Quoth the article: "The silence is reminiscent of the 1999 homosexual rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising of Prairie Grove, Ark. Many news agencies across the nation ignored coverage."
Why? Because it made homosexuals look bad. We of the vulgate cannot be told the truth about homosexuals because we might decide the homosexual lifetyle is full of immoral behavior, so the news media helpfully self-censors all mention of any bad behavior of the GLBT crowd.
But you know, there is something to that. I was not anti-gay until I learned what "the homosexual lifestyle" consists of: random and anonymous sexual encounters, coprophilia, group sex, bestiality, "insertions", etc, etc--the gamut contains some of the most perverse stuff humans can think of. Homosexuality is a lot more than two men who love each other dearly (eg Brokeback Mountain) and the image we get of that lifestyle from Hollywood and the mainstream media has been edited--censored--so that the hoi polloi won't get the "wrong", non-politically correct, idea.
* * *
Some people evince surprise that Wal-Mart supports Obamacare. But think about it: with Obamacare, corporations can offload their health care expenses to the federal government. That's right: Obamacare will, in part, act as a corporate subsidy! Wal-Mart figures it'll pay less in health care taxes than it pays now in health insurace premiums for its employees, so it's win-win for Wal-Mart. (That the tax burden of socialized medicine will reduce retail sales has apparently not occurred to them. Maybe they think that everyone will need Wal-Mart because they'll not be able to afford to shop elsewhere.)
Another take: it gives Wal-Mart a competitive advantage. It does help to get the liberals off Wal-Mart's back by making the corporate image more "progressive".
* * *
Last year, when gas was $4 per gallon, diesel cost even more. I recall discussing the price-vs-fuel economy pros and cons of diesel and concluding that diesel was still advantageous, even at the higher price.
Well, this yea, diesel is running about fifty cents less per gallon than gasoline--instead of more--and here is why: fewer trucks and trains and ships are running because the economy has weakened, and we now have a surfeit of diesel.
I think this means that the adminisration's desperate "the economy is improving now!" message is hot air.
* * *
So the Airbus that crashed last month did a bellyflop into the Atlantic. They haven't figured out how fast yet.
Sometimes when an aircraft stalls it does so in a mode called a "spin". This can have any number of permutations but what makes a spin so dangerous is that the wings are stalled and not generating lift, which means that the control surfaces have--at best--limited authority. With some aircraft spin recovery is extraordinarily difficult to accomplish, so the pilots are trained to avoid conditions which can lead to a spin.
One spin mode--the most dangerous--is the "flat spin", where the aircraft simply gyrates around its yaw axis, like a frisbee, all the way to the ground. In this mode none of the control surfaces has any authority whatsoever--they are all stalled--and recovery is virtually impossible. A quick-thinking pilot might turn his yoke in the direction of the spin and give full opposing rudder, but in instrument flight he would have to have accurate information from his instruments to make the right decisions...and Air France and Airbus believe that clogged pitot tubes led to this crash, which means the pilot was not getting accurate information from his instruments. Besides, recovering from a flat spin takes longer than recovery from other spins, and they simply may not have had enough time.
And it turns out this series of aircraft has had 36 episodes like the one that led to this crash. Obviously the other episodes didn't lead to stalling or spinning, else this would not have been the first crash of an A330. Still, this sounds like reason for concern to me.
* * *
Boortz! This is why liberals hate Fox News. It's centrist and the most popular cable news network.
Because it's centrist, I might add.
This is a CBS reporter? Getting tough with the President's press secretary?
I have not heard anyone in the mainstream media--until now--asking questions this tough of anyone in this administration.
Pity they didn't start doing this, oh, about twelve months ago....
And links from Boortz' page today:
There are welfare extras in the Democrats' cap-and-tax scheme. Raising the earned income tax credit. Monthly energy subsidies to people who earn wages less than 150% of the poverty line. Funneling money to Social Security so that Ponzi scheme can stay afloat a little longer even in the economic downturn this nonsense will cause. Etc.
A confident prediction that the Democrats' cap-and-tax scheme will cause economic malaise.
* * *
Michelle Malkin: What does "reserved" mean?
Let me explain this: if we let the Democrats get away with passing a bill that says "reserved" in one part, into which they can later cut-and-paste whatever they want and have it count as part of the law, we deserve whatever totalitarian socialist nonsense they foist on us.
On the plus side, that would provide a handy pretext for suing that shit out of existence. Providing, of course, that Obama's not able to load the Supreme Court with his cronies before then.
Maybe this is how they keep the bill's price tag under $1 trillion: simply excise things and stick 'em under "reserved". Then, once the bill is safely passed and signed, then add stuff back in. "Whoops! Sorry! We forgot this stuff! Can't have health care without it!" (Ed says dryly, "Yes, it does help to pay doctors their salaries.") "We're awful sorry about that but the health care program will cost a lot more than we thought...."
* * *
Why do liberals hate Sarah Palin? this is not a bad theory but I do think that her presence frightens them: she could be President, because she is a conservative Republican woman who is smart, good-looking, and capable.
* * *
Department of the Interior says it wants 100 GW of solar power on public land. Okay, let's run the numbers!
Assume a solar panel which is 30% efficient. Assume one kilowatt per square meter of solar insolation, and furthermore assume it somehow magically gets it 12 hours per day.
Call it 334 million square meters. It's a solar panel 18.25 kilometers on a side.
But wait, that's only 12 hours per day. We want a 24-hour equivalent, so that we can pump energy into storage media or otherwise make up for having to generate power at night with fossil fuel. So we need 667 million square meters, which makes it a solar panel 25.8 kilometers on a side.
I can't seem to find a good number for what solar panels cost per square meter but I did find a page which let me calculate an answer of about $500 per square meter. (This page, which is good information!) So: $500 times 667,000,000=$333.5 billion.
...now of course a big project like that wouldn't pay any $500 per square meter. No. I'll be extremely generous and say the whole schmeer can be done for half of that--fabrication, transportation, installation, the whole deal.
How many nuclear power plants can you build for $167 billion?
And this is a "back of the envelope", first-order approximation. No solar panel will produce 100% of its capacity for 12 hours, not even if it's somehow pointed at the sun the entire time. Solar insolation peaks at a bit more than a kilowatt per square meter, and that's for a short time around local noon; it follows an approximately bell-shaped curve such that during the morning and evening solar insolation is much less than the peak figure.
There are a lot of details, all of which only increase the amount of solar panel area required to get to that target figure of 100 GW.
* * *
And they say Hollywood is out of ideas: How about a movie based on a video game from 1979? That's right: Asteroids, coming soon!
The plot of the game: you control a little triangle; you shoot asteroids and flying saucers.
Yeah, we're done, here.