February 8, 2017

The woman must be destroyed.

A woman with a business is subject to special rules. Political rules. And if she does not hew to them, she must be destroyed. By a gang of women. You know how women help women? They don't. They expect women to hit a higher standard. Backwards in high heels. And if she looks pretty dancing backwards in those high heels, we'll actively trip her and laugh when she falls.

But in case you've forgotten:



IN THE COMMENTS: Greg said: "I just checked, Ivanka's stuff is available on Amazon, free delivery for most items via prime. Maybe Althouse could show her some love." Good idea!

Here are: Ivanka Trump Baby Emma Ballerina Flat, the Ivanka Trump Women's Tamine3 Pointed Toe Flat, and an Ivanka Trump Women's Elbow Sleeve Fit and Flare Sweater Dress, and an Ivanka Trump Women's Sweater with Jewels.

162 comments:

PB said...

You're with us or you're against us. Tolerance.

chickelit said...

The unspoken goal is get women to dress on Maoist garb or burkas, whichever fits better.

Brando said...

The direction this is taking is towards our "Two Americas" bleeding past the political and into every walk of life. It's already partly there (e.g., enjoying different sports and entertainment and foods) but will soon mean that there will be "red businesses" and "blue businesses" and good luck to any business not wanting to take a side, as not taking a side will be seen as craven caving to the "wrong" side.

Now, if reds who live in blue states can move to red states and blues who live in red states can move to blue states, we can finally have that official split that has been a long time in the making.

AprilApple said...

Nothing nastier than leftwing females. Nothing. they are the biggest bullies of all.


AReasonableMan said...

I'm guessing Althouse doesn't have a lot of female friends.

mockturtle said...

They look like a coven of witches.

My daughters have already vowed to never shop at Nordstrom again. I'm thinking that these ridiculous tactics will backfire in the long run. Many may hate Trump but no one hates Ivanka.

Kate said...

Nordstrom claims that Ivanka's line hasn't been selling well enough to warrant an inventory slot. But now that she's First Daughter, and her profile is raised, wouldn't she sell more? Nordstrom says politics has nothing to do with the cancellation. They're either lying or horrible at sales. I never shop there because -- meh. But I am exactly the socio-economic widget they want as a customer. They could've had me if they'd shown a backbone.

AReasonableMan said...

AprilApple said...
Nothing nastier than leftwing females.


Once again, you are too modest.

Brando said...

"Nordstrom claims that Ivanka's line hasn't been selling well enough to warrant an inventory slot. But now that she's First Daughter, and her profile is raised, wouldn't she sell more? Nordstrom says politics has nothing to do with the cancellation. They're either lying or horrible at sales. I never shop there because -- meh. But I am exactly the socio-economic widget they want as a customer. They could've had me if they'd shown a backbone."

Ultimately it's always a business decision--whether the items were not selling on their own or not selling because of boycotts we can't know. But if the line was very profitable for them and they simply decided to forego profitability for some non-business reason it should be easy to find out.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The companies don't see any downside. A small minority of people on the left make a big stink, so the company leaderships calculate that if they bow to their demands, the people making the stink will go away while the rest of their customers don't really care that much so very few are going to react.

And as far as I can see, they are correct. I told my wife I was boycotting Target and she looked at me like I was crazy.

Martha said...

Madeleine Albright and Hillary Rodham—Wellesley's finest.
Hillary will be Wellesley's Commencement speaker this year.
Send your daughter to Wellesley to become a strident male-hating, conservative female-hating liberal shrew.

rehajm said...

Blessedly Buzzfeed doesn't load in Safari for some reason.

Jeff Gee said...

And while we're at it-- "Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards in high heels" is a great line but it's nonsense. She was a wonderful dancer, but she ain't REMOTELY doing what Fred is doing, and there's not a dancer on the planet who thinks she is.

Laslo Spatula said...

"A woman with a business is subject to special rules. Political rules. And if she does not hew to them, she must be destroyed."

Except in porn.

In porn you can have three women with a guy and they all will help each other, kiss each other, fondle each other's breasts and help put his cock into one another's various orifices.

I won't even get into ATM.

Women in the Business World should learn to help each other like that.

I am Laslo.

Achilles said...

The left is losing it's mind. The media thinks putting their hatred and vitriol on display helps them. Now Kaine and Franken are in trouble in their senate races. 2018 is going to be a historic loss for democrats.

Ann Althouse said...

"And while we're at it-- "Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards in high heels" is a great line but it's nonsense. She was a wonderful dancer, but she ain't REMOTELY doing what Fred is doing, and there's not a dancer on the planet who thinks she is."

But she did have to do it in high heels (and backwards some of the time).

Also, the quote doesn't say she danced as well as he did, and I don't think anyone ever claimed she did. That's a straw man. The point is that she had to keep up and look like she belonged there, and it was disadvantageous to be wearing high heels.

MayBee said...

My Facebook friends were pointing out that all but two women voted against DeVos, so we need more women in the government

But this was to keep a woman out. So......??????

Fernandinande said...

It's so cute when the girlzzzz stick together.

mockturtle said...

Ron W. reports: And as far as I can see, they are correct. I told my wife I was boycotting Target and she looked at me like I was crazy.

A lot of people, myself included, have been avoiding Target. And it has affected sales.

Target Boycott costs $20M And that was last August.



MayBee said...

Also, this "The Future is Female" has got to go. Who says stuff like that?

dreams said...

I think the best thing I can say about Hillary is that she isn't as ugly as that ugly liberal Madeleine Albright. Ugly liberals!

Tari said...

There has never been nor will there ever be anything called "the sisterhood". Women as a group eat one another. Every woman knows that, even if she won't admit it. Individual women can be friends? Of course. But not anything else.

I spend a few thousand a year at Nordstrom. Not anymore. I spent more at Target each year until they virtue signaled to their people. That ended as well. I'm fairly tolerant of the fact that most of the music I listen to, the movies I watch, all are made by people whose views are antithetical to mine. But as long as I can buy makeup, a new handbag, and Topsiders for my boys at another store, I will. I don't need these people that badly.

Achilles said...

This will be even better when Kennedy retires and Trump nominates Sykes.

Greg said...

Jeff Gee, I make it a habit to hover over links and not click if it's a scum site like buzzfeed, cnn, abc, nbc, nyt, etc, etc, etc. What's the point of wasting your time on sites that are 90% disinformation campaigns.

AprilApple said...

Arm - do you ever leave?

Birkel said...

I would imagine Fred Astaire could have danced in high heels better than Ginger Rogers. But that is more a subject for Laslo.

I hope Betsy DeVos can give students in failing schools better options IF she can't shutter the Department of Education permanently.

Greg said...

I just checked, Ivanka's stuff is available on Amazon, free delivery for most items via prime. Maybe Althouse could show her some love

AprilApple said...

I have plenty of leftwing girl friends. We don't talk politics and that's how we stay friends. (except C - we go round and round.)

In general, however, I find conservatives have to keep it quiet around leftwingers as the leftwingers are not tolerant of views outside of their bubble, and they mostly assume that everyone is a leftwinger too.

mockturtle said...

Tari asserts: There has never been nor will there ever be anything called "the sisterhood". Women as a group eat one another. Every woman knows that, even if she won't admit it.

Truer words were never spoken.

Owen said...

Ron Winkleheimer: "The companies don't see any downside. A small minority of people on the left make a big stink, so the company leaderships calculate that if they bow to their demands, the people making the stink will go away while the rest of their customers don't really care that much so very few are going to react."

So maybe this is for Progs the same dynamic as the Second Amendment offers to folks on the "right"? For them it is THE issue and they will punish anyone who threatens it, but everyone else just shrugs...

damikesc said...

I'm stunned that the same group who felt all rape accusers should be believed EXCEPT ones who accuse Democrats might have a double standard in regards to "women helping women".

Hillary will be Wellesley's Commencement speaker this year.

So we should organize huge protests that'd stop her from appearing. That's "progressive".

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

Nordy's lied.

A memo was sent round asking if they should do this.

What do you expect from Seattle?

Big Mike said...

Also, the quote doesn't say she danced as well as he did, and I don't think anyone ever claimed she did.

I beg your pardon, Althouse, but that's precisely what the quote is trying to say and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Seeing Red said...

Did Chelsea have a boy?

Big Mike said...

What Tari and AprilApple said. That's been my observation over a lengthy career.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Big Mike +1

Besides, how high were those heels anyway? Now Ivanka's, those are heels.


ok, data...


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiT7oK15IDSAhWI5IMKHePjB3EQjBwIBA&url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_fCAA9bC4Kq0%2FS64eMK6vO4I%2FAAAAAAAADMM%2FQQTKfSSxD1c%2Fs1600%2FGinger%2BRogers%2BLong%2BLeggies.jpg&bvm=bv.146094739,d.cGw&psig=AFQjCNHCQPouXV2CcEFq5KcL0C-BnGKseA&ust=1486653071514490


Well, those are respectable, but not exactly stilettos. 3"?

Nice lady. Quite a good dancer. I'm sure she could have kept up with Archie Goodwin.

tcrosse said...

I beg your pardon, Althouse, but that's precisely what the quote is trying to say and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
It is not disingenuous, but a lawyerly parsing of the quote. It's usually found in a context which suggests that Fred was overrated. BTW Fred always insisted that his sister was the better dancer.

William said...

Here's how boycotts work. The 32 southern counties of Ireland boycotted goods made in the six northern counties of Ireland. Those companies in the northern counties with business in the south responded by laying off all their Catholic employees. Both parts of Ireland went on from there to enjoy generations of peace and prosperity.......Perhaps Ivanka should fire any employee who voted for Hillary. Bannon and the NSA have ways of finding these things out. Maybe a Soros funded action committee could go around throwing pig offal on women caught in public wearing Ivanka's clothes. That would probably discourage sales. If both sides take a clear, articulated stand on this issue, America will be a better place to live.

Michael K said...

"Ivanka's stuff is available on Amazon, free delivery for most items via prime."

It's interesting that brick and mortar stores still think politics is going to be good for them.

I have a Nordstroms account but have not been in a store in years. My wife, I think, buys gift cards and shoes. That's it.

Most of my shopping these past five years has been on line. These boycotts push that trend and I would think it very dangerous unless Amazon does something stupid. Bezos may own the WaPo but he seems to put business first.

LordSomber said...

For too many girls, middle school never ended.

Big Mike said...

It is not disingenuous

Is too.

Seeing Red said...

Geez, the city of Buffalo handed Betsy De Vos a platform.

It's on Drudge.

Single mom decides to homeschool her kids.

Files all of the proper paperwork with the city. City says yes we have all the paperwork.

Was told OK your kids are on officially enrolled the city comes to grab the kids cause they weren't in school she hasn't seen her children for three weeks and the city can't say anything

Rick said...

The woman must be destroyed.
A woman with a business is subject to special rules. Political rules.


Your focus is wrong. This isn't a woman thing, it's a leftist thing. Consider Clarence Thomas and Peter Thiel, pizza shops and wedding photographers.

It has always been feminism's mistake to claim special victimhood using examples anyone can see effect a much larger group. It demonstrates they are demanding a special protection for themselves rather than fair rules for everyone. Unless their goal is only to create political conflict rather than better rules, in which case their tactics are perfect.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@mockturtle

Good.

n.n said...

Feminism is a front in the conflict between men and women. In other theaters, the conflict is between women and women, women and men, and men and men. A cat eat cat, cat eat dog, and dog eat dog world. It's a contentious place where babies and children are often collateral damage.

tcrosse said...

It is not disingenuous

Is too.


You never can tell with a lawyer.

AReasonableMan said...

AprilApple said...
I have plenty of leftwing girl friends.


AprilApple said...
Nothing nastier than leftwing females.


Hmmm.

n said...

Thanks for posting on this, Ann. I have been following this since before the election. My response was to purchase a number of Ivanka Trump items at Nordstrom, including a lovely dress for the executive "Leadership Recognition Event" (the event formerly known as Holiday Party). More recently, as the #grabyourwallet wrecking ball started swinging, I again shopped Nordstrom for the IT line. A day later, the wrecking ball declared victory. IT was gone from the Nordstrom website. Orwellian...the Undesigner. I unsubscribed from Nordstrom emails as a counter-boycott.

Bill Peschel said...

When I saw the headline, I thought it was about the Federalist article in which the (female) owner of a yarn store was bombarded with rape threats because she refused to sell pink yarn to make pussy hats.

Fortunately, she's telling them to "bless themselves," (she's from Tennessee).

tcrosse said...

