HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » appal_jack » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: North Carolina
Member since: Wed Aug 11, 2004, 06:57 PM
Number of posts: 3,813

Journal Archives

Agreed. I try to avoid voting for assholes.

I despised Edwards long before the infidelity scandal surfaced: for his co-sponsorship of the Patriot Act & the Iraq War Resolution / AUMF, for being Senator Gone during his one partial term 'representing' NC, for his smarmy, fake-assed two Americas spiel that was never backed by action, and or his sulking, desultory performance in the VP slot in 2004.

Both because of, and regardless of the (many) parallels with Sanford, I will never vote for Edwards again. Let Republicans vote for smarmy, lying fucktards if they want. I expect better of my leaders.


Jeff (& Kim): This is the crucial point.

"That being said, a battery-powered car could be recharged by a solar array."

Jeff (& Kim): This is the crucial point.

Kim's questions are good ones about why we don't have self-contained solar cars, and Jeff, your answers about the laws of physics and energy density are excellent. But this point about cars & solar arrays; that is key.

What's larger than a car, and sits in partial or total (depending upon site) sunlight all day long? A building. And where do most cars sit for most of many days? Near buildings.

So it only makes sense for the site of solar power generation to take place on building, while cars can help play a role in solar power storage. A 100 hp (or 200 or 300 hp) electric car or truck will need lots of energy-dense batteries in order to make the fastest & or longest hauls possible when it needs to. But I only use my big pickup to haul and tow at full capacity a few times per year, and my little commuter vehicle only travels more than 100 miles in a day maybe one month out of the year. All the rest of the time, my vehicles (were they similar-capacity but electric) would have 'power to spare' for from and to which the grid might upload and download spare power while these cars were parked near buildings with solar arrays. If I were to pay for charging my battery while parked near a solar-powered, grid-intertied building, but receive payments and/or electricity bill credits every time the grid needed some spare power and tapped my car's batteries for it, I might be willing to allocate 50% of my car batteries and 50% of my truck batteries to the grid on most days of the year. Multiply this by the millions of cars and trucks out there across the country, and the problem of distributed-generation grid-power storage could be solved with many fewer batteries in buildings.



The proto-fascist-apologists, Obama-cheerleaders, & Party Politboro Faithful may try to deflect blame toward Eisenhower & other past presidents, but the fact is that Obama had a choice. He could have chosen to (1) issue a proclamation honoring American workers on May Day, or (2) proclaimed nothing in particular about 5/1.

But what did our Hope & Change President choose? Oh, (3)!, issue a proclamation about a proto-fascist & reactionary 'holiday' that honors Red Scares & corporatist fearmongering, dredging up some of the worst of American history's divergence from our stated ideals of liberty & freedom.

Fuck your Loyalty Day! I remember the Haymarket martyrs; why does Chicagoan Obama not?


Hoooray, Orthodoxy!

Rah rah sis boom bah! Gooooooo Democrats! Who needs logical arguments when we have a United TEAM?

Rah rah sis boom bah! Gooooooo Democrats! Hoooray, Orthodoxy!

Anyone who disagrees that Obama is the Dreamiest President EVAR is an ickie, Alex Jones lovin', Green Paulite Rethuglican enabler Cootie-head!!!!!

Rah rah sis boom bah! Gooooooo Democrats! Hoooray, Orthodoxy!


How about we quit supporting proto-fascist state intrusions against any and all citizens? n/t

The abuse you suffered was unconscionable.

Sorry for your pain, Robyn. The abuse you suffered was unconscionable.

I've posted plenty of pro-RKBA perspectives here at DU, so maybe you consider me a 'gun-nut.' All I will say here though is that any of us who aspire to truly be responsible gun owners must do much, much better than the example your father set. None of the behaviors you describe can be described as responsible.

Whether there are guns in our homes or not, staying a loving person, not descending into bitterness or anger, and raising our children with love & safety are worthy ideals for us all.


What about Monsanto's own studies, Mike?

My understanding is that most of the industry-sponsored studies 'proving' the safety of GMO crops lasted only 90 days. I have even heard that when a study found deleterious effects, it was retroactively terminated prior to those effects showing up. Voila! No bad results...

Do you critique pro-gmo study methodologies, or only focus on the anti's?

And what of the very real financial bias within the companies themselves? ANti-gmo activists may have confirmation bias from fears or principles, but negative result for gmo safety could cost Monsanto billions; do you really think that they let the pursuit of knowledge be their only guide? Why do they place such heavy restrictions on the research that is done? Have you seen one of their non-disclosure agreements?

What of Monsanto's history? They lied about PCB's, they lied about Agent Orange. Why should the slate be wiped clean with their latest technology?


So, asking questions is forbidden here?

I found this post via the "Greatest Threads" Page, and just assumed it was another GD post. Is asking questions such as I did really forbidden here?

Forgive me for disrupting the sonorous harmony of your precious echo-chamber hidey hole, oh "delicate flower," as some on one side of the RKBA debate are particularly fond of saying.

On edit- Sarcasm and my own error aside, I asked my first question above in a spirit entirely consistent with the purpose of this group. I'm as against gun violence as anyone here, and will gladly sign-on to measures that actually reduce gun violence while also respecting Americans' rights. If gun control advocates want to advance legislation, there will have to be some horse trading (not to mention respect for the Constitution). That's politics. So, do you want to ban guns or not? An answer of "yes" will mean that your legislation will likely continue to fail.


I rec'd for the hopeful OP pic, but I'll kick for this excellent response too.

I rec'd for the hopeful OP pic, but I'll kick for this excellent response too. I was raised Catholic, and long ago left that all behind. The still-religious friends and family I can actually get along with are those who indeed "cherry-pick" their religion. They eat shrimp & shellfish, wear clothing of mixed fibers, treat women and all races as equals, would find slavery abhorrent, etc. despite guidance to the contrary in their Bible.

The one important point you miss, MellowDem, is that people ARE rational to value their cultures, or at least certain tenets of them. Even though I find far too much about Catholicism to be absolutely repugnant, I also recognize the joy & comfort possible through the community of the Church, the smell of incense, the familiar prayers & rituals, the bone-shaking rumble of a pipe organ. Do I hope that more Catholics can resist misogyny and authoritarianism even as they continue to embrace the beautiful parts of their culture? Yes, I do. There's no law that says people have to be rational all the time (and even if there was, secular humanist rebel that I am, I would be sure to break it).

I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing religion. But give these young fellows some credit: if they are really walking their talk about women's rights, then they are helping to move Islamic culture forward. It may seem as silly as a pro-choice Catholic (I know plenty) or a scientific Baptist (I know a few of those too), but it's certainly better than a world filled with close-minded fundies.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »