tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7092792899250240310..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The President Pence Gambit is now openly discussed. And doubling down on insanityDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23947281238081116012016-10-13T14:26:30.327-07:002016-10-13T14:26:30.327-07:00Thanks Larry
I will use that the next time I respo...Thanks Larry<br />I will use that the next time I respond to a gun rights idiotduncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81140881228540919572016-10-13T09:56:40.899-07:002016-10-13T09:56:40.899-07:00...Dr Brin has moved...
onward!
onward!
...Dr Brin has moved...<br /><br />onward!<br /><br />onward!<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76075910162909555122016-10-13T09:52:02.361-07:002016-10-13T09:52:02.361-07:00that lengthy excerpt about slave patrols was in re...that lengthy excerpt about slave patrols was in response to...<br /><br /><i><br />PS: Gun Ownership, the Second Amendment, was & has always been about about keeping tyrants like King George out of your house. It has as much to do with slavery & racism as Prohibition did.<br /></i><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60560333701440454042016-10-13T09:50:35.242-07:002016-10-13T09:50:35.242-07:00Take it up with this guy:
http://www.truth-out.org...<br /><br />Take it up with this guy:<br />http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery<br /><br />And yes, Carl T Bogus is apparently a real name ;)<br /><br /><i><br />The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the framers knew the difference -- see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that... and we all should be too.<br /><br />In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states. <br /><br />In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings. <br /><br />See more news and opinion from Thom Hartmann at Truthout here.<br /><br />As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."<br /><br />It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.<br /></i>LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56580228867264747672016-10-13T09:49:11.709-07:002016-10-13T09:49:11.709-07:00PAULSB,
A colleague of mine put this slide deck t...PAULSB,<br /><br />A colleague of mine put this slide deck together a few years back that sums up passive solar design choices.<br /><a href="http://docs.google.com/present/embed?id=dc6dp2dq_12fhvsgbg4&interval=60&size=l" rel="nofollow">Passive Solar Design</a>Kal Kallevignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19591981327711398132016-10-13T09:44:47.323-07:002016-10-13T09:44:47.323-07:00locumranch (continued) :
Since I deny the Western...locumranch (continued) :<br /><i><br />Since I deny the Western 'Women are Special Princesses' stereotype & recognise that most women are as sexual, base, mundane, violent, malevolent, greedy, grasping & immoral as most men are, I often accused of (gasp!) 'misogyny' even though nothing could be farther from the truth:<br /></i><br /><br />And I'm often accused of "treason" and "hating America" for opposing bullies and wanting universal health care. Why don't you do what you would tell me to do, and just man up and deal with it?<br /><br /><i><br />I'm a 'Gender Equalist' because I know that both men & women are mostly moral horror shows & you're a self-deluding WEIRD-o if you believe that women & girls are somehow 'better' than men & boys !!<br /></i><br /><br />You are getting yourself into a lather arguing against something I am not saying. Maybe...if...I...write...slower..?<br /><br />Real men compete for female attention and the chance to copulate with women, sure. This does <b>not</b> imply that men are supposed to take those women against their will. Are you arguing otherwise?<br /><br />Laws and institutions in this country, including the way the Second Amendment is <b>applied</b>, have given white people advantages not shared by others. This was more explicit in the past than it is now, but the effects linger on, and it defies reality to claim otherwise. It's not the ideal situation, and it should be mitigated over time, but a pseudo-class distinction does exist. Saying the obvious does not make one a racist. Are you arguing otherwise?<br /><br />All else you are insulting me about is just straw-manning nonsense.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74418313550188204052016-10-13T09:41:13.911-07:002016-10-13T09:41:13.911-07:00locumranch:
You're a racist when you attribut...locumranch:<br /><i><br />You're a racist when you attribute a particular characteristic to skin colour & race:<br /></i><br /><br />So you'd agree with my ultra-feminist sister-in-law back in college that a statement like "Black people were brought to America from Africa as slaves" is racist because it mentions black people?<br /><br /><i><br />It's racist to equate red skin with 'savage', yellow skin with 'cunning', black skin with 'lazy', or white skin with 'privilege' or 'racism'. Take it up with the progressive left if you don't like this working definition.<br /></i><br /><br />One of these things is not like the other. When most progressive liberals talk about white privilege, we're not attempting to describe a characteristic of white people themselves. We're describing a fact about the institutions that have evolved over 500 years on this continent. I enjoy white privilege to the extent that, for example, I've never been pulled over for a "busted taillight", and when I have been pulled over for a traffic violation, if I'm polite and deferent to the cop, I don't expect to be hassled, cuffed, or shot. I <b>wish</b> we lived in a world where the same could be said if I were black, but the evidence just doesn't back that up.<br /><br />When Cliven Bundy and his gang of armed thugs brandished weapons and actively threatened federal officers with them, those officers backed off rather than provoke an armed battle. Are you seriously asserting that they would have done so had those men been black, or dark-skinned with beards and turbans? That mentioning this simple fact is racist?<br /><br />Seriously?<br /><br /><i><br />Historically speaking, black & brown skinned people were much more statistically likely to be 'slave owners' than white skinned people ever were.<br /></i><br /><br />(cue Monty Python) : "Not 'round these parts."<br /><br />Militias and slave patrols <b>in this country</b> were meant to keep slaves from escaping. The negotiations around the wording of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights had to defer to this fact of southern life. How slavery is practiced in other cultures and other places is immaterial. I'm not accusing white people (of which I am one) of being <b>genetically</b> prone to enslaving others. I'm describing history that actually did happen, and the continuing consequences thereof.<br /><i><br />Likewise, you're a sexist if you argue that (1) all men are potential 'rapists', (2) most women are more gentle, honest or moral than most men, or (3) violence is gender-specific.<br /></i><br /><br />Well, then have fun arguing with the straw man, because I don't argue any of that. I'm not claiming <b>men</b> are pigs; I'm claiming <b>Donald Trump</b> is a pig.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28998035302469223522016-10-13T08:42:45.057-07:002016-10-13T08:42:45.057-07:00PS: Gun Ownership, the Second Amendment, was &...<br />PS: Gun Ownership, the Second Amendment, was & has always been about about keeping tyrants like King George out of your house. It has as much to do with slavery & racism as Prohibition did.locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42503929665036032332016-10-13T08:38:55.262-07:002016-10-13T08:38:55.262-07:00You're a racist when you attribute a particula...<br />You're a racist when you attribute a particular characteristic to skin colour & race: <br /><br />It's racist to equate red skin with 'savage', yellow skin with 'cunning', black skin with 'lazy', or white skin with 'privilege' or 'racism'. Take it up with the progressive left if you don't like this working definition.<br /><br />Historically speaking, black & brown skinned people were much more statistically likely to be 'slave owners' than white skinned people ever were. Overt slavery has always been a rarity in Europe, the US & the enlightened west; very few whites ever owned slaves in US history even before slavery was officially abolished over 150 years ago: and brown-on-brown slavery still exists today in places like Saudi Arabia.<br /><br />Likewise, you're a sexist if you argue that (1) all men are potential 'rapists', (2) most women are more gentle, honest or moral than most men, or (3) violence is gender-specific. <br /><br />Since I deny the Western 'Women are Special Princesses' stereotype & recognise that most women are as sexual, base, mundane, violent, malevolent, greedy, grasping & immoral as most men are, I often accused of (gasp!) 'misogyny' even though nothing could be farther from the truth:<br /><br />I'm a 'Gender Equalist' because I know that both men & women are mostly moral horror shows & you're a self-deluding WEIRD-o if you believe that women & girls are somehow 'better' than men & boys !!<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1367598132636110822016-10-13T07:24:09.874-07:002016-10-13T07:24:09.874-07:00locumranch:
Where is your post-racial paradise wh...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Where is your post-racial paradise when you ridicule those who defend your freedoms as slavery-loving 'white people' as the racist Larry_H does above?<br /></i><br /><br />Watch it, asshole. I don't mind friendly or even pseudo-friendly banter, but them's dueling words.<br /><br />The discussion was about forcing legislation to contain a clear statement of intent. Do you doubt that the intent of the Second Amendment is as I characterize it?<br /><br />You sound like my sister-in-law back in college, when she used to contend that even a statement as innocuous as "Black people have darker skin than white people" was racist. You're calling me a racist for daring to mention racism that exists in other contexts. I'm sorry, am I not being politically correct enough for you?<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39929505364012366542016-10-13T07:11:17.254-07:002016-10-13T07:11:17.254-07:00Paul_SB is the poster boy for WEIRD, also known as...<br />Paul_SB is the poster boy for WEIRD, also known as 'Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic', believing in his heart of hearts that his outlier minority viewpoint is somehow the new Ideal Norm, even though he & other enlightenment defenders often admit that their entire way of living represents a historical aberrancy. <br /><br />They dismiss the heterosexual reproductive imperative in favour of the LBGTQ agenda; they convince themselves that their rote intellect has nullified biological reality; they submit to a de facto oligarchy while they blither on & on about their 'democratic values'; they crow about the moral superiority of monogamy as their friends & children aggressively pursue the government welfare harem system; they believe that urbanization (wherein 80% of society resides in cities; 20% in rural) is 'normal' even though these stats were reversed (and always have been reversed) less than a hundred years ago; and they think that Industrial Age plenty will persist into the post-industrial economy.<br /><br />You WEIRD-os may choose to dismiss my views as cynical, sexist, misogynist, intolerant and (even) racist if it makes you feel better, but it is you who are suffering from collective denial & delusion. <br /><br />Where is your gender equality when you ignore the wholesale abandonment, sacrifice & slaughter of young men, but award the young women who are rarely subject to deadly violence the frigging Noble Peace Prize for survivable injuries?<br /><br />Where is your economic equality when your urban society rewards its rural agricultural & resource produces with artificial poverty, wage slavery & political irrelevance?<br /><br />Where is your post-racial paradise when you ridicule those who defend your freedoms as slavery-loving 'white people' as the racist Larry_H does above?<br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17316175387897497042016-10-13T07:08:45.654-07:002016-10-13T07:08:45.654-07:00Anonymous:
One admittedly cynical thought is that...Anonymous:<br /><i><br />One admittedly cynical thought is that it scuttled a planned 'Monica' whisper campaign scheduled for late October.<br /></i><br /><br />Not that this election is normal in any way, but in the future, I wonder if the value of an October Surprise will be diminished by the trend toward early voting. I can vote as early as Oct 24, and if I make the effort to go into downtown Chicago on a weekday, I can vote <b>now</b>. Election Day this year is as late as it can be--November 8--but news that breaks toward Halloween or later will probably not be able to influence my vote. And I'm not alone in that regard.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54086454589849368052016-10-13T06:26:08.963-07:002016-10-13T06:26:08.963-07:00Kruugmans referenced article asks 'why was thi...Kruugmans referenced article asks 'why was this 2005 tape the last straw for so many republicans?', after so many other deplorable statements. One admittedly cynical thought is that it scuttled a planned 'Monica' whisper campaign scheduled for late October.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5057542092696988012016-10-13T05:37:52.538-07:002016-10-13T05:37:52.538-07:00Duncan Cairncross:
he legislature is the part tha...Duncan Cairncross:<br /><i><br />he legislature is the part that decides the "purpose" - MAKING them write down exactly what they are expecting the legislation to do is important<br /></i><br /><br />I can just imagine:<br /><b><br />An overwhelming preponderance of force being necessary to the maintenance of the institution of slavery, the right of white people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<br /></b><br /><br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74030737220467709122016-10-13T05:33:11.595-07:002016-10-13T05:33:11.595-07:00Paul SB:
