Well, yesterday was a pretty busy day. Put in a full day's work, then came home and pruned, then went and saw a movie--and dinner last night was half a bucket of popcorn, about which I am considerably less than proud. Dinner Thursday night was Chinese, so I ended up having a couple leftover spring rolls about an hour before bed last night. Nutrition!
* * *
Technologically possible, but we will never know if it's true. The thing is, when you install a cochlear implant, it wrecks any natural function that the cochlea had. If this is true, some surgeon out there violated his Hippocratic oath for, presumably, a lot of money. (Or maybe just to avoid having his predilection for little boys become public knowledge or pick your scandal.)
In someone who has gone deaf, it doesn't really matter. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has a cochlear implant because he went entirely deaf and there was no chance of restoring his hearing any other way; and as a radio celebrity he needs to be able to hear himself talk. (One side effect of going deaf is that your speech slowly becomes mangled until you slur more than you say.)
But in someone who has two fully functioning ears, and who is merely being propped up in order to run for a political office for which he is unfit to carry out the requisite duties?
As cynical as I have become in my middle age, I am still slightly aghast that they'd do this kind of thing. Only slightly: there is a few moments of "Holy shit, that's evil" and then I realize, Yes, but these are the DEMOCRATS we're talking about.
Performing unecessary surgery on a confused, helpless old man and rendering him half-deaf, solely so they can prop him up in hopes of winning an election?
So I looked at the linked material in depth and it looks like this is just a subcutaneous hearing aid: it doesn't replace the cochlea, so it looks like it doesn't render you deaf in that ear after all. Even so, it's not necessary (as far as I know Biden's got good hearing) and was only implanted so he could be given instructions by someone off-scene. Unethical verging on evil.
It goes further than that, though. "Campaign activities" for the Biden campaign have been "curtailed" as early as 9:30 AM in recent days. Everyone knows it's because Biden is having a "bad day"--which is to say, a day when he's too confused to make sense--but the consistency of it looks like his handlers may be trying to slew his circadian rhythm around so that "sundown" for him is midnight instead of the middle of the evening. The idea being that he'll be "on" when it's debate time and that much less likely to go haywire.
"Sundowning" is something that happens with dementia patients. They seem more-or-less normal during the day, but once they hit the evening their mentation falls apart, or gets lots worse. Since the debates are typically held in the later evening, Biden's circadian rhythm needs to be adjusted (if possible) so that he "sundowns" some time after they're over, rather than before.
When I think about what Biden's life must be like right now--well, if it were a nursing home doing all this to him, its management would be hauled away in handcuffs.
* * *
Of course, if these allegations had been made against Trump with any modicum of credibility, it'd be all over the news. Biden calls American soldiers "dumb bastards" on camera but that's ignored. "Well," the left says, "that was only a vice-president saying that, not the President, and anyway he was joking."
The other night I was thinking, half-asleep, that leftists simply have a different view of reality, and that's how they can say things which are so obviously at odds with the truth. But as I fell deeper into my slumber I began imagining how a leftist sees reality, and the mental image was literally of wearing clothing made out of rusty tin cans, where the ends of them have rotted away to rusty lace, and any movement brings discomfort or pain depending on how hard the jagged edges press into the flesh.
* * *
Don't believe them. Don't trust them. It's time--well past time!--for the Republican party to steamroll the Democrats. At least, to give up the pretense that any kind of civilized debate can be had with them, and to start treating them the way they treat us.
They won't abide by their agreements, and we know this--it happens every time--so why do we keep giving them chances to screw us?
* * *
I agree, it's cute how "journalists" think they'll be above the fray should Civil War II come about. At least one side will consider the press to be--at best, spies--and shoot them on sight. But antifa's reaction to the press seems to indicate they won't tolerate them, either, which is slightly interesting to me.
Raising your hands and claiming to be a journalist--well, you might as well just claim you're a spy. I'd bet money the Geneva Convention makes exceptions for the press, but soldiers on the front lines in an insurrection cannot afford such fine distinctions as those between "reporter who is friendlier to the opponent" and "nonuniformed enemy agent". I do know that the Geneva Convention explicitly permits the summary execution of spies and other enemies operating out of uniform. That's why we have that "iconic" image from Vietnam or Cambodia of that commie being shot in the head. It wasn't even remotely a war crime, but the press spun it hard left since no one on that side wanted the anti-communist forces to win that thing.
If it comes to that, and if it starts the way I think it will, then the very first thing that happens will be for a lot of left-wing elites to end up dangling from lampposts. The police (gutted at the behest of those self-same elites) will not be able to stop it. Assuming they even try in the first place.
And reporters will be among the new decorations.
* * *
A pictorial guide for people who have a poor grasp of the basics.
Cop says "stop", you stop and cooperate: good outcome. OK
Cop says "stop", you resist and fight him: bad outcome. NO
This isn't that difficult to understand. You're not going to get away, so just do what the police tell you to and they won't have to shoot you. For fuck's sake.
* * *
Kim du Toit on Alan Parsons. Seems like a lot of people who I read like APP, which is just and fair, considering.
He says, "'Time' could have been a Pink Floyd song," but I disagree. It's too upbeat for Pink Floyd.
Still--a nice encapsulation and gratifying to know that I'm not alone.
* * *
The other day I caught myself looking at motorizing kits for bikes again.
On Amazon, for example, you can spend anywhere from maybe $120 to $YEECH! for a kit that will let you add a motor to whatever bicycle you care to motorize. I came across one that was electric, included everything but the batteries (and container for same) that was around $100-ish, and was sorely, sorely tempted.
Go out for a bike ride, get tired, push a button--I'd have to buy batteries, but a small handful of UPS batteries would do the trick and they're not that expensive. Give me a couple of miles' range and I'm good, since I'm not going to ride very far away from home anyway.
Gasoline engines are also not very expensive, and of course you get something like ninety miles to the gallon with one of those things. That's three hours at 30 MPH, which is the legal top speed for motorized bicycles.
But then I think about it: I already have more than enough shit to do without buying more. Even if we assume that I go ahead and put the thing together as soon as I got it--which is iffy--when would I use it? And realistically, how often do you think I'd pedal along on a bicycle when I didn't have to?
Besides that, I've seen a few people whizzing around town on those things, and they look dorky.
* * *
Speaking of which--there's a guy I've seen a couple of times now who has a Harley-style cruiser bike. I'm not sure of the nomenclature but the seat was basically on the rear fender and it was highly customized, yet when he rolled past it was...quiet.
That first time, I ended up a couple cars behind him at a stoplight, and the bike was silent except when he revved it a bit, and the thing would then only give off a few quiet rumbly sounds; when he launched it, it was really quiet and at cruise it made no sound at all.
Definitely not electric--it had a tailpipe--but quiet, even quieter than a Gold Wing or the like.
Where do I get a bike like that? I love quiet machinery!
* * *
I'm sure I've said it before, that I'd actually like it if electric cars were really practical.
I don't want internal combustion to go away; I think it's glorious and useful and fun. It has soul, in a way that electric does not...but it's also noisy and inefficient.
The problem I have with electric cars is that we don't have the infrastructure to support them. California, for example, wants to ban the sale of electric cars by 2035.
...there was a moron at Jalopnik who complained they should do it now, because he's an economic illiterate whose completely bought into the anthropomorphic global warming horseshit. You think you have electrical problems now? You wait until everyone has to charge up their cars at night before their 80-mile commutes in the morning, and then charge them while they're at work for their 80-mile commutes home, and-and-and--
Banning the sale of internal combustion cars means even if you have a nice old Mustang you want to sell, you can't sell it in California. Quoth the article, "As you will note, there is nothing in there that bans anyone from driving a smog-choked 1975 Toyota Celica. All it bans is Folsom Lake Ford from letting them trade it in on a new Raptor."
Except he's wrong about that last; the very text he blockquotes says: "The executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market." Which means that Folsom Lake Ford could take that trade-in, and even resell it to someone else. You couldn't trade it for a brand-new IC vehicle, is all.
If you want to electrify the transportation infrastructure, the thing to do is to emplace policies that make it cheaper to go electric not through subsidies but by changing how we do business overall.
The very first step must be to make electricity dirt cheap. Cheaper than dirt. You're not going to do that with wind and solar, not even with subsidies; you need nuclear for that. Nuclear power plants are the most dense sources of power we have, produce no CO2, and can recycle their own fuel. There are reactor designs out there which can run on nuclear waste (the "fission poisons" that choke conventional light water reactors) and which physically cannot melt down. Encourage research and construction of these systems and you'll soon be turning out megawatts of electricy for pennies.
With the price of electricity pared to the absolute minimum, then, suddenly you're looking at maybe forty bucks for gasoline but pennies for electricity, to go the same distance. The amount of maintenance that an electric car requires is vastly lower than that for a gasoline or diesel one; total cost of ownership drops even if you include replacing a battery pack.
If you can get the cost of electricity down far enough to bill for it the way we bill wired internet or wireless voice and text--a paid subscription with virtually unlimited usage--then suddenly the whole world opens up to electric. Electric heating becomes economically viable, meaning you can get rid of your gas furnace. Stores can fill their parking lots with charger stations as a courtesy for their customers. And so on, worlds without end, amen.
...but we can't get there if electricity costs $0.30 per kilowatt-hour, and that's where we're heading with this "renewable" horseshit.
* * *
Well, Saturday turned out to be a bust, but at least I got some rest, so I can't complain too much.