We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, April 7. 2017
Update on John Waters, Singular Maniac
Graphene Can Help Quench the World’s Thirst
‘A night of erotic freedom’ at NYC’s most exclusive sex party
Venice is just a big museum now: Disney Venice
Idaho’s $4.3 Million Solar Project Generates Enough Energy to Run ONE Microwave Oven
Ontario's electric costs
A brief history of cannibalism
Beyond chopped liver, Passover dishes from Jews around the globe, even India and Iraq
Another fun website: American Council on Science and Health
A sample from above: Technophobia: A Key Tenet Of The Organic Food Religion
Why Is the ‘Right Side of History’ Losing? Democrats refuse to confront the meaning of their own failure.
Is the Alt-Left driving the Democrat party?
WHY IS BIG BUSINESS SO LIBERAL?
DEMOCRATS: THE PARTY OF HATE
DAVID HOROWITZ: RUSSIA CONTROVERSY 'PURE INVENTION' TO DESTROY TRUMP
Gorsuch was President Trump’s sanest decision
Democrats Lose Chomsky As Russian Conspiracy Meltdown Continues
National security reporter Sara Carter reports that US spy agencies intercept and unmask congressional figures as often as once a month.
America can't right every wrong: Opposing view
Tracked: Apr 09, 08:58
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"How Tourism Is Killing Venice"
Huh. Tourism has been killing Venice since the Grand Tour.
"Why Is the 'Right Side of History' Losing?"
Because there's no such thing.
The issue of Sharia law in Montana is instructive. The legislature voted against it on party lines to prohibit Sharia courts in Montana - 44 Democrats voted against it - but the bill passed because 56 Republicans voted for it. However, the Democrat governor vetoed the bill.
Presumably, the Democrats don't want Sharia to be the law of the land in Montana but to allow those who want to be bound by it to allow it. So much for equal treatment under "the law" as now there are two incompatible laws. Putting aside the incompatibility of US law and Sharia law, the fact that a group of elected legislators would allow the implementation of a law that was not the result of a Constitutional process is to anti-Constitutional.
mudbug: Putting aside the incompatibility of US law and Sharia law, the fact that a group of elected legislators would allow the implementation of a law that was not the result of a Constitutional process is to anti-Constitutional.
For the vast majority of Muslims, Sharia is a set of rules that govern their private lives. It's no different than going to your rabbi to settle a dispute. "We answer to a higher authority"
The proposed Montana legislation did not directly address Sharia, but prohibited state courts from applying foreign law. Your rabbi's decisions are not binding in court either.
Z: The proposed Montana legislation did not directly address Sharia, but prohibited state courts from applying foreign law. Your rabbi's decisions are not binding in court either.
Thank you. You make my point. Allowing an American court to follow a foreign law is anti-Constitutional. Sort of like, but even more stupid and outrageous than Arlen Spector citing Irish law during Clinton's impeachment trial.
mudbug: Allowing an American court to follow a foreign law is anti-Constitutional.
English common law has always formed the foundation of American law, so there is that. While judges may find inspiration in other legal systems, they are bound by the U.S. Constitution. It isn't necessary to pass legislation to that effect, especially when the legislators were clearly aiming their ire at Muslims.
Your claim was that the law prohibited Sharia, which was misleading. People can willingly submit to their rabbi or priest or imam for guidance or judgement, though such decisions are not binding under the law.
mudbug: Arlen Spector citing Irish law during Clinton's impeachment trial.
That would be Specter's espoused verdict of "not proven" per Scots law.
Z: Your claim was that the law prohibited Sharia, which was misleading.
You corrected me that it wasn't allowing the creation of Sharia courts (though that could be the eventual outcome if the law fails), but that the law prohibited state courts from following foreign laws which still supported my point that Democrats were willing to allow state courts to follow foreign laws (such as Sharia).
By your own admission, the law addressed state courts and not private disputes but if a woman in an Islamic enclave accuses a Muslim man of rape, some would consider that to be a private dispute in which case, she would be at a disadvantage and thus not afforded equal protection under the law.
mudbug: You corrected me that it wasn't allowing the creation of Sharia courts (though that could be the eventual outcome if the law fails)
You can have private 'courts', such as a club that has a hearing on whether to kick out a member or not. However, these 'courts' cannot override governmental laws.
mudbug: but that the law prohibited state courts from following foreign laws which still supported my point that Democrats were willing to allow state courts to follow foreign laws (such as Sharia).
Without the proposed legislation, courts are still bound by the Constitution. From the debate, the only purpose of the law was to single out Muslims based on conspiracy theories.
mudbug: the law addressed state courts and not private disputes but if a woman in an Islamic enclave accuses a Muslim man of rape, some would consider that to be a private dispute in which case, she would be at a disadvantage and thus not afforded equal protection under the law.
It doesn't matter what "some would consider". Rape is a crime, and not a private matter under U.S. law. See, for instance, Sex Abuse Victims v. the Catholic Church.
A sample from above: Technophobia: A Key Tenet Of The Organic Food Religion
Oh man; projection and paranoia. And we thought that was the left's area of expertise. Lol.
Imagine going to the doctor's office. Noticeably absent are any modern tools -- laptops, DNA tests, X-ray scanners. He likes to do things the old-fashioned way. Medicine was better 100 years ago. How long would it take before you ran screaming out the door?
Yet, that's precisely the attitude the organic food and "back to nature" movements embrace.
That's precisely the attitude says this idiot, indulging a Montana-sized fallacy of projection. Holy cow. Avoiding pesticides (because you've actually looked into the issue) is somehow 'precisely' like going around in a horse cart, paralyzed in fear of - get this, technology.
Time was you'd have to go deep into the left's fever swamps to find psychotic balderdash like this. Guess not.
The wine review by Asimov did include the use of "technology," "factories," "chemical sprays," and OMG focus groups and research as if these were obviously in and of themselves, items of danger. I don't see that as significantly different than the example of a physician who thinks things were better 100 years ago.
For some reason you seem to think it is more important to make your point dramatically than to think it through.
For some reason I can't say if it's your arrogance or pretense that draws me to this erstwhile site of so many contradictions. Maybe it's your "punctuation" and "general" "lack" of "pertinence" to what was actually written and what of it was demolished as the bullshit it was. Maybe I'll have to "think" it "through" "before" I "opine".
Anyway, I believe it's splitting when you make a moral enemy of one of your cartoons and projection to hold that cartoon in the first place, seeing how you haven't, uh, thought through your bizarre conflation between the reflexive Luddite and, as I believe I said, someone why doesn't want to drink pesticides.
If you say it in print a third time would you catch it then, Idiot?
Food stimulates some bizarre magical thinking. It's like being catapulted into a fairy tale with enchanted apples sometimes.
The Idaho solar story is incredibly flawed. The story did not include details of the size of the test area, nor explain how cold it still is (and how little sun there is) in North Idaho.
How do I know? I might just live near this test site, if you want to know the truth.
I am no fan of gov't subsidized solar projects. However, the price tag doesn't explain that much of this funding came from the public campaign on Indiegogo - $2.3M - and not from 'the government.' They also received $50K from G.E. before the campaign.
The test area is only 30 tiles. Probably 12 X 10 or less in coverage area. If I covered my whole driveway, it would probably be 10 times the amount of tiles in this experiment. And I would gladly take the power generated...that's 10 microwaves, or more than 10 plasma TVs.
I remember when this was on Indiegogo and 'experts' claimed NO energy would be produced at all, and that what they were claiming was impossible. Guess the 'experts' were wrong.
This has been one of the worst winters in a LONG time in my neck of the woods. LOTS of snow and ice. Yet, the tiles remained clear of snow and ice all winter long. That, to me, is a HUGE advantage that I would be willing to pay for, if I could put these in my driveway.
The panels do light up. So, not only did they produce energy to light the LEDs (maybe not a ton, but it did light them up), it produced additional energy....IN WINTER.
We are now in a gray-and-rainy period with temps in the 40s and 50s. We don't get nearly as much sunlight in the winter months as other places do...we are near the 48th parallel. On par with the most northern part of Maine. Let's check the energy output in July or August.
I agree, it is not solution for roads at this point. BUT I do see this could be used successfully in parking lots, driveways and sidewalks in places that get snow and ice, and the residual energy is a bonus. I would LOVE to have something like this powering my outdoor stuff. My gravel drive is a pain in the winter. Have to snowblow constantly and still we get terrible ice that we can't get rid of until spring.
I wish the article had been more fact-filled and less negative. The test site did have some positives...even with a series of manufacturing defects.
I wish the article had been more fact-filled and less negative.
Special interest 'narratives' are written to appeal to rightists as well as the left. Fake news and clickbait cut both ways.
Funny; I'm old enough to remember crunchy cons...and when we called it conservationism, not environmentalism...and when stewardship and husbandry meant something...and when being 'right' didn't mean being everything knee jerk-contrary to your fevered cartoons of leftists.
Solar is a fantastic thing. So is the electric car. So is not handing agriculture to Monsanto to patent and the Dept of Ag to run interference. So is the free market instead of the CoC. So is the voter and not the corporation.
Not one of those things flies on the so-called right these days. Burger chains are the new healthy and monopoly enterprise is the new church.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
I really wish they had a test site in a warmer location as well. But I get that this was in their neck of the woods, and if it accomplished ANY of what they claimed in Idaho in winter, then they would have some proof of concept that other locations would fare even better.
Many are complaining about any bit of dirt or grease will make these tiles unusable. Right now we spend a lot in snowier climates plowing and spreading salt. Would it really be so terrible to swap plowing/salting with 'cleaning'?
I still think the right move for this company would be to sell to businesses and individuals. Many would be willing to put this in their driveway or parking lot. Continue to improve on the concept, improve on the manufacturing, see where private enterprise can take it.
If the price were right, I'd install a test site on my property if it could save me headaches in the winter.
It doesn't change the fact that putting solar in roads and sidewalks is a fundamentally flawed idea. There is plenty of roof space for pv. If you want power from a parking lot as in the photo, it would be cheaper to create new roof space by building covered parking spaces. The panels would be far more efficient, less prone to damage and easier to repair. Solar is great, solar roadways make no sense.
Disagree. Did you not read what I said: if I could avoid snowblowing my driveway in the winter and have no ice, I would install these panels...which did BOTH in the test. It DOES have purpose beyond the solar power argument. It would be useful on the ground where we walk and where we need paths, sidewalks and parking lots. Show me where you can walk on solar panels? Drive on solar panels?
Deal with what I did this winter and you would be begging for someone to put these tiles on your driveway.
Economics 101 - When you produce something by a non-profitable means, you destroy wealth. This project consumed far more wealth than it will ever produce. It is not that it does not work well, the problem is that it can never, under the laws of thermodynamics and physics as we know them, be made to work well. The point is that the $4.5 million contributed could have been invested far more profitably in some other way.
Tell that to all the proponents of Good Collectivism like the right's many NASA boosters. Because space exploration isn't really the oxymoron it is, but is a harbinger of vast wealth - at a greater cost per pound than gold - provided we all simply believe.
And that's just one example of many.
Re Dems Party of hate
The intensity of hate shown by the Left towards the Right has been known for some time.
The larger questions are:
1) How pervasive is the hate? Is it a small percentage or is it pretty much the thinking of Dems everywhere?
2) Are the hateful comments to be dismissed as the rantings of crazies or are they an omen for much darker times ahead?
feeblemind: The intensity of hate shown by the Left towards the Right has been known for some time.
And visa versa, as even a cursory a perusal of this blog will show.
From the commenter from Texas:
But it is now clear who the bigots are in this country. When you start referring to yourselves as “The Resistance,” the implication is clear. You view the other side as Nazis. It’s the same with calling those who reject the faith-based belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming “deniers.”
I disagree on the visa versa comment.
The Right does't hate the Left. The Right would like the Left to stop causing trouble wherever they go, that's all.
The Left doesn't understand the Right, and hates them based on wrong information.
Hilary Clinton, speaking at the "Women in the World Summit" about why she lost the election, said that misogyny was to blame. She suggested that Trump voters were voting for someone who "looked presidential" rather than voting the issues. Actually, people were voting the issues. I'm a woman and I wouldn't cast my vote based on a candidate's gender.
LP: The Right doesn't hate the Left. The Right would like the Left to stop causing trouble wherever they go, that's all. The Left doesn't understand the Right, and hates them based on wrong information.
PL: The Left doesn't hate the Right. The Left would like the Right to stop causing trouble wherever they go, that's all. The Right doesn't understand the Left, and hates them based on wrong information.
Your trick there is cute and simplistic, but not true. The point I just made about Mrs Clinton illustrates that the Left doesn't get the Right at all. She actually believes that people who didn't vote for her are just illiterate.
I'll rephrase. The Right knows what the Left is trying to do, and they don't want it. They believe that things worked well before the progressives started eroding Western Civilization's values. The Left doesn't understand the Right because they see the world through a different paradigm entirely. The Left has rejected Western values and wants the world to operate as they imagine utopia, based on pragmatism.
LP: The point I just made about Mrs Clinton illustrates that the Left doesn't get the Right at all. She actually believes that people who didn't vote for her are just illiterate.
Saying 'misogyny was to blame' doesn't mean everyone who voted against her were misogynistic, but just that it represented a significant enough number as to impact the election results.
LP: The Right knows what the Left is trying to do, and they don't want it.
What does the 'Left' want?
LP: The Left has rejected Western values ...
Which returns us to "The Right doesn't understand the Left".
PL: The Left doesn't hate the Right. The Left would like the Right to stop causing trouble wherever they go, that's all.
The right is shouting down speakers they don't on agree with on college campuses.
The right is shutting down roadways demonstrating.
The right is rioting, burning, and looting under the guise of "peaceful" protest.
The right is gathering at the houses of pols and shouting insults at the families inside.
Yep, the right is causing trouble wherever they go.
drowningpuppies: Yep, the right is causing trouble wherever they go.
The question was hate. Do we really need to dredge for examples of rightist hatred of leftists?
Zzzzz: The question was hate. Do we really need to dredge for examples of rightist hatred of leftists?
Well, I was responding to your statement as quoted.
But if you feel the need to dredge up examples, please do.
So far y'all haven't provided any.
drowningpuppies: But if you feel the need to dredge up examples, please do.
Seriously? After a generation of demonization of liberals and Democrats, and you can't think of any examples? These aren't just somebody somebody said they talked to as quoted in the article, but important figures on the political right.
Rush Limbaugh: “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for.”
Ann Coulter: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”
Glenn Beck: “Progressivism is the cancer in America… And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot co-exist. And you don’t cure cancer by – well, I’m just going to give you a little bit of cancer. You must eradicate it. It cannot co-exist.”
Then there's this:
I Hate Democrats
That's it? No riots, lootings, or burnings...? No shout downs and physical attacks on guest speakers on campus...? No blocking of public roadways...? No protesting at private homes yelling vile epithets at the families inside...?
Oh, some people said and wrote "mean" things...Lol
Take off the pussy hats, kiddies.
drowningpuppies: That's it? No riots, lootings, or burnings...?
Only major voices on the Right calling for the extermination of their political enemies. That's all.
This answers feeblemind's comment concerning "The intensity of hate shown by the Left towards the Right has been known for some time." There is plenty of hate on both sides of the political spectrum; however, at this point in history, xenophobia on the political right has had an oversized political influence.
Look at the data yourselves for the solar roadways panels. They have them in several locations throughout the U.S. I also remember 'experts' arguing that flat panels would not be as efficient in gathering solar energy...another exaggeration.
It's actually surprising to see the amount of power produced in AZ in the middle of summer vs. Idaho in winter. I'm surprised by that myself!
Here's live video of the test site, so you can see the size we are talking about:
I am just curious about this whole project. I want to see where it goes. Different idea.
I'm with you. I'd like to see more on this. There have been recent advances in battery technology that could make a lot of solar application sensible for the first time.
Why Climate Change Models Are So Horrendous
Climate models have been subjected to “perfect model tests,” in which the they were used to project a reference climate and then, with some minor tweaks to initial conditions, recreate temperatures in that same reference climate. This is basically asking a model to do the same thing twice, a task for which it should be ideally suited. In these tests, Frank found, the results in the first year correlated very well between the two runs, but years 2-9 showed such poor correlation that the results could have been random. Failing a perfect model test shows that the results aren’t stable and suggests a fundamental inability of the models to predict the climate.
It may be apocryphal, but I do remember reading - many years ago - about a WW I general taking a "reformed" cannibal over to France to view the battlefields, on which lay many dead. Cannibal "Are you going to eat them?" General: "Of course not, how barbaric." Cannibal: "What a waste."
I cannot find any reference to this, but do remember reading same.
We're glad you love the American Council on Science and Health! I would love to talk with the people who run Maggiesfarm. Please reach out to me when you have a moment.