+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 38
Latest: Dave Pugner
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 6853
Total Topics: 207
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 0
Total: 1

Modify Profile

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AGelbert

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 446
31

Well, RE, while you are singing solitary man, I'll sing my song too!   


32
Knarf said,
Quote
So it matters not your station in life, but what you do with it.


33
Very well put AG.

Don't get me wrong, sign me up for one of these 4th Reichstag's windup plastic run-abouts, there cool as ****.

I'm seasoned, AG's seasoned. We both possess a ticket to ride. I'm not current at this point in time. 30 days of
review in reg's, weather, sim time, left seat with an instructor & whaa-la I'm a Legal Eagle again. Oh, yeah & the medical.  :icon_mrgreen:

SOOOOOO, it's complicated & for "1st timers" that's a BIG hurdle.
The point is, the ego is being tickled & the brain is in the caboose. Eye candy with big consequences.
If you'll notice in the vid, no one was aboard. That was a big boy toy drone test flight. These cats haven't even
received GOOBERmint approval to have a test pilot flight yet.

I'll take a Cherokee 6, an attractive female hostage, leave Lauderdale airspace & head to little Guana Cay for lunch.
 

  

So, you've flown a six? I put quite a few hours into those birds way back when. Here's a short war story from my air taxi rat days:
Piper Cherokee Six

It was the San Juan to Vieques flight in a 260 hp Cherokee six sometime in 1969. The folks that lived in Vieques would fly to San Juan and buy stuff to take back to their island (half of it - the other half was routinely being blown to smithereens as a bomb fun and games place for the Navy and Marines - it looked like the moon  :P).

Vieques islanders were  sort of country bumpkins to the average cosmopolitan San Juan dweller. Country folks are very practical and aren't real particular about appearances.  ;D On this particular flight I had some people carrying sacks of potatoes (I eyed these carefully when I did my weight and balance  ;)) and a lady that had some live and healthy (and noisy) chickens. I can't imagine why, but country folks also smell a bit ripe on a hot day in the tropics... Perhaps it's fear of flying that makes them perspire a bit more than normal, but I was always glad for my tiny flip down pilot seat window...  :D

Well we, took off and encountered a lot of wind noise. I called the tower at the international airport 5 miles east of my air taxi base (Isla Grande airport) and asked for a touch and go, which they approved. It seems the latch over the door had not sealed the door properly.  I had a friend riding in the right seat (he wasn't a pilot) and I asked him to see if he could force the door open a bit and then try to pull it closed again (we are in flight approaching the international airport at this time). He did that (sound of torrent of air going by at 150 mph) and the lady with the chickens screamed. The chickens weren't too happy about that either.  :D

It didn't work. So, we landed, slowed down and did that again until we got that silly latch to catch right. Without ever coming to a stop, we just took off again and flew east over the north coast of Puerto Rico and then southeast to the island of Vieques.

The landing was "routine" but I should explain to you what that entailed at Vieques. They have a weird runway there.  :P The runway, when you are landing going east (which is almost always) is much higher than the other end. To further complicate matters, the runway elevation goes UP after the threshold before it starts to go DOWN.

All that is a great advantage when you are taking off but a bit tricky when you are landing. AZ, you obviously know about ground effect and low wing aircraft fun and games. A runway sloping down hill is a ground effect nightmare that can lead you to overrun the runway if you don't watch it!

I don't know if you have ever flown a FULLY LOADED TO THE GILLS Cherokee six. They are very squirrelly on landing. You know that the normal drill is to round out and then flare out, right? Well that would result in way to much FLOAT at Vieques.

So, I came up with a trick to deal with that.  ;) ;D  I would establish approach speed at a fixed pitch attitude. That's right, I would NOT flare. I would bring her over the threshold watching for the slight runway rise just before the downhill part started WITH MY HAND ON THE FLAP HANDLE (I had full flaps at this time, of course  8)). As I reached the bump I would lower the flaps to touch the main wheels without any pitch change and remove all flaps and hit the toe brakes. It worked like a charm. The people, potatoes and chickens all arrived safely. 

I taught a few other pilots to do that and they said, HEY, it works! Flaps are just supposed to be there to steepen the glide path on approach when you apply them, not when you remove them, so we all agreed the FAA would not understand our cool trick and that we would never tell the feds about it.

Getting back to the Electric Airplane subject, most people are not aware that aircraft internal combustion engines mostly fail when you are at full power, which happens to be when you are taking off and need that engine the most. Electric motors, can fail at any time. But when they do, it's almost always temperature related. Which means they will rarely fail on take off because they are fresh! For large EV flying machines, having a bunch of motors will make them far more reliable than internal combustion or even jet engines (less moving parts to fail).

I can imagine the FAA coming up with some BULLSHIT about having to learn engine motor out procedure for 30 different configurations on an Electric bird with 30 motors just to keep anybody from ever being able to check out in it. That's what they do. 

34
Renewables / Re: Electric Vehicles
« on: April 26, 2017, 07:37:23 pm »
Electric cars are coming fast -- and that’s not just the opinion of carmakers anymore. Total SA, one of the world’s biggest oil producers, is now saying EVs may constitute almost a third of new-car sales by the end of the next decade.

The surge in battery powered vehicles will cause demand for oil-based fuels to peak in the 2030s, Total Chief Energy Economist Joel Couse said at Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s conference in New York on Tuesday. EVs will make up 15 percent to 30 percent of new vehicles by 2030, after which fuel “demand will flatten out,” Couse said. “Maybe even decline.”

Couse’s projection for electric cars is the highest yet by a major oil company and exceeds BNEF’s own forecast, said Colin McKerracher, head of advanced transport analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

“That’s big,” McKerracher said. “That’s by far the most aggressive we’ve seen by any of the majors."

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Other oil companies have been trimming their long-term forecasts for oil demand. Royal Dutch Shell Plc Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden said in March that oil demand may peak in the late 2020s. It set up a business unit to identify the clean technologies where it could be most profitable.

Electric cars are beginning to compete with gasoline models on both price and performance. The most expensive part of an electric car is the battery, which can make up half the total cost, according to BNEF. The first electric cars to be competitive on price have been in the luxury class, led by Tesla Inc.’s Model S, which is now the best-selling large luxury car in the U.S.

But battery prices are dropping by about 20 percent a year, and automakers have been spending billions to electrify their fleets. Volkswagen AG is targeting 25 percent of its sales to be electric by 2025. Toyota Motor Corp. plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether by 2050.

Electric cars currently make up about 1 percent of global vehicle sales, but traditional carmakers are preparing for transformation. In 2018, Volkswagen plows into electrification with an Audi SUV and the first high-speed U.S. charging network to rival Tesla’s Superchargers. Tata Motors Ltd.’s Jaguar and Volvo Cars both have promising cars on the way too, and by 2020, the avalanche really begins, with Mercedes-Benz, VW, General Motors Co. and others releasing dozens of new models.


Quote
“By 2020 there will be over 120 different models of EV across the spectrum,” said Michael Liebreich, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “These are great cars. They will make the internal combustion equivalent look old fashioned.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-25/electric-car-boom-seen-triggering-peak-oil-demand-in-2030s



35
Climate Change / Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« on: April 26, 2017, 07:18:29 pm »
Quickening Arctic Thaw Could Cost Trillions, International Study Says

April 25, 2017 by Reuters

ReutersBy Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO, April 25 (Reuters) – The Arctic’s quickening thaw is melting the permafrost under buildings and roads from Siberia to Alaska, raising world sea levels and disrupting temperature patterns further south, an international study said on Tuesday.

The frigid region’s shift to warmer and wetter conditions, resulting in melting ice around the region, may cost the world economy trillions of dollars this century, it estimated.

The report by 90 scientists, including United States experts, urged governments with interests in the Arctic to cut greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. President Donald Trump doubts that human activities, led by use of fossil fuels, are the main driver of climate change.

“The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth, and rapidly becoming a warmer, wetter and more variable environment,” according to the study, which updates scientific findings from 2011.

“Increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary underlying cause,” they wrote in the study commissioned by the Arctic Council grouping the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland.

Arctic warming could have cumulative net costs from 2010-2100 of between $7 trillion and $90 trillion, it said, with harm exceeding benefits such as easier access for oil and gas exploration and shipping, it said.

The period 2011-2015 was the warmest since records began in 1900. Sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, which shrank to a record low in 2012, could disappear in summers by the 2030s, earlier than many earlier projections, it said.


ACCELERATING MELT

“The Arctic is continuing to melt, and it’s going faster than expected in 2011,” Lars-Otto Reiersen, head of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) which prepared the report, told Reuters.

Among signs of harm, thawing permafrost has triggered more landslides at Russia’s Bovanenkovo gas field in Siberia. Rare warmth and spring floods closed the highway to Alaska’s North Slope oilfields for three weeks in 2015.

Further inland in Alaska, though, there have been drier conditions, meaning wildfires were worse there now than at any time in the past 10,000 years, it said.

Rising temperatures are threatening livelihoods of indigenous hunters and thinning sea ice vital to wildlife such as polar bears and seals.

The Arctic is warming fast partly because snow and ice reflect the sun’s faint heat into space. The thaw exposes ever more darker-colored sea water and ground that absorb more of the sun’s heat, in turn accelerating the melt.

Walt Meier, a NASA scientist who was among the authors, said there was also new evidence since 2011 that the thickest Arctic sea ice, which survives multiple summers, was breaking up.

“Multi-year ice used to be a big consolidated pack. It’s almost like a big thick ice cube versus a bunch of crushed ice. When you warm the water, the crushed ice melts a lot quicker,” he told Reuters.

Among recommendations, the report said Arctic states and those interested in the region “should lead … global efforts for an early, ambitious and full implementation” of a Paris Agreement in 2015 among almost 200 nations to limit warming.

Reiersen at AMAP said that appeal for action was similar to ones issued in the past by Arctic governments. The eight Arctic Council nations are due to hold a meeting of foreign ministers in Fairbanks, Alaska, on May 11.

But it is unclear if the scientists’ advice will be heeded in the conclusions of the U.S.-led meeting.

Trump threatened in his campaign to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has sometimes tweeted that global warming is a hoax, preferring to bolster the U.S. fossil fuel industry. (Reporting by Alister Doyle; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

http://gcaptain.com/quickening-arctic-thaw-could-cost-trillions-report/


If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money." - Professor Guy McPherson

36
General Discussion / Re: Non-routine News
« on: April 26, 2017, 06:57:14 pm »
Why are Lifeboats Killing Seafarers?

April 25, 2017 by Editorial

By Nick Yatsenko, Master Mariner

During my life at sea, I was always anxious during lifeboat drills. One of my relatives was employed on a MSC container carrier as an Engineer Watchkeeper, and during his routine inspection inside the free-fall lifeboat, the craft suddenly released and fell into the water while a ship was underway.

He was lucky enough to survive and suffered only severe injury to his knee, and since the vessel was close to the shore so he was evacuated by the helicopter. In the hospital, he had a surgery and then spent another year recovering.

When I was working for Maersk Line, one of our ships reported that a rescue boat accident resulted in one crewmember being killed instantly. Another crewmember was seriously injured.

Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive statistics on lifeboat accidents, but there is an ample amount of research showing a scary outcome. To name a few studies, from 1992-2004, marine insurer Gard “recorded 32 cases of accidental release of lifeboats. Five cases were without injury to people (there are certainly much more, but these five have been reported because they involved P&I claims), the others caused 12 deaths and injury to 74 people. Among the people injured there were several very serious cases of head and spine injury, some causing paralysis or possibly leading to death at a later stage. There were also a few cases where members’ vessels have picked up drifting lifeboats at sea – boats which had obviously fallen from the ships they belonged to.”

In 2001, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) published a review of a lifeboat and launching systems accidents covering a 10-year period from 1991, where seven people were killed and 10 injured.

Some of the recent cases of lifeboat accidents:

•Thomson Majesty Accident – Five Crew Killed During Lifeboat Drill on Cruise Ship

•Lifeboat Drill Accident: One Killed, Four Injured in Fall Aboard Harmony of the Seas

•Rescue Boat Accident on Norwegian Breakaway Injures Four.

•Lifeboat Accident on NCL’s Pride of America Sends Two Crew Members to Hospital

•MTM Westport: Fourth Seafarer/Lifeboat Death in Two Months

•Sailor Killed, Two Others Injured in Apparent Lifeboat Accident Off Germany

•Lifeboat Failure Leads to Fatalities Aboard Ensco Rig

(links to all the above at article link)

As the most of the accidents occurred during routine drills and maintenance activities, the main causes are design failure, lack of maintenance, and lack of proper training. “The equipment failure was reported to be the most common cause of accidents, within which quick release mechanism failure was identified as the most frequent cause,” according to a report by the Nautical Institute.

In response to the growing number of lifeboat accidents, the IMO has released new SOLAS Regulation III/1.5 and the amendments to Chapter IV of the LSA Code concern on-load release mechanisms fitted to new and existing cargo and passengers vessels. SOLAS Regulation III/1.5 also specifies other important dates:

1.“For ships constructed on or after 1 July 2014, on-load release and retrieval systems shall comply with the LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89); and

2.Member Governments are encouraged to ensure that ships constructed on or after 20 May 2011 but before 1 July 2014, on-load release and retrieval systems shall comply with the LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.320(89).”

3.For vessels constructed prior to 20 May 2011, any on-load release systems that do not comply with paragraphs 4.4.7.6.4 to 4.4.7.6.6 of the revised LSA Code must be replaced at the first scheduled drydocking after 1 July 2014, but no later than 1 July 2019.

For the ships which are awaiting for the modification or fitting of the new design on-load release mechanism, the IMO has issued the “Guidelines for Evaluation and Replacement of Lifeboat Release and Retrieval Systems” and advise that Fall Preventer Devices (FPDs) are to be used with each existing RRS, in accordance with MSC.1/Circ.1327 “Guidelines for the Fitting and Use of Fall Preventer Devices (FPDs)”.

Some of the current requirements for the lifeboat/rescue boat inspections and maintenance are:

•Davit-launched lifeboats weekly moved from stowed position (SOLAS III/20.6.3)

•Monthly rescue boats other than a lifeboats launching (SOLAS III/19.3.3.6)

•Quarterly launching lifeboats & rescue boats (SOLAS III/19.3.4.3 & .6, MSC/Circ. 1206)

•Six monthly free-fall lifeboat drill (SOLAS III/19.3.4.4, MSC/Circ. 1206)

Considering all the accidents, do you think it is viable to break the boats from its stowed position every week?    Or even worse to launch them with the crew inside every 3 months?

The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) went even further and recommended that the IMO undertake a study on the present value ;)  , need and desirability of lifeboats.

While I’m not ready to argue the present value of the lifeboats, I’m confident that only a change in on-load hooks design is not good enough. Many accidents occurred due to the failed winch operation, damaged wire or some minor imperfection such as remote wire control. I believe more radical changes are required, for example:

•Reduce requirement for the davit-launched lifeboats to be moved from stowed position from weekly to monthly or even quarterly.

•Reduce the launching of the lifeboats & rescue boats from quarterly and monthly respectively to annually. Or even more radically, test the off-load and on-load release mechanism by shore contractor only while the boat in stowed position, of course with the additional securing arrangements. Therefore completely removing the requirements to launch the boat with the crew inside. 


The crew has been trained how to use the survival craft during their STCW courses which are compulsory. During the external inspections the inspector, such as port state control can test the knowledge by asking relative questions. I’m very confident that in a case of emergency the crew would be able to lower the boat, start the engine, let go the hooks and steer away from the vessel.

This was originally published at http://nickyatsenko.com/blog.

To give you a bit of a visualization of lifeboat accidents, watch the videos below and imagine you are inside one of these boats.




http://gcaptain.com/why-are-lifeboats-killing-seafarers/

Agelbert NOTE: This is a nice article about the dangers of practicing lifeboat drills.

In passing, let me say that the baloney about "present value" and "desirability" of lifeboats sounds like something some greedy manager working for Trump would come up with. It's just like these greed balls to use the drill accidents as an excuse to go back to cheap open top lifeboats. 

I think they left something out of the article, although they came up with some reasonable solutions to the problem.

What they didn't mention was that the old kind of open top lifeboat doesn't save ANYBODY in rough seas. The whole point of making these lifeboats that are sealed and launch free fall off a ship is to survive gigantic seas that the ship is sinking in.

That said, the injuries sustained in practice are really unnecessary because any dummy used for car crash tests or aircraft crash tests is what should be there in the drills (to see if injuries would have occurred and try to learn how to avoid them through extra harnesses and/or padding).

These boats hit the water hard. Every seaman knows what the deceleration is going to be and he is trained to brace when the lifeboat releases. So, yeah, stop putting people in there when you are practicing.

A once a year spin around the bay in a lifeboat by crew members is enough to teach them what to do once they have launched, which is the whole idea behind surviving the sinking of a ship.

The other problem is a mechanical one with something they call davit launching. I say put explosive bolts on the things and when you've got to release, IF THE MECHANISM DOESN'T WORK, BLOW THE CONNECTING CABLES AND GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THE SHIP!

Open the pod bay doors, HAL!

37
Renewables / Re: Electric Vehicles
« on: April 26, 2017, 06:10:59 pm »
My whole point in posting this newz item on flying carz is this:

If every Yeah-Who & George Jetson Wanna'bee thinks there going to pony up the necessary funds
to own a toy to zip around town in like it's a convertible musclecar on steroids, they frickin' dreamin'.

The FAA's gotta' be all over this FAD like a cheap suit.

Can you imagine the **** mayhem this mode of transportation will bring ?




As a pilot I can tell you this type of flying machine is, and always has been, a great idea.
WHY? Because you need a lot more power to get to altitude than to stay there. For example, if I really had to extend the range of a twin engine aircraft (I never did have this situation, but it was in the range stats), all I had to do was shut down one engine and feather the prop at altitude. Yes, the velocity would be reduced. BUT, the RANGE (i.e. fuel used per mile of flight) would be REDUCED.

THEN, there is the fact that all the airport infrastructure doesn't have to be built and this type of electric flying machine is the best logical option for a DEMOCRATIC society.

And that is why the point AZ brings up, and the dude from that U.S. University about "regulatory" hurdles  ;), is valid. The FAA will stop this dead in its tracks, NOT because it isn't "impractical" or "unsafe". A BRS system on a small VTOL can save your arse on any engine failure. A BRS system is a ballistic fired shute that looks like a mortar. I had them on ultralights 30 years ago. They aren't practical on larger aircraft but they are old hat for small flying machines.

As AZ alluded to, and I will explain in detail, the ability to fly from point A to point B in our fascist paradise is RIGIDLY controlled by our gooberment. THAT is why we've got GATES to the skies called airports. The gooberment does not want citizens to be able to fly hither and yon without having to go through the capitalist/fascist GATE structure. The elites don't CARE about that because the whole thing is built for them! Did you know you can go STRAIGHT to fancy resorts in the Dominican Republic from the U.S. WITHOUT going through customs at either end? Well yeah, you CAN if you are RICH and have an executive jet available. The LAWS are not for them, boys and girls.


Very well put AG.

Don't get me wrong, sign me up for one of these 4th Reichstag's windup plastic run-abouts, there cool as ****.

