marble falls's Journal
Name: had to remove
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: marble falls, tx
Member since: Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:49 AM
Number of posts: 10,040
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: marble falls, tx
Member since: Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:49 AM
Number of posts: 10,040
- 2016 (37)
- 2015 (66)
- 2014 (63)
- 2013 (111)
- 2012 (4)
The Dodge Viper ACR Creates So Much Downforce It Reduces MPG While Being Towed
By Andrew Del-Colle
May 12, 2016
While the Viper's various aerodynamic features are great for hurtling around the racetrack—the ACR creates more than 1700 pounds of peak downforce—they also result in a very high drag coefficient of .541. For comparison, a Prius, one of the slipperiest production cars ever made, has a coefficient of .24.
As an example of just how much drag the ACR creates, Reece mentioned that Ralph Gilles—the man behind the newest generation of the Viper, former president and CEO of SRT, and current head of design for Fiat Chrysler—saw a noticeable drop in his efficiency whenever he started towing his personal ACR on his open-air trailer. How great is that?
Gilles saw a difference of 2 mpg between towing his Viper GTS (pictured above) and the ACR.
Since then, this amusing fact has been bouncing around my skull, so I sent Gilles a message to follow-up. He quickly got back to me and not only confirmed the story, but provided a few more details along with some pictures.
"I tow with my EcoDiesel Grand Cherokee, which normally would get 20-21mpg towing my GTS, and got 18-19 towing the ACR," he wrote. "I am in the process of fashioning a simple device that stalls the rear wing (fills in the top)."
Posted by marble falls | Fri May 13, 2016, 03:08 PM (2 replies)
My wife and I both came down with what her doctor diagnosed as bronchitis. No problem: her Cadillac health care plan after 28 years with the CIA covered everything for her. I'm on VA health care and because I used to get bronchitis almost every year and because neither of us could take the 50 mile drive to my primary care physician in Austin or 80 miles to Temple Medical center I decided to hunker down: rest, push fluids and shelter in place.
That was Monday.
Thursday, neither of us were any better and were decidedly worse, in fact.
I called VA to get authorization to use the local hospital emergency room.
At Scott and White I got incredibly good and quick service. Second only to the care I get at VA.
What I had was type B influenza. You know, the one not covered by this flu season's inoculation.
What I also got was $250+ in prescriptions and a bill I haven't seen yet that I am confident will be more than a $1000.
This is the sort of thing that will make some people miss rent, a car payment, a weeks work, lose a job, become homeless. We've all heard that the average American is four or so paychecks from the streets.
The biggest thing I learned? We need single-payer now more than ever. ACA was a good start, lets get to the next logical and better step. Oh, and regulating the vampire pharmaceutical industry is a necessity, also. For the price of the codeine cough syrup alone I could have bought a good bindle of smack on the street. Something is very wrong.
Meanwhile: back to my sick bed.
Posted by marble falls | Fri May 13, 2016, 10:04 AM (17 replies)
Just remove the sabers from their hands and add a torch and in the other hand add chains attached a group of slaves.
All they need is context.
Posted by marble falls | Tue May 3, 2016, 09:01 AM (1 replies)
Ber-llary: Merging Hillary and Bernie
04/22/2016 07:41 am ET | Updated 3 hours ago
Carlo Allegri / Reuters
Hillary’s victory in New York was big and important. She reminded us of what we like about her, and actually connected with people. She effectively focused attention on what she did well as a Senator and a candidate. She put it together smartly, but there’s a “Thank you Bernie” needed as well.
Bernie’s primary campaign has saved Hillary. She’s been tested, she’s moved, she’s finally getting her legs under her, all because of Bernie and his minions. The minor hoo-hah about Bernie’s attacks will disappear. What will stay is his powerful ability to define both the politics and policies of 2016. He’s leading a movement, not just running for a job.
Bernie took the insights and the cri de couer of Occupy Wall Street and gave them structure and political stature. Sort of like what FDR did with Norman Thomas, Bella Abzug did with Betty Freidan, and Obama with Dr. King and Malcom X. It’s a traditional American dynamic and refreshes the body politic every time.
There’s a dark side to the politics of 2016 that underscores the danger that both Hillary and Bernie face. Trump is a serious threat in November. He’s not a right-wing ideologue, selling supply-side snake oil. His economic populism on trade, out-sourcing, taxing hedge funds, and maintaining Social Security and Medicare enrages the Kochs, Cruz, Fox News and the Conservative Establishment. But it resonates with voters who are focused on their economic condition. The outrageous language and ideas about immigration, punishing women, gender and orientation equality and the like are likely to drag him down in the end. But on the battlefield of the economy, he’s a tough nut to crack.
Bernie’s movement has the muscle, breadth and economic ideas to counter-punch Trump effectively. Will they?
Bernie will try, no doubt. He understands that no good can come out of baying at the moon after the convention. His foot soldiers, not so much. For the aged among us, we remember the consequences of abandoning Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 campaign against Nixon, and the Nader effect on 2000’s Bush-Gore contest. Something has to be done to avoid a third debacle.
Imagine the consequences for peace, prosperity and justice of President Trump. Even so, it will be hard to scare the Berners into supporting Hillary. The responsibility is on her by word and deed to welcome the movement into her campaign. Symbols will matter. Ideas will matter. She can’t win without the energy and votes that support Bernie.
She needs to do more than a pro forma welcome the losing camp into the fold. It’s hard to predict the mechanics of a Bernie-Hillary merger. Offering the Veep spot, keynote speeches, lots of joint campaigning are all necessary, but not sufficient. We’ll need a little magic as well.
There are Clinton camp forces that will advise her to do little, the same forces that gave us Bob Rubin and repeal of Glass-Steagall. Hillary has to figure this one out for herself and move decisively and smartly to keep the progressives together. Not easy. Possible. Necessary.
Follow Richard Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichardBrodsky
Posted by marble falls | Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:18 PM (3 replies)
33 Things I Hate About This Election, in No Particular Order
By Ijeoma Oluo / The Establishment
April 19, 2016
1. When Bernie supporters use “whore” in the pejorative when referring to Hillary
2. When Hillary Clinton said she keeps hot sauce in her bag
3. Marco Rubio’s suits
4. Every reference to Bernie marching with MLK
5. Hillary’s AIPAC speech
6. Donald Trump
7. Everyone who tells me it’s my duty to vote for one of these assholes
8. John Kasich’s haircut
9. Every white woman who says that it’s your feminist duty to vote for Hillary
10. Every dude who says women only vote for Hillary because she’s a woman
11. The fact that after every primary I have to hear clips of Trump’s gross speeches over and over even on fucking NPR
12. That time Hillary pretended to be your abuela
13. Every time a politician tours a poor black neighborhood like they’ve landed in a National Geographic documentary
14. Every time somebody asks Jonathan Chait what he thinks about the election
15. Every dinner party when somebody goes, “Sooo ... how about this election?” and you can’t legally stab them in the eye with a fork
16. Every former high school classmate that you didn’t know was a Trump supporter
17. Every dude who has tried to explain to me how elections work
18. Every time Carly Fiorina vividly imagined seeing video of human fetuses being torn apart
19. That time all the dudes were talking about their dick sizes
20. Every dude who has told Hillary to lower her voice
21. Every poll about which candidate is more “likable”
22. Every reader who is now adding up complaints to demand that I insult Hillary or Bernie a few more times to make this listicle fair
23. Every has-been celebrity who emerged from obscurity just to destroy our childhood with their candidate endorsement
24. Every person who has guessed at my political affiliation from a single tweet and proceeded to lecture me on why that assumed affiliation is wrong
25. Every joke every candidate has tried to make
26. Every person who says that we have to respect the beliefs of racist, hate-filled Trump followers
27. Every person who has used “illegals” in their political posts when referring to living, breathing human beings
28. Every transphobic “bathroom bill”
29. Everybody who has ever used the phrase “American values” without irony
30. Every white dude who thinks that his support of Bernie is a civil rights revolution
31. That time I felt like I had to defend Megyn Kelly
32. Every person on Twitter who thinks they can annoy you into supporting their candidate
33. Bill Clinton
Ijeoma Oluo is the Editor-At-Large of The Establishment. A Seattle-based Writer, Speaker, and Internet Yeller, her work has appeared in The Guardian, The Stranger, New York Magazine, Huffington Post, and more. She was named one of the Most Influential People in Seattle by Seattle Magazine. She's also a columnist at The Seattle Globalist.
Posted by marble falls | Thu Apr 21, 2016, 07:39 AM (52 replies)
What Will Happen When Genetically Engineered Salmon Escape Into the Wild?
The FDA has failed to fully examine the risks this new species of salmon would present to wild salmon.
By Brettny Hardy / AlterNet
April 8, 2016
On the Lower Stanislaus River in California's Central Valley. The chinook salmon is an anadromous fish that is the largest species in the salmon family. Chinook salmon range from San Francisco Bay in California to north of the Bering Strait in Alaska, and the waters of Canada and Russia. They are highly valued, mostly due to their relative scarcity, compared to other salmon along the Pacific Coast. Nine populations are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act as either threatened or endangered, including the fall runs found in California's Bay-Delta. USFWS photo/Dan Cox
Photo Credit: Dan Cox/Pacific Southwest Region USFWS/Flickr CC
In late 2015, the Food and Drug Administration gave the greenlight to AquaBounty, Inc., a company poised to create, produce and market an entirely new type of salmon. By combining the genes from three different types of fish, AquaBounty has made a salmon that grows unnaturally fast, reaching adult size twice as fast as its wild relative.
Never before has a country allowed any type of genetically engineered animal to be sold as food. The United States is stepping into new terrain, opening Pandora’s box. But are we ready for the consequences?
In order to answer that question, we must first look back on how we as a nation arrived at this point. Historically, the United States has enjoyed a rich bounty of seafood from the ocean. When I lived in Alaska, I always loved the late summer months when wild salmon would fill the rivers, making their way to spawning grounds. Fresh, wild salmon filets were delicious and abundant. And they still are.
Unfortunately, outside of Alaska, our poor management of an enormous fishing industry and important habitat has depleted fish stocks all along our coasts. Salmon species, in particular, are sensitive to environmental changes. The development and industrialization of our coast has polluted and dammed the rivers they depend on to breed. Although salmon used to be abundant on both the east and west coasts, large, healthy populations of salmon now exist mostly in Alaska.
Instead of fixing the environmental problems we have created or investing in the protection and recovery of our existing wild salmon resources, some have decided to create a new, genetically engineered fish that brings a host of its own problems and further undermines the sustainability of our food supply.
The genetically engineered salmon that the FDA approved will undertake a journey that stretches halfway around the globe in order to arrive at your dinner table. AquaBounty plans to produce the salmon eggs in a lab on Prince Edward Island in Canada, fly them to Panama to be raised, slaughtered and filleted, and then bring them back to the U.S. so they can be sold to your family. How many tons of greenhouse gases are emitted during that 5,000-mile trip?
That’s a far cry from the farm-to-table experience of eating seafood caught and sold by your local fisherman. Even worse, the FDA has so far refused to require food labels, so you won’t even know if the fish you’re eating is genetically engineered.
The waste and secrecy inherent in this process is bad enough, but the environmental consequences of this decision are potentially enormous. The FDA has failed to fully examine the risks this new species of salmon may present to wild salmon—and the environment—should it escape into the wild, which even some supporters of the FDA decision acknowledge is inevitable.
Once free, these fish will enter a world where wild salmon are already in a precarious state. In this fragile environment, genetically engineered fish would compete with their wild counterparts for food and space, and could even potentially interbreed with them. They will also bring new diseases and cause changes to basic food webs and ecosystem processes that are difficult to anticipate.
Even more concerning is that the FDA does not have the expertise to properly understand the environmental devastation a release of genetically engineered fish could cause. The FDA exists to ensure that the food and drugs we consume are safe for humans, but does not typically evaluate the environmental impacts of putting new types of engineered foods into the ecosystem. The two agencies with actual biological expertise in fisheries and ocean ecosystems, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, were not given the chance to formally review FDA’s approval.
Congress has not created a comprehensive statutory scheme to address the management of genetically engineered products. As a result, agencies are left trying to regulate genetically engineered products under a patchwork of ill-fitting statutes that do not comprehensively address associated environmental and other risks of these new creatures.
This new breed of fish does not herald progress. Instead, it highlights the ways we have devastated many of our wild fish populations and our continuing failure to recover this once-abundant natural food source.
We are opening Pandora’s box, and we are completely unprepared for the consequences.
Editor’s note: The author is the lead attorney on a lawsuit filed in federal court by the non-profit Earthjustice to challenge the FDA’s decision to approve AquaBounty’s genetically engineered salmon. Read more about the case at Earthjustice.
Brettny Hardy works with the Oceans program in the California regional office of Earthjustice.
Posted by marble falls | Sat Apr 9, 2016, 12:54 PM (8 replies)
Bernie Sanders: Prolific Democratic Party fundraiser
By Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated 1:15 PM ET, Mon February 8, 2016
What he didn't mention: The Vermont senator and presidential candidate is a prolific fundraiser himself and has regularly benefited from the Democratic Party apparatus.
In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.
The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.
Sanders has based his presidential campaign on a fire-and-brimstone critique of a broken campaign finance system -- and of Hillary Clinton for her reliance on big-dollar Wall Street donors. But Sanders is part of that system, and has helped Democrats court many of the same donors.
A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.
"At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."
Sanders' political leanings were well known by the donors who attended the retreats. "Nobody was more surprised that Bernie was there than the donors were," said another Democrat who attended the retreats.
But Sanders maintains that members of Congress now spend far too much time making calls seeking campaign contributions -- or "dialing for dollars," he said during a speech at the New England Council's "Politics and Eggs" event Friday morning.
"That's what they do. And not only should members who are elected be working for the people, not raising money -- if you think you could simply divide your brain in half, if you're working on unemployment or health care and think, now I've gotta go out and raise money, it affects your entire being," he said.
Benefits from Democratic establishment
Sanders has been an Independent while in Congress, but has caucused with the Democrats since he was elected to the Senate in 2006, helping them maintain their majority for eight years.
Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, said Sanders has "raised more money for the Senate Democrats than almost any other member of the Senate Democratic caucus" because he sees helping the party regain the majority as critical.
"He has in the past written letters and helped Senate Democrats elect Democrats. He thinks that's very important to the country," Briggs said.
He got a hand from the party in 1996, when Rob Engel, then the political director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, pushed a Democratic contender out of the race for the House seat Sanders held as an independent.
In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party's Senate candidates.
The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party -- which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.
Among the DSCC's top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.
During that 2006 campaign, Sanders attended a fundraiser at the Cambridge, Massachusetts home of Abby Rockefeller -- a member of the same family whose wealth he had one proposed confiscating.
Two years later, when then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was being nominated at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, Sanders was among the senators who met with Sen. Chuck Schumer's "Legacy Circle" donors who had given the legal maximum to the DSCC five years in a row or $500,000 over their lifetimes.
He paid dues to the DSCC, too, with his Progressive Voters of America political action committee cutting checks for $30,000 to the group during the 2014 election cycle.
What 'progressive' means to Hillary Clinton vs. What 'progressive' means to Bernie Sanders
Sanders told the "Politics and Eggs" crowd that he favors a public financing system for elections, eliminating campaign contributions entirely. But his presidential campaign, just as Clinton's and Barack Obama's in 2008 and 2012, has chosen to bypass that system, allowing Sanders to raise millions of dollars more.
He has repeatedly touted his campaign's vast online fundraising apparatus, which has pulled in 3.5 million individual contributions, averaging $27 apiece, Sanders said Friday.
Pressed by MSNBC moderator Chuck Todd on why he hasn't accepted public financing in Thursday night's debate, Sanders said the system as it exists now is "a disaster" and "very antiquated" because it limits spending in early-voting primary states.
"The way it is structured right now, if you make it all the way to California, you could do pretty well. But in terms of the early states --
Iowa, New Hampshire, the other states -- it just doesn't work," Sanders said.
Posted by marble falls | Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:01 PM (4 replies)
Posted by marble falls | Sat Apr 2, 2016, 07:03 AM (28 replies)
Should Gun Owners Have to Join the Reserves?
By Ozy EditorsOCT 222013
Why you should care
Because in some states in America, gun deaths are now as common as motor vehicle fatalities.
It’s time for American gun-control advocates to face facts: The latest attempt at reform was over before the Bushmaster rifle that Adam Lanza used to murder 26 teachers and children at Sandy Hook Elementary School had cooled. No matter how gruesome the carnage from the latest shooting, any attempt to meaningfully limit the number of guns or gun owners in the U.S. will be met by overwhelming firepower from the NRA, the Supreme Court and the millions of Americans who oppose restrictions on a time-honored right. In Colorado, two Democrats who backed tough gun-control laws were ousted in a special election . It was just another defeat for gun-control moderates. Every gun-control battle that’s lost drives up demand for more firearms and further lines the pockets of gun manufacturers.
If you can’t bear the responsibility of bearing a firearm, then perhaps you shouldn’t be bearing one.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment expressly links an individual’s right to bear arms to the broader need to secure the public’s safety. In other words, with that right comes a corresponding responsibility, and if you can’t bear the responsibility of bearing a firearm, then perhaps you shouldn’t be bearing one.
We'll introduce you to all the right people.
Rising stars, new trends and more. Get your daily brief & your eight must-reads delivered to your inbox every morning.
Doesn’t it make sense that any American seeking to own a gun should be required to make a pledge to abide by the spirit of the Second Amendment and man a post? After all, the founding fathers specifically contemplated actual militias in conferring the right. As Fordham University historian Saul Cornell reminds us, the Constitution focuses more on maintaining citizen militias than protecting individual rights, and “what’s easy to forget is that the Second Amendment actually poses an enormous burden on the citizenry.”
Asking prospective gun owners to enlist in the reserves would certainly help separate the true patriots from those who merely dress like them on the weekends. It would also ensure that every gun owner receives proper weapons training, gets screened for mental or emotional issues and comes away with a deeper sense of duty to his community. This approach has worked in Switzerland, where gun ownership is coupled with mandatory (male) service and they have one-tenth the number of gun deaths we have in the U.S., even though the Swiss own about half as many guns per capita as Americans.
Posted by marble falls | Tue Feb 9, 2016, 09:11 AM (144 replies)
Warren — at the time a Harvard law professor — recounted how, in the 1990s, she wrote an editorial opposing a proposed piece of legislation tightening bankruptcy laws. Warren explained that it would disproportionately hurt single mothers. Hillary Clinton, at the time the first lady, read the editorial, and asked for a meeting with Warren. The meeting went well; Warren said she “never had a smarter student.” Afterward, Clinton returned to Washington and, according to her biography, persuaded Bill Clinton to veto the legislation.
But when Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate and another version of the same bill came to the floor, she did an about face:
ELIZABETH WARREN: She voted in favor of it.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
ELIZABETH WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It’s a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don’t realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.
BILL MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as senator.
ELIZABETH WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.
BILL MOYERS: But what does this mean though to these people, these millions of people out there whom the politicians cavort in front of as favoring the middle class, and then are beholden to the powerful interests that undermine the middle class? What does this say about politics today?
ELIZABETH WARREN: You know this is the scary part about democracy today. It’s… We’re talking again about the impact of money. The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying, and as their profits grow, they just throw more into lobbying for how they can get laws that will make it easier and easier and easier to drain money out of the pockets of middle class families.
Posted by marble falls | Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:07 PM (0 replies)