In any case, Ivanka will not miss any meals, or any sleep for that matter. As for Nordstrom, they can go peddle their schamattas in Venezuela for all I care.

Trumpit said...

I don't think that Ivanka Trump will ever starve. She is said to be worth 300 million, and her husband Jarod Kushner another $300 million. She stands to inherit billions when her father dies. She has always touted herself as a real estate developer like her father. Her fashion business has been a profitable hobby for her. What is unfair in our society is the emphasis on a person's looks especially a woman's. I do feel for the young people who are unhappy and obsessed with their looks because of the bombardment from media and tabloid messages about beautiful and glamour people, and hollywood stars. Beauty is fleeting, and as my father would tell me growing up, "They can't take your college degree away from you." You have to give Ivanka credit for taking her studies in economics seriously.

Jeff Gee said...

Jeff Gee, I make it a habit to hover over links and not click if it's a scum site like buzzfeed, cnn, abc, nbc, nyt, etc, etc, etc. What's the point of wasting your time on sites that are 90% disinformation campaigns.

What link are you talking about? There's no link at all in my post.

FullMoon said...

damikesc said... [hush]​[hide comment]

I'm stunned that the same group who felt all rape accusers should be believed EXCEPT ones who accuse Democrats might have a double standard in regards to "women helping women".

Hillary will be Wellesley's Commencement speaker this year.

So we should organize huge protests that'd stop her from appearing. That's "progressive".


Hmmm, wouldn't that be something? A Beserkley type demonstration, complete with beatings and firebombs. How much would it cost to put something like that together?

dreams said...


"Most of my shopping these past five years has been on line. These boycotts push that trend and I would think it very dangerous unless Amazon does something stupid. Bezos may own the WaPo but he seems to put business first."

Still a buy too.

"Bill Miller discussed Amazon (AMZN) in a recent interview with CNBC. Amazon (AMZN) is one of Bill Miller’s big picks in the global retail space (XRT). Earlier, at the Delivering Alpha Conference, he said that the stock could double in 3 years."

http://marketrealist.com/2017/02/bill-miller-amazon-optimistic-business-segments/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=feed

Chuck said...

Is this story a bona fide women's/feminism issue? We all know that The Left is routinely using secondary boycotts. It's one of the first tools in their toolbox. It gets used all the time.

So when the owners of Chick-fil-A don't behave in a sufficiently inclusive manner: Boycott.

When Caterpillar sold bulldozers to Israel: Boycott.

BP has an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico: Boycott.

There is an entire website, devoted to boycotting all sorts of Trump-branded products, including but not limited to Ivanka Trump products. Moreover, they want you to boycott Coors and Yuengling beer, for their owners' sympathies with the Trump campaign. They want to you boycott Uber, for the Uber CEO's policy dalliance with President Trump, and they want you to patronize Lyft, because Lyft donated a million dollars to the ACLU.

This is all standard left-wing playbook stuff. I would never have expected that Ivanka Trump would get a pass, based on her having a woman-card. Ivanka is taking the hit just like the rest of Trumpdom.

CStanley said...

That Albright line is of a piece with Dennis Miller's wisecrack (paraphrasing from memory): "Liberals have so much love in their hearts, they want to kill you if you don't have as much love in your heart as they do."

Jupiter said...

AprilApple said...

"Arm - do you ever leave?"

No, he lurks. My theory is that he has a government "job", which allows him to divide his time between studying Progressive talking points and regurgitating them here. When did they last upgrade your computer, ARM?

St. George said...

Of Astaire Balanchine said: "He is terribly rare. He is like Bach, who in his time had a great concentration of ability, essence, knowledge, a spread of music. Astaire has that same concentration of genius; there is so much of the dance in him that it has been distilled."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1987/06/23/for-dancers-a-peerless-model/c6a7f572-0c49-4c6b-baf6-714fc7dd628f/?utm_term=.ea5dbece7f0e

Ginger was good but she weren't no Johann.

mockturtle said...

Chuck, is that you? You're sounding like a 'lifelong Republican'. Keep it up! ;-)

AReasonableMan said...

AprilApple said...
Arm - do you ever leave?


I will never leave you April. Not like those left-wing bitches.

mockturtle said...

O to be in England now that April's there...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althosue said...Also, the quote doesn't say she danced as well as he did, and I don't think anyone ever claimed she did. That's a straw man. The point is that she had to keep up and look like she belonged there, and it was disadvantageous to be wearing high heels

What? That's what people using the saying mean--that Rogers danced just as well as Astaire even though Rogers had more difficult conditions (having high heels and having to dance the steps "backwards"). What the hell would the point of the quote be, otherwise? "Rogers wasn't as good as Astaire but then again she had a more difficult task?" That's ridiculous. The quote is used to say that women have to work harder than men because the world is unfair to women--that we should give women extra credit for their success since, compared to any man with the same success--they've had to work harder and their accomplishment should therefore be credited more.

Seriously, what do you think the quote means, if not that? The words "she was just as good" aren't in the quote, nor are the words "she worked harder/was better when properly graded." That's what it means, though--what else could it mean?!

Greg said...

Jeff, you implied in one of your comments that you clicked on Ann's buzzfeed link in the original post. I was just saying that I always hover to avoid giving them clicks and therefore $

Michael K said...

Amazon (AMZN) is one of Bill Miller’s big picks in the global retail space (XRT). Earlier, at the Delivering Alpha Conference, he said that the stock could double in 3 years."

If the lefties keep up the boycott campaign, it might go even further.

Maybe the converse is also true. I understand Target (Dayton Hudson) is down. Maybe that's why Dayton fainted the other day.

Darrell said...

ARM lives ATM.

BillyTalley said...

Brick and mortar fashion is on the ropes, waiting for everything to burn down so it might regenerate later. Meanwhile, there is a new vertical business model arising that uses "influencers", mainly fashion bloggers with huge audiences, to sidestep brick and mortar to connect the factory to the consumer, sidestepping the middleman. Brick and mortar did Ivanka a favor, jettisoning her before they run off the road.

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...Is this story a bona fide women's/feminism issue? We all know that The Left is routinely using secondary boycotts. It's one of the first tools in their toolbox. It gets used all the time.

The new one today is the city of Seattle boycotting Wells Fargo over that bank's partial funding of the Dakota Access Pipeline. You have to wonder what bank these progressive cities think doesn't have something to do with capital for some infrastructure project that does some "damage" to the environment in some way. Eh, Tom Steyer probably has a few bucks to lend.

tcrosse said...