I'm seasoned, AG's seasoned. We both possess a ticket to ride. I'm not current at this point in time. 30 days of
review in reg's, weather, sim time, left seat with an instructor & whaa-la I'm a Legal Eagle again. Oh, yeah & the medical.  :icon_mrgreen:

SOOOOOO, it's complicated & for "1st timers" that's a BIG hurdle.
The point is, the ego is being tickled & the brain is in the caboose. Eye candy with big consequences.
If you'll notice in the vid, no one was aboard. That was a big boy toy drone test flight. These cats haven't even
received GOOBERmint approval to have a test pilot flight yet.

I'll take a Cherokee 6, an attractive female hostage, leave Lauderdale airspace & head to little Guana Cay for lunch.
 

  

So, you've flown a six? I put quite a few hours into those birds way back when. Here's a short war story from my air taxi rat days:

It was the San Juan to Vieques flight in a 260 hp Cherokee six sometime in 1969. The folks that lived in Vieques would fly to San Juan and buy stuff to take back to their island (half of it - the other half was routinely being blown to smithereens as a bomb fun and games place for the Navy and Marines - it looked like the moon  :P).

Vieques islanders were  sort of country bumpkins to the average cosmopolitan San Juan dweller. Country folks are very practical and aren't real particular about appearances.  ;D On this particular flight I had some people carrying sacks of potatoes (I eyed these carefully when I did my weight and balance  ;)) and a lady that had some live and healthy (and noisy) chickens. I can't imagine why, but country folks also smell a bit ripe on a hot day in the tropics... Perhaps it's fear of flying that makes them perspire a bit more than normal, but I was always glad for my tiny flip down pilot seat window...  :D

Well we, took off and encountered a lot of wind noise. I called the tower at the international airport 5 miles east of my air taxi base (Isla Grande airport) and asked for a touch and go, which they approved. It seems the latch over the door had not sealed the door properly.  I had a friend riding in the right seat (he wasn't a pilot) and I asked him to see if he could force the door open a bit and then try to pull it closed again (we are in flight approaching the international airport at this time). He did that (sound of torrent of air going by at 150 mph) and the lady with the chickens screamed. The chickens weren't too happy about that either.  :D

It didn't work. So, we landed, slowed down and did that again until we got that silly latch to catch right. Without ever coming to a stop, we just took off again and flew east over the north coast of Puerto Rico and then southeast to the island of Vieques.

The landing was "routine" but I should explain to you what that entailed at Vieques. They have a weird runway there.  :P The runway, when you are landing going east (which is almost always) is much higher than the other end. To further complicate matters, the runway elevation goes UP after the threshold before it starts to go DOWN.

All that is a great advantage when you are taking off but a bit tricky when you are landing. AZ, you obviously know about ground effect and low wing aircraft fun and games. A runway sloping down hill is a ground effect nightmare that can lead you to overrun the runway if you don't watch it!

I don't know if you have ever flown a FULLY LOADED TO THE GILLS Cherokee six. They are very squirrelly on landing. You know that the normal drill is to round out and then flare out, right? Well that would result in way to much FLOAT at Vieques.

So, I came up with a trick to deal with that.  I would establish approach speed at a fixed pitch attitude. That's right, I would NOT flare. I would bring her over the threshold watching for the slight runway rise just before the downhill part started WITH MY HAND ON THE FLAP HANDLE (I had full flaps at this time, of course  8)). As I reached the bump I would lower the flaps to touch the main wheels without any pitch change and remove all flaps and hit the toe brakes. It worked like a charm. The people, potatoes and chickens all arrived safely. 

I taught a few other pilots to do that and they said, HEY, it works! Flaps are just supposed to be there to steepen the glide path on approach when you apply them, not when you remove them, so we all agreed the FAA would not understand our cool trick and that we would never tell the feds about it.

Getting back to the Electric Airplane subject, most people are not aware that aircraft internal combustion engines mostly fail when you are at full power, which happens to be when you are taking off and need that engine the most. Electric motors, can fail at any time. But when they do, it's almost always temperature related. Which means they will rarely fail on take off because they are fresh! For large EV flying machines, having a bunch of motors will make them far more reliable than internal combustion or even jet engines (less moving parts to fail).

I can imagine the FAA coming up with some BULLSHIT about having to learn engine motor out procedure for 30 different configurations on an Electric bird with 30 motors just to keep anybody from ever being able to check out in it. That's what they do. 

38
Whatever services Dixie offers I'd take my business elsewhere.  The customers are the problem, not the idiot businessman.  In a just world he would have his free speech but no income.

The very LEAST a person must do is not take their business to that racist scum. If you think this is just about business behavior and free speech, you do not want to deal with the harm that sardonic, cruel, mocking and demeaning racist bullshit does to degrade the fabric of human society.

Racism, like unregulated Capitalism, IS CRIMINAL! And it is NOT a victimless crime!


This is what 'black privilege' looks like


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/15/1402524/-This-is-what-black-privilege-looks-like

Holy Bleeding S h I t! That is magnificent, AG. Deeply moving.

Most here won't watch it. I consider myself fortunate that I did.

This spoken word poetry slam stuff can sometimes catch you with a swift uppercut for a knockout, like this. I refer you to the work of Agnes Torok.



Agnes gets it. Such an eloquent and brave exposure of the reality of the cruelty of capitalism needs to be shouted from the rooftops!

Thank you. I just chanced on it. I can never stop admiring Blacks for all the S H I T they go through. Sure, I've been dealing with that prejudice crap all my life. BUT, at least in public I have been able to "pass". I have never had to deal with the fecal effluent of sardonic and cruel hate mocking most Blacks have to deal with. I don't think I could have handled it without going postal. But, who knows? God often provides strength when we feel we have none.

39
Trial and Terror

The U.S. government has prosecuted 796 people for terrorism since the 9/11 attacks. Most of them never even got close to committing an act of violence. 

Data last updated on April 20, 2017

SNIPPET:

The U.S. government segregates terrorism cases into two categories — domestic and international. This database contains cases classified as international terrorism, though many of the people charged never left the United States or communicated with anyone outside the country.

Since the 9/11 attacks, most of the 796 terrorism defendants prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice have been charged with material support for terrorism, criminal conspiracy, immigration violations, or making false statements — vague, nonviolent offenses that give prosecutors wide latitude for scoring quick convictions or plea bargains. 523 defendants have pleaded guilty to charges, while the courts found 175 guilty at trial. Just 2 have been acquitted and 3 have seen their charges dropped or dismissed, giving the Justice Department a near-perfect record of conviction in terrorism cases.

Today, 345 people charged with terrorism-related offenses are in custody in the United States, including 58 defendants who are awaiting trial and remain innocent until proven guilty.

Very few terrorism defendants had the means or opportunity to commit an act of violence. The majority had no direct connection to terrorist organizations. Many were caught up in FBI stings, in which an informant or undercover agent posed as a member of a terrorist organization. The U.S. government nevertheless defines such cases as international terrorism.

415 terrorism defendants have been released from custody, often with no provision for supervision or ongoing surveillance, suggesting that the government does not regard them as imminent threats to the homeland.

A large proportion of the defendants who did have direct connections to terrorist groups were recruited as informants or cooperating witnesses and served little or no time in prison. At present, there have been 32 such cooperators. By contrast, many of the 296 defendants caught up in FBI stings have received decades in prison because they had no information or testimony to trade. They simply didn’t know any terrorists.



https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com/

 



40
Idaho company defends using blatantly racist imagery on its trucks 

By wagatwe   

Tuesday Apr 25, 2017 ·  1:36 PM EDT

SNIPPET:

It’s common knowledge that depicting Black people with watermelon—or even just insinuating that we love to eat it—is racially insensitive at best. If you’re unfamiliar with the reasons why watermelon became such an awful symbol of hatred and oppression, I recommend this piece from the Atlantic (emphasis mine):

Quote
But the stereotype that African Americans are excessively fond of watermelon emerged for a specific historical reason and served a specific political purpose. The trope came into full force when slaves won their emancipation during the Civil War. Free black people grew, ate, and sold watermelons, and in doing so made the fruit a symbol of their freedom. Southern whites, threatened by blacks’ newfound freedom, responded by making the fruit a symbol of black people’s perceived uncleanliness, laziness, childishness, and unwanted public presence. This racist trope then exploded in American popular culture, becoming so pervasive that its historical origin became obscure. Few Americans in 1900 would’ve guessed the stereotype was less than half a century old.

But like any good, ol’ racist, Dixie Services owner Valentine wouldn’t let something like history or facts to ruin his racist fun. ABC affiliate KXLY reports reveals that he’s just as clueless as you’d expect (or perhaps he’s just pretending to be):



http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/25/1655943/-Idaho-company-defends-using-blatantly-racist-imagery-on-its-trucks

41
RE didn't make that contract, so he has, technically speaking, a lower threshold of physical requirements that he must meet to continue respecting himself.

Actually, it's a higher threshold.  A monast has nobody else to blame his shortcomings on, and nobody to comfort him and love him when he makes mistakes.  Married people share these burdens, they don't have to bear them alone.  It's why solitary individuals are far more likely to commit suicide.  It's a much higher calling and more difficult path to follow than marriage.

RE

The perceived ability to pass the buck on perceived lack of success in marriage and family is an illusion. Yes, some people certainly do that. But single people can do that too with their peer group, society, etc.
Honest people, be they married or single, have the same principles.

I do agree with you that single people are more likely to off themselves. But this stat is unrelated to the ease, or lack of it, of providing food, shelter and clothing. It is simply due to the fact that humans are social beings wired to live, care for, and depend on, each other in social groups. Your ability to remain stable and at peace with your accomplishments or lack of them in your life is certainly more challenging when you rely only on yourself for assessing your value as a human.

All that said, the fact that you are single, does NOT mean you are not dependent on others for peer group acceptance. For you to claim that you need no moral support, or feel you are independent of the need to provide any, just ain't so. You HELPED LD because you CARE. That means you are LINKED emotionally to LD's success in life. You are, in effect, a PART of that social group, even though you live by yourself.

I'll go further. I'll say that, despite your claim to have an ego the size of Mount Everest, you would suffer from depression and lack of self esteem if LD failed in life. Your skin ain't all that thick, RE. And that is one of the reasons I remain your friend after having some heavy duty arguments with your over the years.   

You hide it pretty well most of the time, but you are as much a slave of ethical behavior and the responsibility to treat others with respect as I have ever been. GOOD FOR YOU! 

43
Who CAN you trust? / Re: Corruption in Government
« on: April 25, 2017, 10:17:14 pm »
The Coverup gets HARDER to Cover Up


Agelbert NOTE: When the crooks is cornered, dey looks for a Commie War Scare distraction. I tink it's called, uh, (see below):


44
Renewables / Re: A High-Renewables Tomorrow, Today:
« on: April 25, 2017, 08:50:44 pm »
Trump will NOT be able stop the Renewable Energy Revolution. 

45
General Discussion / Re: Non-routine News
« on: April 25, 2017, 08:00:57 pm »
Palloy, thank you for that bit of karmic news. It made my day. 



Quote
Webroot 'mistakenly' flags Windows as Malware and Facebook as Phishing site

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 446

+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
Today at 06:59:11 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
Today at 06:27:23 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
Today at 05:09:33 pm

Large Sea Creatures by AGelbert
Today at 01:48:26 pm

Nuclear Poisoning of the Pacific by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 11:26:00 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 05:13:29 pm

Sustainable Food Production by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 05:01:14 pm

Member Interesting, Hair Raising, Humorous or Otherwise Unusual Experiences by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 04:38:49 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
April 28, 2017, 02:21:05 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 08:54:18 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial