Latest Threads
Greatest Threads
Home » Discuss » Journals » krispos42 » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
krispos42's Journal - Archives
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion
Sun Nov 20th 2011, 11:38 AM
No, it's not mine, but I wish it was!

Boy, don't we wish we had the three or four trillion bucks we blew on that night on the town known as the Iraq war? Talk about the wisdom of crowds; polls showed that almost 70 percent of Americans supported the invasion. That was then. Now, the same percentage think the Iraq war was a mistake. I think it is only fair that those who originally supported the war write checks made out to those of us who opposed it to compensate us for our losses, and as an act of accepting responsibility for their actions. I would be happy to endorse my check over to the government to help balance the budget.

And those evangelical Christian leaders who stuck their noses in and sent the "Land" letter to President Bush should have to pay double and lose their churches' tax exemptions until the debt is paid off. In that letter, they expressed their support for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it was a "Just War." Buffoonery thrives in America.

Years ago now, I participated in the demonstrations held on the bridge in Westport against the Iraq War. One day, a young man driving a huge black SUV, a Yukon or Escalade, passed by. He stuck his head and both arms out of the window, flipped us both middle fingers, and yelled, "You ****ing idiots." He was a caricature that the world, if not America, would have recognized.

The Iraq war is one self-inflicted wound in a long list of self-inflicted wounds that have lead us to our present malaise. Henry Kissinger once said the U.S. doesn't have principles, it only has interests. Such amoral views led us to disaster in Vietnam and still lead us to disasters today. They are the foundations upon which American business and political strategies are laid. They imply we know where our interests lay, we've proven we don't, and can control our future, we can't. We Americans don't even know what our options are. The ruling political and corporate elites have interests that compete with the interests of the rest of us. They have made it so that their interests, and the options they formulate, are the only ones that get serious consideration. The parade of failures and bankruptcies since the first Chrysler bailout and the Savings and Loan crises to pulling Goldman Sach's and AIG's ashes out of the fire recently proves these executives don't even know what's in the best interest of their own companies. What they are good at is gaming the system to make themselves rich. The result is an inequitable society where the abstract ideals of justice and fairness are merely words. Income inequality is worse now than it has ever been in our history. Sartre said we are what we do. Does that apply to countries too?

Young people, whose generation's prospects are truly dreadful, have occupied Wall Street to protest the crappy state of affairs they've been handed. Unlike the Tea Party, they don't have David Koch's money behind them, or FOX news, who denigrates them. Regardless, the movement spreads. Across the country and the world, groups tiny and large, organize demonstrations. For a time, politicians ignored the Occupy Wall Street crowd. But surely they must feel a little queasiness in the pit of their stomachs. They know that change has always come from the bottom pushing back against injustice from the top. Can anyone claim that what these kids face is fair? The bottom is now the 99 percent of the people who have lost out to the manipulations of the 1 percent who are our business and political elites. Is Occupy Wall Street the breeze that becomes the winds of change? The future does not favor the status quo.

I wish those youngsters success.

Ralph Adams


Read entry | Discuss (30 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion
Fri Sep 09th 2011, 12:57 PM
That was the sole purpose of the Reagan tax cuts.

Fourteen teradollars. If you had a 700 gigabyte hard drive, you'd have to sell every single byte for $50 each to make the national debt. That's six bucks for every single bit of information. For every 1 or 0, $6. Imagine that. That's even more than AT&T charges for a text message.

* * * * * * * * * *

In the early 80's, when I was reading the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew mystery novels, the elected representatives of the United States made a deliberate, conscious choice:

We will no longer tax the rich.

We will instead BORROW from the rich.

We will borrow from the rich by selling US bonds, so that the rich could get their money back, with interest.

We chose to do this instead of simply saying to them "You got rich because of the system set up by the people of the United States and the governing and economic system we have set up, and it is time to pay your dues."

We should have said "You are wealthy because there were plenty of people with disposable income to buy your goods or services." But we didn't.

We should have told them "It is the LIBERAL system of government, the regulated capitalism with the socialist safety net, that gave you vast numbers of comfortable customers to purchase your goods and services." But we didn't.

Instead, we chose to tax less and borrow more. With interest. And that interest now costs well over $400B a year, and most of it goes to the top 2 percent.

