The serious projects like covering the desert, or canals, which seem really, really clever. It all depends on what they're covering. I guess sometimes not very nice to what they're covering. But it's really about choices. Responsible choices are going to be okay. I'm reminded though that there is no criticism of any power generation method that won't burn you, the scorn and ridicule and dismissal and rejection somehow. Doesn't mean anybody's right or wrong. Oh wait it does.

If it were just about the money, then nuclear would not be very attractive.

But it's the environment, stupid. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear is an attractive option, cost be damned. Hydro is not without detriment. Solar uses space. Wind is going to be seen as a loser in so many ways, but it is a stepping stone.

Nuclear is the best option, and SMR among other technologies will improve the option.

ps - Previous comment about desalination in higher latitudes might, I think, miss the basic equation. Fresh water is more readily available at higher latitudes than lower, until you get into the ice. Nuclear powering desalination in Southern California, yes. Alaska? Dude?

Stop paying for it.

Well, we know who has lost the argument...

"the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs."

This, we only need to settle on what profits are justifiable. And ignore the 'systematically', I doubt it much matters how the jobs are 'sacrificed'. In fact, delete 'sacrificed', 'eliminate' so do just fine here.

Technology has repeatedly changed the workforce, with winners and losers.

What insignificant and unpopular lack of substance is there in this batch of UFO file releases that requires an instantaneous TDS response?

See, when you're cranky and upset, or complaining about anything, Blame Trump.

Not very inventive, but the Left hasn't invented anything helpful for a while...

These people need 0) a pay cut, 1) term limits, and 3) adult supervision.

Our Legislature is dysfunctional and impotent. Term limits should be priority 0, before all else.

It happened once, a grand experiment, some time in the 1770s.

The experiment has not yet failed entirely.

"they also get actual governance done"

The governance Democrats get done is largely that which I do not want...

"Republicans can't govern, they have never cared about root causes"

The Civil Rights Act.
Clean Water Act, EPA.

Enacted under Republican Presidents. Not rejected by Republican legislators.

And then the ultimate 'root cause' solution - The Civil War. Addressing slavery in the United States finally came to a head, and the Republican Party was founded to address that injustice. It has not, despite mainly opponents claiming otherwise, stray from that purpose. Feel free to disagree.

"such a wide ranging benefit for all other sectors of the economy"

Um, the economy should pay the fair share - as in real cost.

If USPS cannot deliver this 'wide ranging benefit' at an acceptable cost, it cannot deliver, and alternatives would be proper to pursue.

Returning to pre 70s status is acceptable to me.

FWIW, you are discussing this with a MAGA-style Conservative. As you excoriate 'Republicans' for not caring, do you tolerate the Democrat response to throw good money after bad? As I self-identify, I prefer to solve root causes. USPS needs both a reformation of mission and reformation of operation.

A side note, lumping me in with Establishment Republicans is an error. I am not like them any more. And I am not alone.

USPS needs to adapt to the market. Either function within budget limitations or raise revenue needed, or stop failing.

Do I 'care' about USPS? The same way I care about the military etc. I think a national postal service is a legitimate exercise of governmental power, a necessary and useful servicer to citizens and enterprises, and should operate at a break-even funding level, users (customers) paying reasonably for the service. When government relies on USPS for functions such as sending or receiving payments, information, or requests, it should pay for that as a service. One example is perhaps USPS identifying the real cost of first class delivery and starting with Congress, requiring franking to pay that real cost, no internal subsidy. Other agencies likewise.

Reform, not more of the same.

Those were the days...

Yeah. Are most other governments unionized?

I bet your attorney is a member of the state bar. And enjoys the privilege of limited competition by denying to those who did not play the game access to practice law, and in some instances, even represent themselves at law.

Your mechanic, however, completes in a market where there is no barrier to entry other than tools, equipment, facilities, access to vital information (at a price), and knowledge/skills/abilities. Training is not essential, however desirable and helpful it must be.

Your attorney is part of a cartel, however useful and productive that may be. They don't even have to serve you terribly well. Your mechanic will try harder, they have to. And if you think attorneys are somehow practicing a trade more important than all others save doctors, well, maybe. Maybe.

Being able to have a wide variety of items delivered, overnight, that I would previously had to visit more than one local store to find in stock isn't 'new' to you?

You're excused for apparently being too young to remember pre-Amazon. Amazon was and is a new thing. Your disdain for all things corporate might be showing...