No, Conan the Barbarian is not a model f...Paul SB:<br /><i><br />No, Conan the Barbarian is not a model for human society. <br /></i><br /><br />Besides, Trump wouldn't be Conan. Trump would be one of those a-holes whose head Conan chops off after he's (essentially) gone "That's all I can stands! I can't stands no more!"<br /><br />Conan has plenty of sex, but he doesn't coerce or rape women. The whole point is that he doesn't <b>have</b> to. Male competition for females is, at least in part, competition for the woman's <b>willing acceptance</b>. Trump seems to revel in his power and status intimidating women into letting him get away with s####, but (yes!) "that's a different thing, in fact, the opposite thing." <br /><br />Being "allowed" to feel up a woman stuck next to you on an airplane--a woman who hides in the back of the plane at the first opportunity--is not winning, it's cheating. The same way an artificial drug providing the sense of triumph formerly reserved for actual accomplishment is cheating.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22006116398349788622016-10-13T05:17:14.040-07:002016-10-13T05:17:14.040-07:00Today's www.electoral-vote.com has one of its ...Today's www.electoral-vote.com has one of its article headlines:<br /><i><br />a generation. (Z)<br />Trump Supporters Not Willing to Face Reality <br /></i><br /><br />More and more, that's what this election seems to be coming down to. Does reality itself win in a contest against fantasy, or can the latter sweep in on a <i>Triumph of the Will</i>?<br /><br />I've decried the fact that our electoral system seems designed to give the presidency to the candidate who, in sports parlance, "wants it more." Well, I have hardly seen a candidate who wants the presidency more than Hillary Clinton, but Trump seems to beat her out. Not sure it's enough to win this time.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36865559880214647662016-10-13T05:10:47.215-07:002016-10-13T05:10:47.215-07:00Funny how this loci guy doesn't even seem to g...Funny how this loci guy doesn't even seem to get that he loses even more credibility whenever he goes off on one of his misogynist rants. <br /><br />Way back in the 19th C, government officials would hire anthropologists to "go study the natives" of a place, so they could learn best how to rule them. The anthropologists would typically board a navy vessel, pull in to a navy port, set up tables right on the docks by the army garrison, and have the "natives" line up to explain their quaint, savage customs for pay. Now any trained scientist today can see a lot of things wrong with this picture, but the most obvious is what we refer to as scientific racism. They went into the endeavor already sure of what they would learn - that the "natives" were nothing but stupid savages, confirming their preconceived notions about the "white man's burden."<br /><br />In an Asian Civ class we read a lot about India, including a book that made the point that much of India's poverty could be blamed on the caste system, in which 1/6th of the people were considered so inferior they were not allowed any opportunity for education or any means of self-improvement, effectively cutting millions of minds and hands out of the productive economy.<br /><br />"Scientific" sexism isn't a whole lot different here, is it? Worse, even, since it is taking 50% out - and it really doesn't matter which 50% is taken out, whether it is the "gucci pump" or the jackboot of the habitual rapist. Claims made that male competition for access to females is "natural" and the #1 driving force in human society is pseudoscience drivel. The untested assumptions behind this one are legion. In monogamist cultures most people are quite happy to have one stable pair bond, and it turns out that the single biggest factor in a man's longevity is the quality of this bond. True monogamy is still the minority around the world, but I have known enough Muslims who have told me that very few Muslim men are that interested in having more than one wife, as the Qu'ran requires multiples be treated exactly the same - which is a very difficult thing to do. No, Conan the Barbarian is not a model for human society. Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6318298067349334822016-10-13T04:54:18.039-07:002016-10-13T04:54:18.039-07:00Mad Librarian,
"We usually only cool the sec...Mad Librarian,<br /><br />"We usually only cool the sections of the house where we are, so the smaller window units suffice, despite not being as efficient as central air."<br />- You're a wiser fellow than most. Since most don't get these things, it would probably be better for the world in general in building codes required new structures to incorporate passive design principles and insulation, many of which are quite ancient and just represent common sense before cheap oil made people stupid. If you tighten up the original design, a building will require much less electricity to heat or cool in the first place. Of course now I'm soap-boxing, whereas you were asking an more practical question.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2146449164559373042016-10-13T02:50:09.162-07:002016-10-13T02:50:09.162-07:00Hi donzelion
The legislature is the part that dec...Hi donzelion<br /><br />The legislature is the part that decides the "purpose" - MAKING them write down exactly what they are expecting the legislation to do is important<br /><br />At that stage you need sufficient support to get it voted in - the US system where a law is passed and then a minority tries to get it's teeth removed is profoundly undemocratic duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40464682109579268302016-10-13T00:25:29.238-07:002016-10-13T00:25:29.238-07:00Duncan: re purpose statements - first, again, Prop...Duncan: re purpose statements - first, again, Prop 54 (like all the others) does contain a pretty extensive one that is concrete and detailed (sections 2 & 3). However, this is not as simple as "manufacturing/quality procedures."<br /><br />In any manufacturing process, after the specifications are finalized, the participants are not actively looking to block the process from occurring. Most manufacturers tend not to hire people who deliberately want to impede the process. That is not the case with most laws that are enacted, where there are factions that support and oppose any legislation. You can't "fire" the citizens who oppose a law - you have to negotiate. <br /><br />Furthermore, in a manufacturing process, you have a pretty good idea whether it succeeded (e.g., the widget gets made, it gets made to spec, the specs are clear, and nobody gets hurt in the making of it). But for most laws, one side will assert that "nothing is being done" while another will asset "we followed the law": the dispute over the objective facts can be huge (as big as the difference of opinion as to whether Obama is or is not enforcing immigration law).<br /><br />But be that as it may, I still think "legislative intent" is potentially quite important, and not just for historical interest. For that reason, I generally weigh in favor of Prop 54.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45242010452587703142016-10-13T00:10:14.409-07:002016-10-13T00:10:14.409-07:00Duncan: on the use of legislative history (and why...Duncan: on the use of legislative history (and why the California Transparency Act may actually be a good thing) - the biggest recent case is probably King v. Burwell (2015).<br /><br />A claim arose challenging the Affordable Care Act provisions on subsidies. Those subsidies are a centerpoint of the operation of the Act: without them, the entire health care regime would collapse. However, under the terms of the Act, subsidies were to be paid to any “Exchange established by the State.” If a State declined to create an Exchange (as most Republican states refused to do), then it would not receive the subsidies, and insurance premiums would skyrocket.<br /><br />Three of the justices argued that it is absurd to read such a statement to mean “Exchange established by the State <b>or the Federal Government.</b>” Their position was that if this is what the legislature meant, then it's what they would have enacted. There's a wide difference between "the State" and "the Federal Government" in America.<br /><br />The majority held "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter." They looked at the legislative history and not only the text of the Act itself, but also what the legislators THOUGHT they were passing (and determined that errors persisted in the text as signed that should be read as including "the Federal Exchanges.")<br /><br />Now that's an $800 billion question. Most are significantly less complicated than that. But these sorts of issues are extremely common with most legislation.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70159926263734257512016-10-13T00:03:06.209-07:002016-10-13T00:03:06.209-07:00Hi donzelion
