual. Trumka drafted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the formal mechanism administrative agencies use to enact regulations. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is a five-member body that frequently operates with as few as the 3 members required for a quorum. Only a bare majority can be members of the same political party, and in the 3-member configuration only 2 votes would be needed to approve an item. So, one member of the CPSC could be 50% of the votes needed to enact the measure. It’s also certainly possible Trumka wrote his memo after other Commissioners indicated their interest in his idea, only for them to back off once it became obvious that it was based on politically unpopular junk science.

Moreover, the Biden Administration’s ‘War on Gas” isn’t confined to the CPSC. The Department of Energy recently proposed new standards for energy consumption that may ban 95% of the gas stoves in currently on the market. FYI, it’s also not just Berkeley that has enacted such nonsense, some 99 jurisdictions (including NYC, LA, SF, and soon DC) have some type of gas stove ban, many the ‘just for new connections’ designed to sneak this unpopular regulation by the people at minimal political cost. Why should those who live in a newer house, condo or apartment be 2nd class citizens?

Hey Clapper, speaking of Mencken, here's a quote of his the Proud Boys could get behind, huh?


"The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display." ~ H. L. Mencken

Duke, I grew up in Puerto Rico. It's part of the US, but it has no representation in Congress. It's a second-class, subordinate jurisdiction -- a colony, in other words.

By contrast, Guadeloupe and Martinique are integral parts of France. Their residents vote in French elections and send voting representatives to the national legislature. They were formerly colonies, but not anymore.

PR has remained a commonwealth all these years because (a) the status issue is extremely divisive locally and (b) polarization favors inertia. (It's a lot more complicated than that, but that's basic to the issue.)

PR's best shot to become a state was probably in the 1970's. Even as popular sentiment on the island has drifted (slowly) towards favoring statehood, I consider it extremely unlikely that it would be admitted today by the US, even if statehood got 80% of the vote in a local referendum.

How can you make Puerto Rico a state?? No one speaks American there.


edit....I am 100% in favor of Puerto Rican statehood.

I am 100% in favor of Puerto Rican statehood.

That statement would start lethal bar fights in many places in PR. But you'll never know in advance which.

"Biden wants to ban gas stoves!!!!"


Thanks?

That statement would start lethal bar fights in many places in PR. But you'll never know in advance which.

My understanding is that statehood, independence & continued commonwealth status have roughly equal support, which makes any change unlikely, since about two-thirds are opposed to any one option. If Puerto Ricans gave overwhelm8ng support to statehood, as was the case with many of the prior territories, it might have happened by now. Still, not such a bad deal with no federal income tax.

Thats just more gaslighting - not even close to factual. Trumka drafted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the formal mechanism administrative agencies use to enact regulations. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is a five-member body that frequently operates with as few as the 3 members required for a quorum. Only a bare majority can be members of the same political party, and in the 3-member configuration only 2 votes would be needed to approve an item. So, one member of the CPSC could be 50% of the votes needed to enact the measure. It’s also certainly possible Trumka wrote his memo after other Commissioners indicated their interest in his idea, only for them to back off once it became obvious that it was based on politically unpopular junk science.

Lots of conjecture there. Wake me when they come for our gas stoves.

Moreover, the Biden Administration’s ‘War on Gas” isn’t confined to the CPSC. The Department of Energy recently proposed new standards for energy consumption that may ban 95% of the gas stoves in currently on the market.

Here are the concluding paragraphs from that TIME article you linked to. Obviously you're taking the trade group's "95%" as gospel. Is this your idea of objectivity? When smoking bans were being proposed, were you quoting the tobacco companies' hired doctors as if their take settled the issue?

“This approach by DOE could effectively ban gas appliances,” said Jill Notini, a vice president with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, a Washington-based trade group. “We are concerned this approach could eliminate fully featured gas products.”

The trade group is still evaluating the rule, but “it appears” that 95% of the market would not meet the proposed levels, Notini said.

The Energy Department said the standards, which would result in $1.7 billion in reduced energy costs, were mandated by Congress and are technologically feasible for both gas and electric cooktops.

“We are not proposing bans on either,” the department said in a statement. “Every major manufacturer has products that meet or exceed the requirements proposed today.”

Moreover, the Biden Administration’s ‘War on Gas” isn’t confined to the CPSC. The Department of Energy recently proposed new standards for energy consumption that may ban 95% of the gas stoves in currently on the market. FYI, it’s also not just Berkeley that has enacted such nonsense, some 99 jurisdictions (including NYC, LA, SF, and soon DC) have some type of gas stove ban, many the ‘just for new connections’ designed to sneak this unpopular regulation by the people at minimal political cost. Why should those who live in a newer house, condo or apartment be 2nd class citizens?

So how "many" jurisdictions are forcing people to replace their existing gas stoves? Even in your favorite boogeyman city, New York, there's no such law in the works.

What’s the latest on gas stove bans in New York? And can I keep my existing one?

In a few years, new buildings in New York City won’t be allowed to feature gas stoves in kitchens, or any other appliances powered by fossil fuel.

The City Council in 2021 passed a bill that effectively bans gas in new buildings, starting in 2024 for those under seven stories and in 2027 for anything taller. It’s an effort to slash greenhouse gas emissions, which exacerbate climate change.

But there’s nothing in the law that would rip gas stoves out of the kitchens where they’re already installed.

Link

So, as I understand Andy, everything is fine as long as he is allowed to retain his gas stove, but he is utterly indifferent if others are denied the same privilege.

Hope, but doubt you were just watching CBS. They just had a pretty damning report of the Duval schools issue. There are no books in the libraries. The shelves are all bare. Nothing for the kids to read. NO READING, KIDS!! NOT IN OUR SCHOOLS!!

But there’s nothing in the law that would rip gas stoves out of the kitchens where they’re already installed.

i don't wear no seatbelts and none else can ware none either, guffaw.