We didn't borrow because of a major war, or a major economic collapse, or because of a major natural disaster.

Just... because. Why not, after all?

So any time somebody says "we can't afford..." I say "NO!"

We can afford it. But we WON'T afford it.

The Congress is the guy living a lavish lifestyle on credit because he only works 32 hours a week. He could work 40... but he chooses not to. It's there for the taking... 8 more hours a week. The work is there. The money is there. But he refuses to even consider going to work on Fridays. Not on the table.

The only thing stopping him is... him.

No, he'll continue to spend and tip generously at restaurants and bars, malls and websites. He'll let friends wander into his house and help themselves to whatever they like. He'll add to his collection of firearms. He'll continue to pay far too much for health insurance because he can't be bothered to look around for a different carrier.

But he won't. Work. One. Hour. More.

Just... because.

* * * * * * * * * *

The politicians say "can't afford", but all I hear is "won't afford".

If the wealthy don't want to pay higher taxes, of course, they have an option that 99% of us don't have.

They can retire.

They can retire and live off the money that has already been taxed. Their savings and investments. Millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars available. And really, if you can't live comfortably on a half-million dollars a year for the rest of your life, then your ego is getting in the way of your own happiness.

Fortunately, there's a pill for that.

It's okay to retire. Really. It is.

For every one of them there are a dozen more ready, willing, and able to take their place. I am not worried one whit about that; NOBODY is irreplaceable. The free market will produce people to fill the voids left by retirements, of that I have no doubt.

But I know many of them will not retire because they are addicted to the power, control, and influence being a financial big dog gives them. They will refuse to relinquish that power.

So they will continue to work, and pay the higher taxes.

And that is what scares them... that the public will see that they are addicted to the power of their position, of which titanic salaries are only just a part. And then the media-induced fear of taxing the "job creators" will disappear, and their elite status will be damaged. Their egos, remember, do not take reduction well. Not at all.

Read entry | Discuss (28 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Oct 11th 2010, 09:43 PM
I wouldn't normally bring this up in an OP, but considering how things are the past week or so, I felt this was relevant so I'm sharing it.

Due to personal circumstances my son and I had to move back in with my parents in Connecticut, which now makes me an unemployed keyboard warrior living in my paren't basement. I keep getting solicitations from Freeperville and such, as a matter of fact!

One of my parent's immediate neighbors is a long-term lesbian couple, S and B. They've lived there for many years now, are very nice, and love my kid. He likes going over there to talk with them, and when they went to Rome a couple of months ago they made sure to bring back several souvenier T-shirts for him.

So him and I are in the car, just driving along, and he asks me why S and B live together. Out of the blue, because we haven't seen them in a few days.

"Because they're a couple," says I.

"What's a couple?" he asks.

"It's two people that are together in love," I reply.

"So they love each other?"

"Yup, just like Mia and Pop-pop (my parents)"

"Oh," he says. I felt like maybe he wasn't getting it fully, so I elaborated.

"Most times, people fall in love with somebody from the other gender. A man falls in love with a woman or a woman falls in love with a man. Right?"

"Right!" he says.

"Okay, but sometimes a man falls in love with a man or a woman falls in love with a woman. Okay?"


"So S and B are two women that are in love. And they live together just like Mia and Pop-pop do. Got it?"

"Got it," he says.

And that was that.

No indoctrination. No wrath of God. My new car didn't explode. I didn't stroke out. The earth did not shake and crumble.

I really don't see what the big deal is. What is so hard about simply saying what I said?
Read entry | Discuss (102 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion: Presidency
Tue Nov 17th 2009, 04:12 AM

I'm quite frankly waiting for a Republican to introduce a bill making organ donation mandatory. After all, if the government can declare plenipotentiary powers over a living woman's uterus, I can see no reason why they can't plant the Stars and Stripes on some brain-dead hospital patient's internal organs. Maybe we can call it "emminent domain". If Wal-Mart can do it, why not Cousin Billy?

Hell, why not declare sovereignty over the organs of living people while you're at it? Millions of people suffer from kidney failure, why not simply take a kidney from a living person with a biological match? We have two kidneys, we can get by with one. Same with lungs. It's all part of the "pro-life" movement, right? Lots of people are pretty seditary... we don't need two lungs to play "Call of Duty".

Free people from 10 hours a week in dialysis! Wipe out a massively expensive segment of the medical economy! Mandatory kidney donation!
Read entry | Discuss (36 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Apr 20th 2009, 09:42 PM
Not my idea, but looks like a good one to me!


20th April 2009
By Josh Layton

CAMPAIGNERS are demanding riot cops have numbers on their uniforms like footballers to identify them.

The calls were made amid mounting claims of brutality at the London G20 rally, where officers hid shoulder ID.

Lawyers for the Camp for Climate Action condemned “violent” police tactics.

One cop seen lashing out at protestor Nicola Fisher, 35, outside the Bank of England had no badge number.

Neither had an officer seen hitting newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson, 47, shortly before he died.

The CCA claimed they had been flooded with allegations of brutality, including a baton-charge of a peaceful protest camp.

Their report, being sent to MPs, said: “The failure to wear identification should be treated as a serious disciplinary matter.

"It is vital that police officers in riot gear have their ID on their fronts and backs at all times in extra large font so it is clearly visible.”

<more> /

Nice and big... so the video cameras can see them!
Read entry | Discuss (20 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Apr 16th 2009, 11:36 PM
Problem solved.

The rich and powerful can stop paying taxes any time they want to. Pick any high-salaried person: Oprah Winfrey. Mel Gilbson. Barry Bonds. Peyton Manning. Pat Robertson. Rick Waggoner. Britney Spears. Johnny Depp. Whoever; doesn't matter.

Doesn't manner. Every single one of them, unless they have truly epic problems with gambling, drugs, and hookers, has the option of stopping all income streams and living off the money they've already paid taxes on. Every single one of them has the option to never pay any payroll tax again.

No income tax, federal, state, or local.

No Social Security tax.

No Medicare.


They can cash in their stocks, bonds, and other types of financial instruments that generate streams of money, put that big pile of cash in the bank with a 0% interest rate, and continue living a normal livestyle. You know, 60-foot sailing yacht, private airplane, golf at an exclusive country club, horse breeding, scuba-diving, fine dining... whatever.

I'm sure that BoA or Wells Fargo would be ecstatic to buy private insurance for A. Rod's checking account in lieu of paying interest on $100,000,000 or so.

Any one of these people can take what they've "earned", spend a million bucks a year from their already-taxed saving on whatever they want, not pay a dime in income taxes, and still have 8 figures left to pass on to their kids when they die.

So I don't feel sorry for them. I will not spare one millijoule of energy feeling sorry for the poor little rich elite.

Because they CHOOSE to keep paying income taxes. At that level of income, work is a choice, not a necessity.

So retire. There are 300 million people in this country, plenty of which would love to have your job. Lord knows there's no lack of would-be actors and actresses wandering around Hollywood, or would-be baseball stars in the various minor leagues or waiting to be discovered on some quiet Carribean island. And the business schools are humming, because lord knows we don't bother teaching our kids anything science-like anymore. Get an MBA! Fuck engineering, it's harder and doesn't pay as well.

I don't have that choice. In fact, right now, I'm technically homeless, thanks to my thrice-damned cowardly lackwit of a former roommate.

So I HAVE to work. Which means I HAVE to pay Social Security and Medicare and federal income tax and Minnesota income tax.

I don't mind the federal income tax so much... I calculated recently that my "tax freedom day" last year was January 15th. 3.85% of my gross. But it's everything else that eats away.

But Social Security? Medicare? Those taxes are paid only on the first $105,000 or so of income. That means that A. Rod and Mel Gibson pay only a couple of more times more into SSA and Medicare than I do... despite making about THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more!

A third of my net goes towards rent. The other two-thirds goes into my gas tank, or my phone, or my internet, or my refridgerator... pretty much all of which has their respective taxes as well.

But that's me. That's not them.

You want to help me, anti-tax forces? Fine. Repeal the gas tax and replace it with an equivilent increase in the capital gains rate. THAT will help me. Not moving my "tax freedom day" from January 15th to January 14th.

You want to help me, anti-tax forces? Fine. Drop the FICA percentage from 6.2% to 3% and remove the wage cap.

You want to help me? Give everybody in the country Medicare, keep the FICA rate where it is, and remove the wage cap. