Reposted from May 2006. Remember when it mattered what Hillary Clinton said? We thought the opinion of the UN was important then, too.
********
Hillary Clinton gave a major energy speech before the National Press Club and promises a major energy proposal shortly. Her solutions:
Okay, before we get to that, is there anyone who didn't guess her solutions beforehand? Conservation, of the "if everyone gave one used bicycle tire per week, no kitties would ever die" variety. Research, of the unspecified alternative energy type. And leadership, of the not-what-George-Bush-is-doing variety, to definitely include sticking it to the auto industry and the oil companies.
She was right on target with these, with a speech that reads like a Mother Earth News editorial from 1978. But there are cute additions that I think you should know about. She thinks there should be signs at every gas station reminding you to check the air in your tires. 55 mph "where people would support it." Eliminating drafts around doors and windows. Research now avoids the scientific-sounding but unknown "geothermal" and replaces it with the scientific-sounding but unknown "biomass." The leadership involves Bush sitting down with the automakers, oil companies, as well as both the public and private sectors, presumably to make everyone straighten up and fly right.
But wait, there's more! The Clinton energy plan now comes with ethanol! And not just any ethanol, Binky, but cellulosic ethanol. How many of you think Hillary Clinton knew the word "cellulosic" before this energy speech was planned? I don't want to keep seeing the same hands here. It's a wonk word, inserted to show that she has really, really thought about these issues, people. Not like the other candi- that is, public servants.
This degree of understanding would not win a ribbon at a middle school science fair, even with "cellulosic" sprinkled on every stapled-up poster.
2023 Update: That was harsh and I take it back. It would win a ribbon at a middle school science fair.
2 comments:
WRT jargon.
After a fire in a cable run in a major lab, Fermilab decided to check to see if we were likewise at risk.
The answer, of course, was yes. The central detector for our experiment used cables that would go up like gasoline in a fire. However, it would cost a couple of million to replace them, and their cable run was carefully engineered, uncluttered, and unlikely to be the source of problems. They were officially grandfathered. The rest of the detector systems had to stand and explain how risky their systems were.
Our subsystem had the good fortune to be chosen to go first. I boned up on the fire resistant qualities of all the different types of cables we had, and had the categories and test methods and whatnot at my fingertips. When we were interviewed I found myself explaining to the reviewers what the fire resistance classes were. If you looked closely, the cable fire classes I described weren't really adequate for the safety standards they wanted to implement, but I knew all the jargon and the references. They passed us.
Other groups got a bit of a harder time, though they had objectively fewer issues than our subsystem did (like far too much cable, with excess having to be draped in the hall). By then the reviewers knew what the jargon meant.
FWIW, we never had a fire--in any of our systems.
I think I have mentioned before a friend of mine who is an engineer at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (though on the cusp of retirement) who got tired of going down into submarines - his specialty - and having to detail with military types who objected to his mere presence, let alone his interventions. Not authorised in advance, though he had been in each of the subs many times. They were starting a new program on tracking parts and how long they lasted in order to anticipate when they were likely to break down and replace them beforehand, rather than having to supply them when they were out in the North Atlantic - or South Pacific. He asked himself what they were likely to get worked up over on the specs, and got on the committee to write the specs, over a year in advance. The rest of the committee had little idea what the needs were. He essentially wrote the specs, and wrote them to fit what he knew the upcoming program would need.
Sure enough, a high-ranking officer objected to his presence, reluctantly cleared him after making a phone call, and wanted to know if all this new nonsense was according to specifications. Ted asked him to pull the specifications out, and they would go over it together. Quelle surprise, they fit precisely.
Post a Comment