I agree your constitution starts with...Hi donzelion<br />I agree your constitution starts with a "purpose statement" - but NOBODY pays any attention to it!<br /><br />We have had some success here (NZ) with "purpose statements" and I found them very useful for manufacturing/quality procedures<br /><br />I think the problem is that you don't start with the "purpose statement" and treat it as really really important duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49301954104566876482016-10-12T23:46:08.448-07:002016-10-12T23:46:08.448-07:00Duncan: re Prop 54 (California Government Transpar...Duncan: re Prop 54 (California Government Transparency) - <i>"One of my pep soap boxes is that procedures legislation and laws should start with a "Purpose Statement" Saying WHY you need to do it "this way""</i><br />Almost every law in the U.S. starts that way; indeed, that's been the case since before our Constitution was enacted. It's not as helpful as you would think.<br /><br />If you take a look at it, Prop 54, Sections 2 and 3 state "findings and declarations" as well as "purposes." You can read them <a href="https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0083%20(Legislature%20Transparency)_0.pdf?" rel="nofollow">here.</a> They "seem" pretty straightforward.<br /><br />But consider: what if the Legislative Counsel sets up a nonprofit consortium that broadcasts the proceedings (which is one of the mechanisms of complying with the new requirements). What if that consortium charges a fee for access to the proceedings?<br /><br />Prop 54 clearly bans the Legislative Counsel (and the State, and any agency of the state or public corporation in the state) from charging any fee for access. However, it does not clearly apply to a separate entity (like a nonprofit consortium that broadcasts the proceedings). Would the Legislative Counsel violate his/her duties by delegating the dissemination to a separate entity? Would it be a violation if that entity charged a fee?<br /><br />You'd be surprised how tricky it gets, and these kinds of questions arise no matter how explicit the "purpose statement" may be (e.g., going back to the Constitution, Congress is only allowed to pass certain types of laws - as well as laws that are "necessary and proper" to implement those laws...how can one tell whether a law that is only loosely connected with a 'listed authority' is 'necessary and proper'?).<br /><br /><i>"it becomes easy to interpret the procedure/legislation AND it becomes obvious when it is no longer needed"</i><br />It is easy, until human beings disagree - then it gets hard. And humans tend to disagree often, and sometimes, their disagreements are quite difficult to sort out. ;-)donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4140953330867323712016-10-12T23:33:24.160-07:002016-10-12T23:33:24.160-07:00As much as I'd like to believe David's ass...<br />As much as I'd like to believe David's assertion that the pending US presidential election is about economics & science, it is not: It is about the culmination of the Gender War or, as George Orwell would say, "a Gucci pump stamping on a human face - forever".<br /><br />David confirms this by condemning Roger Ailes "as a sexual pervert-predator"; Establishment Republicans confirm this by abandoning Donald Trump (their own party candidate) for failing to revere, respect & fear women; and the British government confirms this by criminalizing males who dare address (and/or approach) a random female without obtaining prior consent.<br /><br />Their respective crimes? They are heterosexual males who attempt to use status, wealth, power, achievement or words to secure female companionship; and, this failure to pedestalize the human female has become the one & only remaining unforgivable sin in our modern Western Matriarchy.<br /><br />Once was, this was the main reason that human males sought great wealth, achievement, power & success. <br /><br />Men tried to move mountains -- and often succeeded -- in pursuit of this one thing. Yet, now that the traditional reward of snatch for such endeavours has been snatched away, tens of millions of men (as reported by NPR) have abandoned the western economy, eschewed gainful employment and left the table<br /><br />Snatch is what the pending US Presidential Election is about and, if Men (especially our most successful males) can neither earn nor demand it, then the West will fall. <br /><br />Why strive at all if it's all a lie, false promise or joke?<br /><br />Best<br />____<br />Evaporative cooling is Stone Age technology, circa 2500 BCE, when the Ancient Egyptians & Greeks stored water in clay amphora to cool their homes.locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66830970837862485432016-10-12T22:29:49.124-07:002016-10-12T22:29:49.124-07:00The larger window a/c units implement a 'sling...The larger window a/c units implement a 'slinger', a little scoop that runs off the compressor shaft, picks up the condensate out of the collector pan, and throws it against the exchanger fins, making the whole thing more efficient. Our humidity is usually fairly low, around 60%, and the a/c has to run for several hours before enough water accumulates to overflow the drip pan. We usually only cool the sections of the house where we are, so the smaller window units suffice, despite not being as efficient as central air.<br /><br />See also 'swamp cooler'.TheMadLibrariannoreply@blogger.com