Chick-fil-a has just opened up here in Vegas. My gay grandson goes there all the time. Not much Virtue Signalling here in Sin City.

Big Mike said...

Actually the real reason ugly old Democrat women don't want young, sexy women buying Ivanka Trump's clothes is that they make young, sexy women look young and sexy.

Darrell said...

Hillary did everything Bill did. Backwards. In Depends.

Kathryn51 said...

I got my first Nordstrom card 35+ years ago. I spent $1,000's here every year and visited the website a couple of times a week. After the Ivanka announcement, I deleted Nordstrom from my favorites, blocked it on FB, unsubscribed to emails and THEN wrote an email through customer feedback lambasting them for caving to the bullies.

Because that's all it was - if IT sales were slumping, it was because of the boycott and they used the momentary sales slump as an excuse. They caved to bully tactics and it was especially egregious since Ivanka has no ownership in the business at this time.

They replied immediately and it was late in the evening[I’ve bolded some of more intriguing parts]” Thank you for being a long time customer. We value your input into this sensitive subject. I do understand how you feel and sincerely apologize. We have always said our buying decisions are guided by how well a brand performs and based on that, we decided not to buy the Ivanka Trump line this season. I appreciate you taking the time to write. Nordstrom does want to hear from our customers and your message has been passed on.



Brando said...

"This is all standard left-wing playbook stuff. I would never have expected that Ivanka Trump would get a pass, based on her having a woman-card. Ivanka is taking the hit just like the rest of Trumpdom."

Problem with boycotts (besides the innocent parties that get caught up in them--you really want some cashier to lose their job because the owner of Chick-fil-a has an opinion you don't like?) is there really is no bright line. Boycott a company because it engages in evil practices, ok I get that. Boycott them because they donate money to something you don't like, ok but that gets a bit further away. Boycott a company because it does business with another company you're boycotting, now you're spreading it a bit. Boycott a company because it does not take a stand that you would like it to, now you no longer want business done, just politics.

And this stuff often backfires. When you boycott, your opponents suddenly decide they like the product you're boycotting even if they didn't previously.

Darrell said...

If you watch ballroom dancing you will see the male dancing backwards as often as the female, even more so in showdancing where the female is being featured. The Rogers quote is stupid. Maybe that's why Fred chose Rita Hayworth and Barrie Chase as his favorite partners.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Brando said...Problem with boycotts (besides the innocent parties that get caught up in them--you really want some cashier to lose their job because the owner of Chick-fil-a has an opinion you don't like?) is there really is no bright line. Boycott a company because it engages in evil practices, ok I get that. Boycott them because they donate money to something you don't like, ok but that gets a bit further away. Boycott a company because it does business with another company you're boycotting, now you're spreading it a bit. Boycott a company because it does not take a stand that you would like it to, now you no longer want business done, just politics

You're overthinking it, Brando: just boycott anyone who deals with Israel and you're set. Simple.

Ann Althouse said...

" don't think that Ivanka Trump will ever starve. She is said to be worth 300 million, and her husband Jarod Kushner another $300 million. She stands to inherit billions when her father dies. She has always touted herself as a real estate developer like her father. Her fashion business has been a profitable hobby for her."

Women work for pin money.

AReasonableMan said...

If Hillary Clinton had won and Chelsea Clinton imported a line of guns from China, would anyone be surprised if sales of the Chelsea 45 dipped?

Brando said...

"You're overthinking it, Brando: just boycott anyone who deals with Israel and you're set. Simple."

Ha, even then it gets mushy! What if you do business with someone who does business with someone who sells/buys to Israel? Shouldn't these people boycott paying their taxes, as our government sends foreign aid to Israel?

On a similar note, does anyone here have expertise in the "anti-boycott laws" we have in place that punish companies or governments that boycott Israel? I'm not sure how that works, as obviously the government does do business with a number of countries that refuse to do business with Israel. Anyone know how that works?

Brando said...

"If Hillary Clinton had won and Chelsea Clinton imported a line of guns from China, would anyone be surprised if sales of the Chelsea 45 dipped?"

I'll admit I wouldn't want to buy a gun associated with the Clintons though it's more that I fear it'd not work.

Related to this, has anyone here had experience buying guns online and if so is there a reliable/reputable online dealer you'd recommend?

tcrosse said...

If Hillary Clinton had won and Chelsea Clinton imported a line of guns from China, would anyone be surprised if sales of the Chelsea 45 dipped?
If Hillary Clinton had won the Chelsea 45 would have been the weapon of choice for shooting out the TV screen when Mom was on.

mockturtle said...

Anyone boycotting Ralph Lauren? Or would that be too big a sacrifice?

Robert Cook said...

Albright is loathsome.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Women work for pin money.
2/8/17, 11:34 AM

Exactly, Ann, that's why you don't have to pay them as much.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Robert Cook said...
Albright is loathsome.

2/8/17, 12:11 PM

Wait twelve hours and you will be right again.

If George Soros and Madeline Albright were in hell eternally having sex, would it be Albright's punishment or Soros' punishment?

Renee said...

I am happy that only verified purchases can rate, but the Q and A section is just cruel and horrible against Ivanka! Very recent. Trump was right, when he called these women nasty.

Renee said...

"Question: Would this dress be appropriate for a cross burning?
Answer: Even a woman in a 20 year interracial marriage such as myself is aware of the etiquette stating that only white is worn at Cross burnings. However this does pair well with a chicken fry.
By scratch on February 8, 2017
amazon get busy and start checking the things that are said on the trumps products.. or you will loose product sales ! ! ! bad karma amazon !
By TONI on February 8, 2017"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014HLONOQ?ie=UTF8&tag=althouse09-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=B014HLONOQ

harryo said...

Albright and her ilk, are exactly the kind of immigrants we should block at the border. Send her back to the warlord-run country she fled.

Bob said...

The customer questions posted on one of the items include:

"Question: Where was this dress made? it looks like it was made in a sweat shop? Did Americans lose their jobs so this dress could be made overseas?"

"Question: Would this dress be appropriate for a cross burning?"

"Question: how much an hour does Ivanka pay the factory workers in China? Is it a livable wage?"

It's going to be a long eight years.

Rich Vail said...

What the morons who are trying to destroy her business don't understand that this is how you get More Trump. They have done a stellar job in pushing people who were on the sidelines into his camp. At this rate, 2020 will likely be a Reaganesque landslide...

Unknown said...

For purposes of boycotts, there are no perfectly virtuous companies. They ALL buy something from a country run by a dictator or from "sweatshops" (even though no one makes anyone work in a sweatshop...). They ALL use fossil fuels and are destroying the Earth. They all have trump supporters on their boards or as CEOs or something. It is a whip that can be used against anyone.

JBlog said...

So, it's kind of like "Mean Girls."

Robert Cook said...

"Wait twelve hours and you will be right again."

I don't need to wait that long. I'm nearly always right.

Brando said...

"For purposes of boycotts, there are no perfectly virtuous companies. They ALL buy something from a country run by a dictator or from "sweatshops" (even though no one makes anyone work in a sweatshop...). They ALL use fossil fuels and are destroying the Earth. They all have trump supporters on their boards or as CEOs or something. It is a whip that can be used against anyone."

Exactly my point--the economy is far too interconnected for a boycott to make much sense. Same reason trade wars can screw you in a modern economy. People like to think everyone in the economy is an isolated actor, unconnected to anyone else and thus ripe for punishment or favor, without consequences spreading around.

Todd said...

Chuck said...

Moreover, they want you to boycott Coors and Yuengling beer...

2/8/17, 9:55 AM


And they can just kiss my @ss. Boycott Yuengling beer. That right there is damn UNAMERICAN!

Iapetus said...

"the people making the stink will go away while the rest of their customers don't really care that much so very few are going to react.'

Possibly true, although yesterday I did cancel my Nordstrom's credit card, cut the card up into many pieces, and then mailed the pieces to the Seattle office of the company's president with a note saying how displeased I was over his stance on Trump's immigration policy. Not that he will give a fig, but it was a bit of catharsis for me since I have few ways to say F U to the SJWs.

Todd said...

Brando said...

Related to this, has anyone here had experience buying guns online and if so is there a reliable/reputable online dealer you'd recommend?

2/8/17, 12:02 PM


Never had an issue with those I have gotten that way. Online guns have to route through a local FFL. Final inspection is done there and if you are not satisfied, return at that point.

Most recently I picked up a Ruger 10/22 takedown reciever from online as I could not find it local and Ruger does not sell "just that".

I have never had an issue though I admit to mostly using local shows where I get to inspect before purchase.

As with anything online, the credit card is your friend!

Brando said...

Todd--thanks! Is there a particular online retailer you'd recommend? We have a store near us but they don't have a big variety so I was considering the online route and they'd ship it to the store and I'd do the background check there. I just wasn't sure which online retailers have a good rep.

Michael said...

The leftie boycott virtue signaling hurts no one but the poor people making the clothes or cleaning the rooms or cooking the food. The lefties initiating the boycotts never shopped at the subject offenders in any event. The chains that capitulate should then be boycotted by the actual customers who don't claim to give a shit about the poor anyway.

Todd said...

Brando said...
Todd--thanks! Is there a particular online retailer you'd recommend? We have a store near us but they don't have a big variety so I was considering the online route and they'd ship it to the store and I'd do the background check there. I just wasn't sure which online retailers have a good rep.

2/8/17, 3:24 PM


I don't think Ann would appreciate me actually listing URLs but maybe I can get a couple to you through one of your sites?

viejo loco said...

Darrell is he winner with "Hillary backwards. In Depends."

tim in vermont said...

I have actually darkened Nordstrom's door and spent actual dollars there. Won't happen again.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
320Busdriver said...

I don't know, rule 19 seemed pretty effective, even with a man invoking it. And no, not the Yuengling, definitely not.

Rick said...

Exactly my point--the economy is far too interconnected for a boycott to make much sense.

Boycotts make perfect sense. Nordstorms isn't offering Trump products and everyone in America was reminded that becoming publicly known as a non-leftist is risking your career and ability to support your family.

Inkling said...

IMPORTANT1

Those who've bought from Nordstrom in the past—even years ago—might want to return every item they no longer wear, however tattered. Their policy is vague, but there doesn't seem to be a time or reason limitation.

"What is your return policy?
We handle returns on a case-by-case basis with the ultimate objective of making our customers happy. We stand behind our goods and services and want customers to be satisfied with them."

http://shop.nordstrom.com/c/return-policy

Doing so by mail seems best, since it's free and they get it and they must doing make a refund decision. Here's where you can print the mailing label:

https://secure.nordstrom.com/ReturnsAreSimple.aspx


Milwaukee said...

"dreams said...
I think the best thing I can say about Hillary is that she isn't as ugly as that ugly liberal Madeleine Albright. Ugly liberals!"


Just as President 0bama led us to realize that Jimmy Carter wasn't the worse president ever, now these two, Madeleine and Hilary, and other feminists, cause us to realize that Eleanor Roosevelt wasn't the ugliest woman who ever lived. But she was a liberal feminist, so she was just ahead of her time.

harryo said...

The end justifies the means. Immoral tactics against an immoral Senator.

Rule 19 is great. Wimpy, but great.

It shut Pocahontas up.

Big Mike said...

Women work for pin money.

@Bad LT (12:12), what Althouse was referring to is an attitude that was common back in the 1960s and early 1970s (and which spurred the rise of first wave feminism). I know because I was engaged to a woman working on her doctorate in nuclear physics back then, and one of her professors told her to her face that she was just taking a job from a man who had to support a wife and kids and I'd just get her pregnant and his time and effort teaching her was going to be a big waste. Oh, that stuff was real all right, I was there when it was happening. A few years later I interviewed at a small company and heard the two founders laughing about the hard time that their secretary (admin, for you modern folks) was giving to their sole female employee. That means the attitude was still there as late as the early 1980s, just moved underground to surface only among other men.

So basically, what Althouse was doing was rebuking Trumpit's comment implying that it is okay to inflict financial pain on Ivanka Trump because she's rich and doesn't need the money. The notion that a woman might do something because she likes doing it and is good at it (and I wish some of those dresses were around when my wife was young and svelte in any way other than my mind's eye).

A couple more thoughts. First, I sometimes have a concern about Althouse in that I wonder whether she doesn't hang onto a subconscious belief that it's still the 1970s and she still has to be a feminist warrior. A lot of us baby boomers think back to the day when civil rights were obviously being denied, when woman obviously were being denied a fair chance at economic success, when the environment was so bad that Lake Erie caught on fire (actually, tributary river, but at the mouth of the river where it emptied into Erie). We were young, back then, and the causes were important. The fights are long over and the good guys won, but it was so much fun! So hard to let go.

The other thought is that the feminist rhetoric discourages women from analyzing their own contribution to any lack of success they enjoy -- it's obviously sexism, after all. No, sweetie, your manager isn't saying that you're incompetent because you're a woman; he's saying that you're incompetent because you're incompetent. And I think in both the short run and the long run this is very bad for young women.

But it's their career, not mine.

mockturtle said...

Big Mike, substitute 'black' for female and you get the same situation.

BJM said...

I went to Amazon via the Althouse link and bought long summer dress. So many items were sold out, so someone's buying Ivanka's clothing line.

@Kathyrn51 - same here, I called Nordstrom's and canceled my card.

Nordstrom's is already dealing with a sluggish retail environment, if their sales or growth declines by even 10% due to customers like me pushing back, there will be layoffs of retail staff, and smaller budgets for buying new merchandise. That will spread to supporting industries and workers, many of whom the Dems need in the coming elections.

The Dems couldn't be going about this more wrongly, but perhaps we should stop warning them, eh?

Big Mike said...

@mockturtle, I'm sadly aware.

AReasonableMan said...

mockturtle said...
Big Mike, substitute 'rural white' for female and you get the same situation.


wwww said...

Nordstrom's is already dealing with a sluggish retail environment, if their sales or growth declines by even 10% due to customers like me pushing back, there will be layoffs of retail staff, and smaller budgets for buying new merchandise. That will spread to supporting industries and workers, many of whom the Dems need in the coming elections.


The Nordstrom's situation has gotten out of hand. Nordies relies heavily on statistics and analytics to make their buying decisions. In fact, they're hiring analysts again this week.

Perhaps Nodies could have waited longer to see if the dip in those sales are temporary. But they've got their analytical system for making decisions, and it's not based on political considerations.

It's not fair for the president to expect a corporation to sell a line that is not doing well. Nordies didn't ask to be put in the middle of this food fight.

Big Mike said...

@ARM, now that I live in a rural, mostly white, area I have to disagree with you. These folks are seriously hurting and I can see it with my own eyes. I think you are deliberately ignorant of their issues.

furious_a said...

"See you in Hell, Ladies!" -- Madeline Albright

AReasonableMan said...

And blacks don't feel pain?

I agree completely with you that rural areas are struggling, but there are a range of views on why that is. As you no doubt recall, Kevin Williamson's views on rural whites largely match mockturtle's views on blacks.

In a globalizing economy there had to be large cultural changes in order for those communities to effectively compete and they were either unwilling or unable to make those changes. I see something similar in my exurban community. The immigrant families attracted by the local university and hospital are almost neurotically driven to see their children succeed academically while the local whites spend their time complaining that the math the local schools teach is 'too hard'. It is difficult to overstate how self-defeating this attitude is, and these are people who are relatively wealthy and well educated.

Bad Lieutenant said...

now these two, Madeleine and Hilary, and other feminists, cause us to realize that Eleanor Roosevelt wasn't the ugliest woman who ever lived.


Sorry, no. The ugliness of the first two, while profound, is if am ordinary sort and reflects the state of their souls, as with so many of the inwardly and outwardly deformed people hired by the Clintons and Obama.

Eleanor Roosevelt looks like a product of incest, as if there was something seriously wrong with her family tree-missing some branches-and apparently that clan does, in fact, run to cousin-poking. Her ugliness is so profound that one can only look away in pity.

But it does not impress me as a reflection of the state of her soul, though I'm sure most everything she believed was wrong.

furious_a said...

"The Future is Female"

Husbands die before their wives because they want to.

mockturtle said...

If you quote me, ARM, please quote me correctly. What's wrong with you these days?

mockturtle said...

largely match mockturtle's views on blacks.

ARM, you are such an ignoramus! My former husband was black. One of my children is half-black. All of my grandchildren are racially mixed: Black, white, Korean and Filipino. I'll bet I've had more black friends than you ever dreamt of having. So go screw yourself.

mockturtle said...

And most of my black & racially mixed friends and family voted for Trump.

AReasonableMan said...

mockturtle, your reference to 'blacks' was gratuitous since it just as readily applies to rural whites. As has become increasingly evident, many of the problems found in black communities are increasingly prevalent in rural white communities. If you want to cast shade on one community why not both?

mockturtle said...

I have seen no instance where rural whites played the 'rural white' card. Have you?

Big Mike said...

@ARM, I've lived in Washington suburbs with large contingents of black residents and my kids have attended majority minority schools. I assure you that any correspondence between the problems of lower class and lower middle class blacks in the inner city and old suburbs, and rural whites is very superficial. For one thing, the support network for blacks in the inner city and old suburbs -- and specifically blacks, poor whites and often even Hispanics need not apply -- is stronger and allows, in some ways encourages bad behavior. There is no such support network in rural areas. And out here at least, individuals of all races and backgrounds are equally welcome.

chickelit said...

mockturtle said...I have seen no instance where rural whites played the 'rural white' card. Have you?

According to the Left, Trump's electoral victory was one big caterwaul from rural and rust belt whites. The Left is still writing off flyover states and forging ahead as Progressive separatists.

AReasonableMan said...

You must be kidding. Trump's candidacy and election is all about rural whites attempting to carve out a special place for themselves that is not currently provided by global economics. They have the political clout to make their voices heard so rather than adapt to the economic world as it is, they are trying to fight the laws of economics. It is unclear whether the laws of economics will give a toss.

chickelit said...

I repeat: The Left is still writing off flyover states and forging ahead as Progressive separatists.

See ARM's 8:42PM.

AReasonableMan said...

Big Mike said...
I assure you that any correspondence between the problems of lower class and lower middle class blacks in the inner city and old suburbs, and rural whites is very superficial.


Rural whites are increasingly looking to the government for support. This is creating much of the internal conflict in the Republican party, between those attempting to deal with their constituents economic problems and the free marketeers who reflect Kevin Williamson's attitude.

Big Mike said...

@ARM, true, sort of. From where I sit you are overstating the degree of similarity. If you go back to when Lyndon Johnson passed AFDC he did photo-ops in Appalachia. Today AFDC is de facto a blacks only program.

AReasonableMan said...

chickelit said...
The Left is still writing off flyover states and forging ahead as Progressive separatists.


Not clear what this means. I am sympathetic to the rural working class. My family has its roots in the rural working class. But, you can't easily fight long term economic trends. Big business in collaboration with the DC politicians sold out much of the country's manufacturing base for a quick buck but the underlying trend, of cheap well educated foreign labor streaming into the global economy was always going to create problems.

n.n said...

Women should be taxable commodities, friends with "benefits", womb banks for the dysfunctional, and exploited for Democratic leverage.

AReasonableMan said...

These were the numbers I found:

"According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American."

"1.5 million Black mothers of childbearing ages were AFDC recipients, versus 2.1 million White mothers"

Blacks are certainly overrepresented but it is an overstatement to say that whites are excluded from either program. Blacks are still a lot poorer than whites.

chickelit said...

Big Mike said...If you go back to when Lyndon Johnson passed AFDC he did photo-ops in Appalachia. Today AFDC is de facto a blacks only program.

I wrote a blog post on that and explored reasons why that happened (slowly) in the public eye: And Deliverance From Evil

mockturtle said...

My point--not that ARM cares--was not who was poorer. My point was that women and blacks are apt to blame gender or race for their not being hired, being fired, not being promoted or for being poor. Is there no such thing as incompetence among blacks or women? There are far more cultural reasons than racial reasons for poverty. But playing the victim, while it goes down well with the Dems, doesn't get you out of poverty. Today, the opportunities are there for women and blacks. It's what you do with those opportunities that matters.

chickelit said...

Mockturtle wrote: But playing the victim, while it goes down well with the Dems, doesn't get you out of poverty.

To encourage people to read my link above, I will reiterate and expand on one point. "Justified" was a popular FX series about an Eastern KY Federal marshall who goes back to Appalachia and tries to set things straight with the yokels. Why hasn't there been a show about a black Federal Marshall who goes back to say, Baltimore and tries to clean things up? I think it would be wildly popular and could employ a lot of black actors. Why is this topic verboten?

Big Mike said...

I second what mockturtle says above.

@ARM,what the statistics don't tell us is how the black mothers came to be on AFDC versus the route by which white mothers came to be on AFDC, nor do they describe the routes by which black vs white families came to be on food stamps. The information I have is that over 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers. The eye-opener when I just now looked it up is that the rate for unmarried white women is over 35% -- ridiculous even if only half the rate for black women. I don't know how to fix this but it must be fixed. Of that I'm certain. And it seems to me that Ivanka's dad is a better choice to make the attempt than Chelsea's mother.

AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AReasonableMan said...

chickelit said...
"Justified" was a popular FX series about an Eastern KY Federal marshall who goes back to Appalachia and tries to set things straight with the yokels. Why hasn't there been a show about a black Federal Marshall who goes back to say, Baltimore and tries to clean things up? I think it would be wildly popular and could employ a lot of black actors. Why is this topic verboten?


I watched all or most of Justified. It was a pleasant enough show but it was just a light fantasy and not a particularly harsh portrayal of Appalachia. It was nothing like the brutal portrayal of black life in Baltimore seen in 'The Wire'. That was black degradation porn. Not sure you have an argument here.

chickelit said...

I watched all or most of Justified. It was a pleasant enough show but it was just a light fantasy and not a particularly harsh portrayal of Appalachia. It was nothing like the brutal portrayal of black life in Baltimore seen in 'The Wire'. That was black degradation porn. Not sure you have an argument here.

"The Wire" was fantastic! My idea needs a black Elmore Leonard to write the pilot and consult. Opportunity!

cyrus83 said...

I have to wonder what they put in the water in these board rooms that makes CEOs think that alienating a customer base of 60 million plus is a smart business move? I mean it's a fine strategy if the business caters exclusively to NYC and other solid blue enclaves and has no plans to ever expand to the American heartland, but damn near suicidal for any business that has or wants a solid national brand.

The thing that makes this so stupid for Nordstrom's and any other company that gives in to the left is that it doesn't really win them any loyalty from the left. The leftist hive got their scalp, but they'll mostly go back to ignoring Nordstrom until the next time they step out of line.

Brando said...

"I don't think Ann would appreciate me actually listing URLs but maybe I can get a couple to you through one of your sites?"

I don't really have a public site but if there's something I could google I could check it out. No big deal though, just in the market for something for the new house.

Todd said...

Brando, I noodled it out.

Here you go:

77 77 77 2e 61 72 6d 73 6c 69 73 74 2e 63 6f 6d and
77 77 77 2e 67 75 6e 62 72 6f 6b 65 72 2e 63 6f 6d

are both good sites for finding that "something special" and I use this one a lot to keep up with all-around prices and good deals:

77 77 77 2e 73 6c 69 63 6b 67 75 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d

(in case it was not "obvious" that is hex, just use google to convert back and away you go)

Good luck!

Todd said...

AReasonableMan said...
You must be kidding. Trump's candidacy and election is all about rural whites attempting to carve out a special place for themselves that is not currently provided by global economics. They have the political clout to make their voices heard so rather than adapt to the economic world as it is, they are trying to fight the laws of economics. It is unclear whether the laws of economics will give a toss.
2/8/17, 8:42 PM


My take is that it is far less "we want our piece of the pie" and far, far more "we are tired of your crap, leave us the heck alone, Government!".

It is one thing for a community to be decimated because the primary employer elected to move manufacturing overseas or to a more hospitable state. It is quite another matter when the Government goes out of its way to kill an industry because a sub-set of politicians have decided that they don't like that industry. In the same boat is when a state structures its policies to crush businesses. Governments local and federal have decided that they not only know best but will ram it down everyone's throats until we all choke on it. THAT is what drove people to Trump. If the "hicks" wanted more Government cheese, Hillary was the one that would deliver. She didn't get the nod because most people want to be able to afford their own cheese and would like the choice as to which flavor.

Brando said...

Thanks Todd--I'll check those out; supposed to take the wife to a range in the next free weekend and hoping to try a few out.

AReasonableMan said...

It is one thing for a community to be decimated because the primary employer elected to move manufacturing overseas or to a more hospitable state. It is quite another matter when the Government goes out of its way to kill an industry because a sub-set of politicians have decided that they don't like that industry. In the same boat is when a state structures its policies to crush businesses.

This is the big lie. That government has stifled US economic activity. Compared to most foreign governments US governments are relatively laissez faire, so this alone would not explain the relative decline. Similarly, if it were true you would expect historical economic performance under Republicans to be better than under Democrats, when the exact opposite is true. But let's see if things improve under Trump. I doubt that they will.

mockturtle said...

ARM, are you saying that industries have not been shut down due to EPA regs run amok?

Todd said...

AReasonableMan said...

This is the big lie. That government has stifled US economic activity.

2/9/17, 9:21 AM


under my administration energy prices will necessarily skyrocket

Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost

How Obama Is Keeping Small Businesses Down

I could go on...

AReasonableMan said...

Currently overall energy prices are close to historic lows. Coal can't compete. Coal is dying because of the natural gas surplus.

AReasonableMan said...

Your small business link is old. Here is Forbes on the same topic.

AReasonableMan said...

mockturtle said...
ARM, are you saying that industries have not been shut down due to EPA regs run amok?


Shut down is very rare. Run amok is a value judgement. Your run amok is someone else's badly need protection of the environment.

The coal industry has been outcompeted by the fracking industry, their problems have very little to do with the EPA.

Todd said...

Well ARM, I guess you got me there...

You are going to believe what you will, reality be damned. We have the post and serving President (Obama) saying he will make it very, very hard for an industry to function, we have him following through with his "promises", we have him standing in the way of other "unclean" energy projects, we have him throwing away tax revenue on pet "renewable" energy projects that go bankrupt but yep, you are right, sometimes crap just happens and industries evolve. Government had no part to play in that particular drama...

AReasonableMan said...

You refuse to acknowledge the role of market forces in the form of the fracking industry. Here is a reasonable discussion of the problem.

If you were right coal would be due for a big boom under Trump. The stock prices on coal companies have made no significant upward move since Trump's election suggesting that the market doesn't agree with you.

Todd said...

ARM, I never said that coal was not already under pressure from other energy producers. In fact I think fracking is great BUT that does not change the facts that the Obama government set out to hasten the death of coal for many reasons that had nothing to do with industry fundamentals.

AReasonableMan said...

One of governments roles is to prepare for the future, something that the market does poorly in many cases. I have no problem with the government attempting to jump start renewable energy industries. There have been steady declines in the cost of renewables as economies of scale kick in, to the point where they have become competitive with non-renewables. This is a good thing. It preserves our non-renewable fuels, which will remain necessary for the foreseeable future. I think this is prudent governance, YMMV.

Brando said...

"One of governments roles is to prepare for the future, something that the market does poorly in many cases."

Actually government shouldn't be picking winners in the economy, but rather sticking to its core functions. If coal is dying out on its own, fine, but government shouldn't be forcing that to happen faster.

I'm all for renewables, and they will gradually become a bigger part of our energy industry, but it shouldn't be because of government dislocation.

mockturtle said...

Even when the EPA doesn't actually shut down an industry, it often forces the industry to shut down due to regulations that would be economically prohibitive. I can think of several examples just in my home state of WA alone.

AReasonableMan said...

Let's see those examples.

Defenseman Emeritus said...

ARM said: One of governments roles is to prepare for the future, something that the market does poorly in many cases.

I'd argue that preparing for future is everyone's role. You didn't explicitly say so, but your comment above implies that the government either does a better job than the private sector at such preparation, or picks up the preparatory slack left by the market. I'd be interested if you gave some examples of this because I'm not finding it intuitive.

I have no problem with the government attempting to jump start renewable energy industries.

I'm not against the government doing some funding of university research on renewable energy. However, directly funding or subsidizing private firms that work in that area is simply crony capitalism, and the government is notoriously poor at picking winners to fund regardless -- Solyndra being the most obvious example.

There have been steady declines in the cost of renewables as economies of scale kick in, to the point where they have become competitive with non-renewables.

I didn't realize that was the case. Do you mind sharing a source? My impression was that nuclear was the only non-fossil fuel that comes anywhere close to matching the cost-effectiveness of the likes of oil and gas.

AReasonableMan said...

Renewable costs have steadily declined so it is important to use recent numbers

This seems to be the most recent broad analysis. The summary from wiki is:

"In November 2015, the investment bank Lazard headquartered in New York, published a study on the current electricity production costs of photovoltaics in the US compared to conventional power generators. The best large-scale photovoltaic power plants can produce electricity at 50 USD per MWh. The upper limit at 60 USD per MWh. In comparison, coal-fired plants are between 65 USD and $150 per MWh, nuclear power at 97 USD per MWh. Small photovoltaic power plants on roofs of houses are still at 184-300 USD per MWh, but which can do without electricity transport costs. Onshore wind turbines are 32-77 USD per MWh. "

Todd said...

The document you reference indicates (for levelized cost of energy):

Coal: $60 to $143 with a 40 year life
Nuclear: $97 to $136 with a 40 year life
Wind (on shore): $32 to $62 with a 20 year life
Wind (off short): $82 to $155 with a 20 year life
Solar (blended): $49 to $182 with a 30 to 35 year life

Wind and Solar need LOTS of space and can only generate energy (non-stored) when conditions are right (day for solar and wind blowing but not too fast for wind). They are not good at managing peak demand and so conventional energy generation would need to be blended in.

Their "pretty" graph on page 2 left out some stuff...

Land based "wind" does look good on a per MWh but you have the issues of needing the right amount of space in the right places in order to make that work AND account for non-generating periods by relying on backup generation methods.

I also found the graph on page 11 interesting. According to their analysis, the high-end capital costs for a coal facility is greater than the high-end capital costs for a nuclear power plant. Then they go and throw a diamond spacer out on the end without really explaining what it represents, to push it above coal. I could assume that is with the addition of spent fuel storage costs but it does not say that I can see.

They appear to do something similar on page 15, have solar/wind looking "real good" compared to coal but then throw a diamond way out there that pushes them into the mid-range of coal (for costs of capital).

They seem to leave off-shore wind off of a few of their comparison charts, is it because it is more expensive (construction and maintenance) and would average up the wind ROI?

Someone with more accounting than I would need to review and indicate if this passes the "smell test".

AReasonableMan said...

They break out on shore and off shore wind because off shore is more expensive. I agree that renewables can't completely replace fossil fuels but limiting the use of fossil fuels makes us more energy independent. It is a bit like a hybrid car, the electric energy only does so much, but it is enough to significantly reduce fuel usage. We are headed towards a hybrid fuel generation system for the foreseeable future.