As someone pointed out, here's how WaPo, a creature of the left, operates on this score:

4 stories from Washington Post in a 2 day period:

1. No one is coming after gas stoves

2. Republicans are just making gas stoves an issue to wage culture war

3. Why regulators are banning gas stoves

4. Why banning gas stoves is good actually

Weird how JE is incessantly critical of the media or the use of anonymous sources but can't give a proper citation here. This wasn't just someone. C'mon now, JE. Be proud. It was @Oilfield_Rando on Twitter. Then again, to be fair, a wide-reading, critical thinker like JE may have seen that tweet in The Federalist article that cited it.

Hope, but doubt you were just watching CBS. They just had a pretty damning report of the Duval schools issue. There are no books in the libraries. The shelves are all bare. Nothing for the kids to read. NO READING, KIDS!! NOT IN OUR SCHOOLS!!

Has any other jurisdiction in Florida engaged in similar action? I haven’t heard of any, and none have been mentioned in this thread. So why is Bivens (and others) continuing to blame the state of Florida rather than the rogue book banning librarians of Duval County? Seems to be nothing more than targeting those you disagree with politically while excusing your likely ideological allies, facts be damned.

FWIW, pretty sure that the Duval County school kids being used as political pawns still have access to a considerable amount of reading material, e.g. the entire Internet.

116. Your description is correct but that doesn't make it a colony. It would be a colony if it were governed by the US. Puerto Rico is not a colony by that definition. It is a self-governing state and is not under the control of the US and it is not occupied by native US citizens who run the show. It is true PR does not send reps to Congress but it is also true that its natives are US citizens, and (with a few exceptions) do not pay federal income tax, although they pay other US taxes.

So there is no taxation without representation.

Having said that, it probably should be a state but, as you say, the local population has rejected that over time. It is something more akin to colony-lite. I can see why people don't want a change. You get to be a citizen and you don't have to pay federal taxes - it's not a horrible deal.

My general point is that the US is not and never has been a colonizer. It was a victim of colonization which led to our revolution

108. No we didn't, but of course you know that. The Indian nations are still considered separate nations in US law and there continue to be many Supreme Court cases adjudicating these issues. That is, they exist equal to our 50 states in law - ie the states can't run Indian territory. There was never an Indian nation here. There were hundreds of Indian tribes when Columbus showed up and there are still are hundreds of independent nations here.

There are two cases in Oklahoma in the last there years which are fascinating. If you live in the East you might think Indians have been largely eliminated. If you live in the West or Alaska those cultures continue to grow and thrive.

As someone pointed out, here's how WaPo, a creature of the left, operates on this score:

4 stories from Washington Post in a 2 day period:

1. No one is coming after gas stoves

2. Republicans are just making gas stoves an issue to wage culture war

3. Why regulators are banning gas stoves

4. Why banning gas stoves is good actually

Your peeps push loony ideas, then kvetch when we have the chutzpah to respond.

It's always projection with the left. Always.

lol Desantis is the one giving press conferences in front of a bunch of gas stoves and vowing to exclude them from sales tax even though less than 10 percent of the stoves in the state are gas operated, but sure, it's the left's fault.

The "they're coming for your gas stoves" is just a dorkier, more embarrassing version of "their coming for your guns!"

If you live in the West or Alaska those cultures continue to grow and thrive.

Sure they do. Their territories are postage stamp sized, relative to what they used to roam, but go on.

So why is Bivens (and others) continuing to blame the state of Florida rather than the rogue book banning librarians of Duval County?

Because it seems as if the intent of the law was to do exactly what Duval is doing, as a trial balloon to gauge the public's reaction.

"PEN America on Tuesday presented a joint letter with We Need Diverse Books and authors and illustrators of 176 books removed from classrooms in Duval County, Florida, in January 2022 for “review.” They have been kept in storage for 10 months with little indication of when they might return to classrooms."

Why? Because, while they pulled books back in early 2022, they didn't have the training for the "media specialists" to do the "reviews" until January of 2023. That's what I call good faith!

So, as I understand Andy, everything is fine as long as he is allowed to retain his gas stove, but he is utterly indifferent if others are denied the same privilege.

My privilege is being able to keep my existing gas stove. No one is being deprived of that privilege, either in NYC or anywhere else.

As I said above, wake me when they come for yours.

--------------

The "they're coming for your gas stoves" is just a dorkier, more embarrassing version of "they're coming for your guns!"

Or your Bibles. Or your Christmas trees. Or your cigarettes. Or your M & M's. Or your ......

Because it seems as if the intent of the law was to do exactly what Duval is doing, as a trial balloon to gauge the public's reaction.

You cite no evidence for your claimed intent. In all of Florida’s 67 counties, hundreds of cities & towns, and thousands of libraries, a single jurisdiction has misinterpreted the statute in what appears to be a deliberate effort to discredit the law. It’s utter nonsense to blame the Governor or Legislature rather than the rogue Duval County book banning librarians. Nothing in the statute required them to pull the Clemente book. Typical Bivens.

My privilege is being able to keep my existing gas stove. No one is being deprived of that privilege, either in NYC or anywhere else.

No new housing or restaurants are going to be built in NYC? Doubtful.

I was all of 6 years old in 1965 when I was a budding baseball fan. I idolized Roberto Clemente, winning his 3rd batting title that year. Winning the MVP the following year and having his best season in 1967, winning title #4 with a .357 average. He lined a pitch from Bob Gibson straight back at the pitcher, and he hit it so hard it broke Gibson's leg. Clemente was awesome at the plate and a wizard in the field with a cannon for an arm. I loved watching him play!

By the time I was 8 I knew a lot about Roberto. I knew he was the pride of Puerto Rico. I knew it was stupid that the Topps baseball cards called him Bob Clemente instead of Roberto. Many baseball announcers called him Bobby. I knew that both because of his dark skin and him being Spanish speaking that many reporters didn't like him. For one thing they couldn't get a lot of great quotes from him. Their language limitations, not his. And I knew this when I was 8.

To remove books from a library because you don't think kids under 10 will understand themes such as race and language and "he's not like us because he's not from around here" is to seriously underrate the intelligence of children. They're able to grasp things a lot better than many adults think.

My privilege is being able to keep my existing gas stove. No one is being deprived of that privilege, either in NYC or anywhere else.

No new housing or restaurants are going to be built in NYC? Doubtful.

What does that have to do with existing gas stoves? Builders of new homes and condos will simply install the newer electric stoves, buyers of new homes and condos will know exactly what they're getting, and they're not giving up anything they already have.

It's funny how conservatives' love of states rights and local rights seems to be conditioned upon the sort of rules those states and local jurisdictions enact.

Not that liberals also don't engage in the same sort of formalistic hypocrisy.** In both cases it's obvious that they see the ends as justifying the means, just as they do when it comes to Supreme Court decisions.

** And it's not really hypocrisy for RTLers to work to outlaw abortion wherever they can, any more than it's hypocrisy for pro-choicers to work to allow it. In both cases their principles derive from their respective moral view of abortion, not from any constitutional views about federalism or the proper function of courts. Very few conservatives who praise Dobbs for giving the states the power to restrict abortion would object for a national ban on the practice, if they thought they had the votes to do it, and if they thought that the public wouldn't revolt.

What does that have to do with existing gas stoves?

Why are you so desperately trying to limit the discussion to existing gas stoves? A bad & politically unpopular policy that is prospective-only is still a bad unpopular policy. No one is fooled by such nonsense.

Forget about the policy for a moment, and whether or not you believe all regulations are evil: Do you not care at all that indoor gas stoves have been found to cause asthma and other health challenges to children? Does human health have no relevance whatsoever?

Just curious.

It’s regulatory overreach. There is less than conclusive data of a minimal health impact, and those concerned about it are free to seek the readily available alternatives. A ban on gas stoves is like imposing a nationwide 25 MPH speed limit because there would be fewer auto accidents with far fewer serious injuries & fatalities at the reduced speed.

As everyone here well knows Andy has been around forever, and has now revealed he’s been happily cooking with gas for most of that period, but he’s doing just fine by all appearances.

To remove books from a library because you don't think kids under 10 will understand themes such as race and language and "he's not like us because he's not from around here" is to seriously underrate the intelligence of children. They're able to grasp things a lot better than many adults think.

The adults are stupid. It would have been nothing to just say, "They shouldn't have done that," but here we are talking about anything else except for the Roberto Clemente book.

A bad & politically unpopular policy that is prospective-only is still a bad unpopular policy.

LOL!!! Now tell us again how book banning is for everyone's good.

You cite no evidence for your claimed intent.

Double bookmarked!

The minimal health impact we’re talking about is millions of children experiencing asthma. More than 10% of asthma cases nationwide. Andy may be among those not impacted. Good for him, but not a good basis for national policy making.

We’re still talking about orders of magnitude more people whose health would be improved by this “regulatory overreach” (that no one is currently proposing) than the relative handfuls you want to “protect” by increasing regulations to ban trans-child health care. (In the face of strong evidence that your increased regulations will increase suicides and reduce freedom in a way that appliance regulations would never touch).

Still, not such a bad deal with no federal income tax.

The quality-of-life hit one takes from living in PR isn't worth the tax advantage.

There's a reason there's a diaspora.

Can you imagine how much worse the light bulb debate would have been had trumpers been in full force back then?

Can you imagine how much worse the light bulb debate would have been had trumpers been in full force back then?

What does that have to do with existing gas stoves?

Why are you so desperately trying to limit the discussion to existing gas stoves?

The GRWNM has been screaming that the government is trying to "take away our gas stoves", which is complete and utter BS. Maybe if you could call off your Chicken Littles, you wouldn't look like one yourself.

As for the wisdom of banning future gas stove hookups, that's something where you have to weigh the benefits vs the costs. The benefits are cleaner air, the costs are the lack of (future) choice for one consumer product in certain situations. The proposed regulations don't cover existing gas stoves in recognition of the logistical problems involved in replacement, problems that don't arise in buildings not yet constructed. Try to understand the difference.

Or lead paint...

Or hell - here's an old news clip when drunk driving/open container laws were being passed.

143. People who want to regulate us to death always "trust the science" and use it as a cudgel to beat their foes into submission. How about doing more studies? Vaccines stop transmission of covid ! Masks prevent you from catching and spreading covid ! Shutdowns will prevent the spread of covid ! Remember that science ?

Let's assume there's some truth to it. Aren't there easy mitigants - keep the kids out of the kitchen when cooking, install a vent or a better vent, open some windows, turn on a fan. How is it that stoves cause this issue but fireplaces don't? Oh they do, let's ban them too.

Everything in life has risks - this seems pretty low on the list of things to worry about

Everything in life has risks - this seems pretty low on the list of things to worry about

Agreed. We should be more worried that children might learn about racism.

You clearly don’t have a child with asthma

I know The Duke is, well, The Duke but there is a difference between action and advice during an evolving crisis and well, all the other times.

There's no real good reason for gasline stoves in the vast majority of settings in America. If they go away nothing bad happens. Nobody is harmed and up until it became a GOP Stupid Cause nobody paid any attention to their stove.

Sure my default opinion is to keep a gas stove but that's just because I've used one almost all my life. Give me 15 years on an electric stove and my default will be an electric stove.

Duke, if you don't think the US colonized the country, then I don't think you understand what colonization is

The real irony here - on gas stoves, which somehow has come up despite this being about a Roberto Clemente children's book - is that the people throwing the biggest fits and do their performance art is that in fact, gas stoves are far more prominent in nominally blue states than red states... and thus far? It's all state-level proposals being worked through. I mean - Ronny SupposedlyNotTrump governs a state which has one of the lowest rates of gas (vs electric) stoves in the country...

Regardless, I think there's a fair point to be made that the health risks vis a vis gas stoves is not yet conclusive so maybe California and New York are moving a bit too quickly. Maybe.

That said, we've been done this road many, many, many, many times before. Lead Paint. Leaded gasoline. Asbestos. Lightbulbs. CFCs.

I think there's also a fair point to be made that opponents are dishonest because 1)the science won't matter and 2)the arguments against phasing out such things always use the same language and tactics.

Just watch the clip in 148... I think it's inherently a good thing that one is no longer allowed to be drinking alcohol while driving. That doesn't mean everyone drinking a beer while driving caused a fatality, but on balance? Safer for traffic safety that no - you just can't do it anymore. Yet, the exact same arguments were made by the rubes then: Government control! Communist takoever!

Vaccines stop transmission of covid ! Masks prevent you from catching and spreading covid ! Shutdowns will prevent the spread of covid !

Reduce*

Just watch the clip in 148... I think it's inherently a good thing that one is no longer allowed to be drinking alcohol while driving. That doesn't mean everyone drinking a beer while driving caused a fatality, but on balance? Safer for traffic safety that no - you just can't do it anymore. Yet, the exact same arguments were made by the rubes then: Government control! Communist takeover!

Hell, to tie it into the current Discord discussion, when Social Security was first introduced, its many opponents, including William Randolph Hearst, were claiming that we'd all have to be going around wearing "dog tags" around our necks. And like Fox News today when it rants about "taking away our gas stoves", the scaremongering was caused by "a proposal" that was never implemented.

The real irony here - on gas stoves, which somehow has come up despite this being about a Roberto Clemente children's book

That's on TYC. He's an excellent deflector. He doesn't want to talk about the Florida law, which is indefensible and oozes stupidity. Yes, the book was "banned" or whatever its status is by a notionally Democratic county. But that's beside the point, because that's exactly what the law was intended to do. It was purposefully written to be vague, with the intention that school boards will ban books that might only marginally be problematic because the potential penalties for not banning a verboten book are so steep. That gives Ronny exactly what he wants: banning books having anything remotely controversial and harmful to his movement without having to take direct responsibility. "Hey, I didn't ban the Clemente book, but if the good people of Duval County think it's inappropriate, who am I to argue."

Yes, the book was "banned" or whatever its status is by a notionally Democratic county. But that's beside the point, because that's exactly what the law was intended to do. It was purposefully written to be vague, with the intention that school boards will ban books that might only marginally be problematic because the potential penalties for not banning a verboten book are so steep. That gives Ronny exactly what he wants: banning books having anything remotely controversial and harmful to his movement without having to take direct responsibility. "Hey, I didn't ban the Clemente book, but if the good people of Duval County think it's inappropriate, who am I to argue."

Bingo.

everyone can agree there is much more heated debate about it now than there ever was.

There is much more heated debate about everything than there ever was.

I've debated internally at some length whether I should bother posting this at all.

For better or worse, here goes:

I am the father of a transgender teen.

The notion of genital mutilation as the be all, end all of trans kids is so off base and so counter to nearly every trans kid's (and their family's) actual lived experience. It's a bit like the infanticide-of-birthed-baby-in-abortion-clinics hysteria that the Carlson wing of the GOP likes to spread as if it's both gospel truth and an hourly occurrence in blue states everywhere. It probably has happened, but is so infinitesimally rare, it really doesn't belong in a thoughtful discussion.

Here's a very brief snapshot of how it went for my son, and his story is very, very similar to almost every trans kid's that I've met (and I meet more all the time at our weekly "Genital Snipping With Satan and Hillary" meetings).

My child was born female and displayed many typical tomboy characteristics growing, none of which seemed out of the ordinary to my wife & I. As time went on, he went to short boyish haircuts and very masculine dress. To the extent we thought about it, which wasn't much, we thought "tomboy" or possibly lesbian, and didn't really care much either way as long as he was healthy and happy.

But as puberty progressed, the gender dysphoria got worse. He began to wear very loose fitting but still masculine styled clothing to cover up the body changes. He gave up soccer, which he loved. At the time we didn't know why, but later he told us the shorts & shirt of the uni showed too much feminine features. To this point my wife & I were just thinking "teenage phase" and continued onward.

Then he began having extreme body odor because getting naked to shower set off his gender dysphoria. About this time he started missing a lot of school and spending days alone in a darkened bedroom. Of course we were concerned and found therapy for him, during which he confessed suicidal thoughts because he felt he could never live as male. Horrified, we upped the therapy into a daily program, combo of group and individual therapy. The trans talk continued and while we believed he had these feelings, we convinced ourselves it was a "phase" that would pass.

Eventually we had to change schools and utilize a special program that usually caters to kids who've been in trouble with the law, or been teen parents etc. It was the only program we could find that would allow a blend of online & classroom learning (this was pre-Covid, now every school offers same/similar). The trans talk continued and we said to him that we'd be OK with gender re-assignment but that we would not sponsor it until he was 18. We felt at the time that it should be an adult decision and privately, away from him, we accepted it would probably happen but hoped he'd wait well after 18 to avoid regret over any irrevocable choices or actions. The possibility of that kind of regret really nagged at my wife & me.

Remember when you were a teenager, and the prospect of waiting a year or two felt like an unbearable infinity?

That feeling resulted in a suicide attempt (and 2+ years later it is still incredibly difficult to type, let alone speak, the S-word.) Whatever discomforts and misgivings we had just melted away at that point. When you're in the ER with your child who may or may not survive the night, you get REAL flexible with what you can accept.

Last couple of years have been a harsh trial in a lot of ways, but he's showing steady, albeit slow, progress with anxiety, self esteem, and other issues common to trans teens. He's taken some medical steps and deferred others. He's gotten to know a few other trans kids and my wife & I know several parents of trans kids, and our various stories show a remarkable degree of overlap.

I have shared this story with a portion of my large family, but most have remained in the dark because I know that ripping off that Band-Aid will cause firestorms and end up with me & wife & kids being ostracized. My mom and most of my siblings are adherents of Snapper's cult which preaches love & forgiveness but permits, even encourages, its members and their Sincerely Held Beliefs to hate (and worse) anyone who doesn't look/live/see/act in their pre-ordained ways. For a while Covid was a convenient way to maintain an insulating distance but the coming out process with my kin will have to begin soon.

It's fair to ask why I'm typing this out to internet strangers, and the best answer I can give is that people need to realize that the biggest challenge facing trans kids is the judgement & bigotry of others, not the medical side of transition.

Reading this over before I hit Submit, I realize it's way too brief and leaves out way too much nuance to give the most true picture, but it's the most detail I can type out right now. Maybe I will say more later, but for now, here endeth this sermon.

Andy has been around forever, and has now revealed he’s been happily cooking with gas for most of that period, but he’s doing just fine by all appearances

How do you know it's not the gas that turned him liberal?

Traderdave: Thank you. You may not change any minds, but it showed great courage to share this.

Thank you, Srul. I've been working on the courage thing. Still many rivers to cross.

I've been working on the courage thing. Still many rivers to cross.

Great post. And a great song!

Traderdave,

One of my best friends, who lives in Madison Cawthorn's old NC District, also has a transgender child who's about your child's age. She's currently quite happy and well adjusted, and one of the things that she has in common with your child is that her parents and her older sister have been supportive of her at every step of the way, with no freaking out or other forms of judgementalism. Seems to me that this is the most important thing a trans child can have that's within your power to give.

That's on TYC. He's an excellent deflector. He doesn't want to talk about the Florida law, which is indefensible and oozes stupidity. Yes, the book was "banned" or whatever its status is by a notionally Democratic county. But that's beside the point, because that's exactly what the law was intended to do.

Wrong on all counts. Perhaps you should read the thread, Miserlou. I certainly didn’t introduce the gas stove topic, and only addressed it after Andy (#94) suggested that Republicans were manufacturing an issue when no one (except maybe Berkeley) was actually trying to regulate gas stoves out of existence. I merely pointed out how factually incorrect he was, and followed up as he continued to deflect on whether there was an effort to regulate gas stoves out of existence.

Furthermore, you are flat out wrong on where the blame for ‘banning’ the Clemente book lies. Out of the thousands of school libraries in Florida, only Duval County has made this absurd interpretation of the law, likely deliberately in an attempt to discredit it. No other jurisdiction is claiming “the Governor made us do it”. If everyone but Duval County got it right, they can’t legitimately claim they are following the law. But since everyone here seems opposed to the book banning effort, why not simply order the Duval County librarians to stop there nonsense, and fire those who refuse to do so?

Let me echo the thanks, Traderdave....

I can't imagine how hard it is to share, but I think it does provide a real value to the broader discussion; it's an intensely personal matter but the prevailing debates are forcing it into the public sphere and unfortunately, I don't see a way to the 'better' without families sharing the reality.

Nowhere near as intensely personal or hard, but I have a colleague who transitioned nearly a decade ago - She was "Steve" when I started. She's now "Jessica". We've never worked that closely together, but we happened to be on a program where the wrap-up meant a team dinner and drinks afterwards. I'm not the sort to ask such things - but someone else was, I happened to be at the table, and she was fine talking about the matter. Her story - how unhappy - just flat miserable (and yes, sometimes suicidal) and how big a pure life weight was lifted; even with a good chunk of her family essentially disowning her post-transition - just really hit me. She was miserable and never felt "right" pre-transition. Now, she's much more at peace with herself. Who am I - forget religion, forget social constructs - to demand she be miserable because it's a bit jarring for me that I first met and knew her as "he"?

FTR Jason brought up gas stoves in #82, and my "deflection" has been to note that contrary to the GRWNM's heated implications, no one has proposed confiscating "our gas stoves". The proposals are all about new stoves, and even there, these proposals are few and far between. I genuinely grieve for YC if he chooses to buy an NYC condo in 2025 and can't install a new gas stove, but then without suffering there's no chance for salvation.

The proposals are all about new stoves, and even there, these proposals are few and far between. I genuinely grieve for YC if he chooses to buy an NYC condo in 2025 and can't install a new gas stove, but then without suffering there's no chance for salvation.

We know how the game works, Andy. This time last year, *no one* was breathing a word publicly about the many proposals, such as the one Hochul recently proposed for New York, concerning new stoves. What will be the nature of the proposals one, two, or three years from now?

Oh wait, never mind, it's already happening:

On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that it will consider measures to ban gas stoves or regulate hazardous emissions from them. The agency has not proposed specific steps yet, and said that any regulation will “involve a lengthy process.”

Also:

Internal Biden admin memo shows it was serious about banning gas stoves before public uproar:

Trumka's internal memo shows that plans to restrict gas stoves were set in motion months earlier than previously reported. It also casts doubts on comments made recently by Trumka and other administration officials that such a ban would not be considered.

Months after the memo, Trumka made headlines when he told Bloomberg in January that "any option is on the table" regarding gas stove regulation.

um, duke, like the first 13 states were called the first 13 COLONIES. because britain COLONIZED the area. and there were more colonies/territories AFTER 1776 (including hawaii) and you KNOW that the White europeans moved in where Native americans lived, killed off most of them and took their land, handing them out a few bits of barely livable land usually far far away from where they were originally from. you KNOW that Native americans had basically NO rights, couldn't vote, and until recently literally had their children TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM and given to White people to Whiten them up - so much for soverign country. we don't do that with, say, citizens of aruba. they are NOT citizens of some independent country.

and don't know where YOU grew up, but us texans sure were NOT taught that the first line in the confederate and texas declaration of independence stated that they were seceding BECAUSE of slavery being a natural right. were were and are fed the "states rights" crap.

the antiabortionists go on about All Life Being Precious or some such rubbish, but definitely not the life of the impregnated person or the life of the fetus after being born. and person with ovaries/uteruses are never raped. those 11 year olds were asking for it and they should be grateful some penis was willing to give it to them. besides, they get to start motherhood before 5th grade, isn't that simply marvelous - getting started on the only thing they should do with life, reproduce

they want people who have tubal pregnancies to die/come as close to death as possible because bleeding to death/dyng of infection is better than taking out the tube and killing the embryo and saving the life of the human being who is already here but has lost her right to actual LIFE because of, of WHAT exactly?

i know mothers who are getting birth control/implants/IUDs for their not sexually active very young teens because of fear they can be raped/impregnated. you can't keep them from getting raped/sexually abused but you can at least stop the trauma of getting knocked up by their rapist

i do not get the right wingers fear/hatred of non-cis/straight human beings. you can NOT change sexual orientation. celibate gay people are still gay whether or not they have a sexual partner. as for kidz who are born with reproductive parts that are the same as their xy/xx chromosomes who, let's say, believe they should be a different gender:
- your objection to puberty BLOCKERS which completely stops any change for as long as they are used - which the PARENT/Legal guardian has to agree to, is WHAT? what happened to parents rights?
- and WHO are all these under 18 yo people whose birth gender, chromosomes and sexual parts all agreed, who have had, say, a complete ovariohysterectomy and replaced with penis/testicles?
- i think that the right wingers got a BIG problem with ADULTS changing gender too - see all the fuss about age 65 something Bruce to Caitlyn until that person announced Republican party approval

- as for gas stoves, my Husbands White allergy doctor told us 23 years ago that gas stoves without a hood that vents to outside the house or gas heaters gave off that chemicals made asthma worse. it is not that didn't nobody know until someone in the government tried to take away gas stoves from all the people who want them, or whatevs

from what i can tell, the non-furriners who have moved to texas did so because of
1 - no state tax and they are positive they won't never need nothin from the govmint even if they have a disabled kid and NEED that public skool those rightys hate
2 - no regulation because so what if their house freezes for 5 days then floods? fema will cough up - it is not REALLY the govmint or other peoples taxes
3 - no masks, no covid vaccines and only the darkies and old people get it and good riddance it ain't THEIR kidz/families.

the furriners who move here (they don't think the White supremacists hate them as much as the n-words. HAHAHAHAHA) do because their friends/relatives already moved here and hey - no state taxes and they kidz can go to the exclusive White skools and be mistaken for White children and be part of the White social circle of right wing Whites. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

besides, if they/their kidz get raped/impregnated, they can always fly them to a different state to "vacation"/get abortions/abortion pills

Jason,

As I said to YC, wake me when our gas stoves get confiscated.

Though in my case, this might involve resurrection. (smile)

Hey, wait now, I moved to Texas because of its robust commitment to academic freedom.

Odd that no one here remembers all cars going unleaded in 1973 but leaded gas available to purchase for more than 2 decades afterward to accommodate legacy vehicles.

Cuz that's the worst, most extreme scenario for the gas stove thing.

Hey, wait now, I moved to Texas because of its robust commitment to academic freedom.

And I once went there for the 21 cent Ethyl gas.

Furthermore, you are flat out wrong on where the blame for ‘banning’ the Clemente book lies. Out of the thousands of school libraries in Florida, only Duval County has made this absurd interpretation of the law, likely deliberately in an attempt to discredit it. No other jurisdiction is claiming “the Governor made us do it”. If everyone but Duval County got it right, they can’t legitimately claim they are following the law. But since everyone here seems opposed to the book banning effort, why not simply order the Duval County librarians to stop there nonsense, and fire those who refuse to do so?

That's introducing facts so not in evidence. So out of thousands of school libraries in Florida, no other one has removed a single marginal edge case book out of an abundance of caution? Pull the other one. No law in the history of the world had ever been so perfectly adhered to, not even close.

Odd that no one here remembers all cars going unleaded in 1973 but leaded gas available to purchase for more than 2 decades afterward to accommodate legacy vehicles.

Not a single credible study exists finding gas stoves on their own are a danger to one's health.

Also, how funny that the folks who bleat the loudest about "book banning!!!" have no problem banning anything else Americans possess.

FTR Jason brought up gas stoves in #82 . . .

JE deserves credit for not only initiating the discussion of the WaPo’s rapidly ‘evolving’ reporting, but also predicting how the discussion would go in this very thread:

1. No one is coming after gas stoves
2. Republicans are just making gas stoves an issue to wage culture war
3. Why regulators are banning gas stoves
4. Why banning gas stoves is good actually

Denying the intent to regulate while working to regulate something out of existence is a highly deceptive practice that government should not engage in.

- as for gas stoves, my Husbands White allergy doctor told us 23 years ago that gas stoves without a hood that vents to outside the house or gas heaters gave off that chemicals made asthma worse. it is not that didn't nobody know until someone in the government tried to take away gas stoves from all the people who want them, or whatevs

So, unvented gas stoves without hoods might be a problem? At best, that would justify a building code requirement for gas stoves to be installed with hooded vents, rather than a ban. Seems fairly obvious, but perhaps the bureaucrats were blinded by their regulatory zeal?

As general rule, if one is hanging onto the past -- you're ultimately going to end up on the wrong side.

It's certainly politically expedient and makes for a very handy cudgel because people inherently hate change, no matter how staged it is... and I'm not even saying it's inviolably, 100% true.

However, it's awfully hard to find an instance - lead gasoline, lead paint, asbestos, cfcs, etc where you'd say it wasn't the right call.

But - the proponents (or rather opponents) are simply being dishonest, as they usually are. It's just a political cudgel, more and more, wrapped up in paranoia about phantom cabals.

A more honest approach - if one actually cared about the reality rather than cheap, near-term points scoring - would be that even if one is a skeptic? Funding objective (as in, not industry-sponsored... tobacco anyone?) research with an eye towards let the chips fall where they may, but before we do X, let's pay for some additional research and studies before deciding.

traderdave,

i appreciate hearing the story of your child and am SO grateful you and your wife are the way you are and am SO sorry that so many in your family are not. trans people are not some kind of monster. you can't "pray the trans away"any more than you can "pray the gay away"
and i sure as heck don't get parents thinking better suicide than trans. they are thinking stuff like - but i WANTED a daughter and i want HER and not a son and now i can't be with HER when she has a baby or - i don't even know what

i hear all the talk about "girly men" just being gay or masculine girls just being tomboys and all the gender talk needs to stop - but i can tell you there is a HUGE difference between being born a girl like me who is just NOT girly or into girly stuff and thinks the world treats males better and wishes she had the advantages of being male such as being able to PLAY BASEBALL, than a person born a girl who knows from the time they can remember that something is very very wrong and they are NOT a girl, they are a boy and they can't go through life being all "wrong" outside

i am unspeakably tired of being told how "Christian' people are who reject trans/gay people - especially as that rejection is 100% opposite of the actual teachings of the Christ

the trans people haters also LOVE to drag in cases of surgery on people who are born with some genetic condition and need to get things repaired.

Thank you, Lisa.

The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 13, 2023 at 02:42 PM (#6116924)

- as for gas stoves, my Husbands White allergy doctor told us 23 years ago that gas stoves without a hood that vents to outside the house or gas heaters gave off that chemicals made asthma worse. it is not that didn't nobody know until someone in the government tried to take away gas stoves from all the people who want them, or whatevs

So, unvented gas stoves without hoods might be a problem? At best, that would justify a building code requirement for gas stoves to be installed with hooded vents, rather than a ban. Seems fairly obvious, but perhaps the bureaucrats were blinded by their regulatory zeal?

- bureaucrats blinded by regulatory (of some kind) of zeal is kind of the definition of bureaucrat, i'd say

can't speak for other states, but i think that at least here in tejas, hoods that vent outside, instead of those good for nothing "fans" on top of stoves, are something that rich people with gas stoves got. expensive stoves, expensive hoods installed with an outside vent. gas stoves in apartments, um, no. and most people don't even have a carbon monoxide alarm neither. of course, apartments are often badly constructed, are dusty, moldy and have bad carpeting in them, roaches and (yes) rats and none of them exactly good for asthma. the asthma doctor was dead right.

i would guess it would be expensive and difficult to install real vents in each apartment in an apartment building so it will NOT be put into code.

keeping contractors rich (as well as developers, not to mention kickbacks - i mean campaign contributions to whatever regulator/legislator necessary) by having as few regulation as possible and effing the buyer is the Texas Way.

So, unvented gas stoves without hoods might be a problem? At best, that would justify a building code requirement for gas stoves to be installed with hooded vents, rather than a ban.

Let me guess: You wouldn't want that to cover existing gas stoves any more than I would. And you still haven't shown that anyone has even proposed that sort of retroactive mandate.

As I've said before, this comes down to one scenario alone: The banning of future gas stoves in a select few jurisdictions. It has nothing to do with existing gas stoves. Not that this will stop either you or the rest of the GRWNM from implying (or in some cases even falsely stating) otherwise.

-----------------

A more honest approach - if one actually cared about the reality rather than cheap, near-term points scoring - would be that even if one is a skeptic? Funding objective (as in, not industry-sponsored... tobacco anyone?) research with an eye towards let the chips fall where they may, but before we do X, let's pay for some additional research and studies before deciding.

You probably lost Clapper with that "not industry sponsored" bit, but pardon my cynicism.

Traderdave --

Seconding what Srul said; thank you, and my heart goes out to you. My son is a high school junior and has two friends, both born female, who are figuring just who they are and now identifying as male. They are good kids, smart and fun and I'm happy my son is friends with them. Both teens have caring, involved parents, like you are, and they are making decisions with slow and careful consideration.

This is a decision that should be in the hands of the family and their doctors and counselors, and there is no place in it for Ron DeSantis or his mouth-breathing flunkies, whom we know all too well, living here in Florida.

Anyone doubting the overreach of the DeSantis admin should also know that the state has directed public school teachers to pack up and put away their classroom libraries or risk prosecution. This is a real thing. My kids' teachers are complying rather than lose their jobs. And btw I track my kids' lessons closely and volunteer in the classrooms. No one is teaching CRT, endorsing any sort of sexuality or lifestyle choice, or even saying whom they voted for. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant or lying.

You also might want to know DeSantis just staged a coup at a Florida college with a liberal reputation. He first replaced a majority of the board of directors with a bunch of right-wing mouthpieces, who then in turn fired the president, replaced her with a crooked DeSantis crony, and now are hoping to fire as many faculty members as they can and replace them with conservatives.

Now back to my usual lurker status.

Anyone doubting the overreach of the DeSantis admin should also know that the state has directed public school teachers to pack up and put away their classroom libraries or risk prosecution. This is a real thing. My kids' teachers are complying rather than lose their jobs. And btw I track my kids' lessons closely and volunteer in the classrooms. No one is teaching CRT, endorsing any sort of sexuality or lifestyle choice, or even saying they voted for. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant or lying.

At least gas stoves are safe from government overreach.

Thank you, sotapop.

We live in the SF Bay Area, probably the best place in America to be a trans kid, and even here it's a trial for them. More than once my wife & I have thanked our fortune to be here. In a place like Florida, well, I don't want to think what would have happened to my kid...

FTR, I'd like a clarification on who actually decided which books to place "on review" (for over a year now and counting? Was it the school board, or, as TYC likes to say, over and again, it was the librarians? I've read the accounts, and I didn't find anything definitive.

You probably lost Clapper with that "not industry sponsored" bit, but pardon my cynicism.

Ah, yet again Andy resorts to his signature move - attributing something to someone who never said anything on the subject, then zinging him for supposedly holding that ‘incorrect’ opinion. FWIW, I’m strongly in favor of actual scientific research, where you conduct multiple studies, show your work, see if the results are replicated, and openly & thoroughly debate the issues.

Now if I was like Andy, I might suggest that he shares the view of those who are fine with making policy based on a few ideologically-influenced studies that hide the ball and attempt to shut down debate rather than defend their work. But since I’m not as loose with the facts as Andy, I will note that AFAIK he hasn’t expressed that opinion, although one can certainly find examples of those who have.

traderdave, i am glad to hear that your son is experiencing so much support and that it sounds as though things are getting at least incrementally better for him.
and i am relieved that he is still with you. i wish you all the best with the extended-family stuff. thank you for sharing your and his experience.

Traderdave, your son is extremely lucky to have you as a parent. I hope things continue to get better for your family.

Haters will hate, and it's especially difficult when they're in your extended family, but your son will come out of this stronger than ever. And be prepared, that will REALLY piss off the haters.

You probably lost Clapper with that "not industry sponsored" bit, but pardon my cynicism.

Ah, yet again Andy resorts to his signature move - attributing something to someone who never said anything on the subject, then zinging him for supposedly holding that ‘incorrect’ opinion. FWIW, I’m strongly in favor of actual scientific research, where you conduct multiple studies, show your work, see if the results are replicated, and openly & thoroughly debate the issues.

Glad to see we're in agreement here, though when you wrote this in #114 above:

The Department of Energy recently proposed new standards for energy consumption that may ban 95% of the gas stoves in currently on the market...

...you failed to note that this "95%" figure came from---wait for it---a vice president with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

I think that might qualify as "industry sponsored".

“This approach by DOE could effectively ban gas appliances,” said Jill Notini, a vice president with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, a Washington-based trade group. “We are concerned this approach could eliminate fully featured gas products.”

The trade group is still evaluating the rule, but “it appears” that 95% of the market would not meet the proposed levels, Notini said.

Ah yes, Andy’s other signature move - selectively criticizing people for not including a long enough description of what they are encouraging others to read for themselves and is clearly set forth in the linked material. BTW, trade associations normally do have some specialized knowledge about their industries, which is not to say that such claims should be blindly accepted, or automatically dismissed.

Of course, the truth of the claim wasn’t really the issue when I made that post. It was a response to Andy’s claim that only a single CPSC Commissioner was attempting to regulate gas stoves, and I merely noted that there was a Department of Energy proposal of potentially great impact.

...you failed to note that this "95%" figure came from---wait for it---a vice president with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

And naturally, Andy, you overlooked this quote from a partisan Democrat:

While Alexander Hoehn-Saric, chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, said the agency was “not looking to ban gas stoves,” it is moving forward with a Request for Information, the first step in a potential rule making.

Maybe you will explain to us why "he/him" (of course, Hoehn-Saric has pronouns included in his Twitter bio) any more credible than an industry rep?

Andy -- GRWNM? I assume the RW is Right Wing, but I am having a hard time with the rest.


I doubt it will catch on -- it's no SDCN.

OMG - gas stoves are a dumb thing that will die off naturally due to consumer safety and prices eventually. I've never had a gas stove in my home, even as a child, probably because electric ones were cheaper way back when but now it would be a choice. I like flat surface stoves, I also like not having a fire in my kitchen. In the old days there wasn't a choice - when I visit my in-laws cabin they have wood stoves still (middle of nowhere with minimal electricity and no running water) for example. There are times and places for things, but for 95% of people there really isn't a need for a gas stove in 2023.

Now, yes, I do heat my house with natural gas - it was that way when I bought the house and it is in perfect working order so it'd be nuts to replace right now. Whenever my current furnace dies I will look at getting rid of gas entirely from my household. There are dangers with using natural gas (I've seen many stories of houses blowing up due to it), plus the environment of course. I have solar panels which has cut my electric bill to near 0 most of the year (Jan/Feb tends to go up as I am still on the grid and have an electric car so those months I just don't get enough sunlight). So yes, I am trying to cut my carbon footprint as much as possible in today's society (obvious limits to how far one can go - plastic is still all over the place for example) but am not perfect. Government rules and regulations are needed to push industry further faster. The free market is amazing if you do minimal pushing quite often. CFC's were removed fairly quickly in the 80's and 90's with a hard push, and GHG can be taken care of too. Sadly the billionaires who control too many politicians are making a killing off of, well, killing so they will do anything to keep their profit margins going. I've even seen a new anti-15 minute communities push going now in Alberta which is nuts - who doesn't want everything possible within a 15 minute walk of their home?

I could rant for hours, but will stop here.

Ah yes, Andy’s other signature move - selectively criticizing people for not including a long enough description of what they are encouraging others to read for themselves and is clearly set forth in the linked material

AKA selective omission. You know as well as I do that few people bother to click on links.

Of course, the truth of the claim wasn’t really the issue when I made that post.

IOW you weren't implying, you were only implying.

------------

...you failed to note that this "95%" figure came from---wait for it---a vice president with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

And naturally, Andy, you overlooked this quote from a partisan Democrat:

While Alexander Hoehn-Saric, chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, said the agency was “not looking to ban gas stoves,” it is moving forward with a Request for Information, the first step in a potential rule making.

Maybe you will explain to us why "he/him" (of course, Hoehn-Saric has pronouns included in his Twitter bio) any more credible than an industry rep?

Obviously the only true test here will be when the CPSC bans gas stoves---or it doesn't.

And don't forget the claim that the Commission was coming after existing gas stoves. As I've said, wake me when that happens.

-----------

Andy -- GRWNM? I assume the RW is Right Wing, but I am having a hard time with the rest.

"Great Right Wing Noise Machine" is a term that I'm pretty sure originated during the Clinton administration, mocking the ongoing promotion of Whitewater and Vincent Foster "scandals". It originally referred to Fox News, talk radio, right wing publishers** and print magazines,*** but by this time it also includes several zillion wacko bird websites and Twitter accounts. Breitbart, American Greatness, Gateway Pundit, The Daily Caller, etc.

** Regnery, Arlington House, etc.

*** At the time, the loudest of the bunch was The American Spectator.

To review, Andy repeatedly sought to downplay the Biden Administration’s efforts to regulate gas stoves out of existence, falsely claiming that only a single CSPC Commissioner was making any such effort, and that only Berkeley had imposed any stringent bans. When it was pointed out that he was quite incorrect - the Department of Energy has a current major regulatory proposal and 99 jurisdictions have already imposed regulations with more in the works - Andy now claims I’m the one being misleading because my link title didn’t include the source of the quote. Hilarious.

Traderdave - thank you for your story. Keep fighting the good fight.

On a much less serious note, we just got an induction stove and it's great. Better for the environment, heats up super quickly. Granted, I'm far from a professional chef - I mostly use it to cook Beyond Burgers - but that's my take.

Flip.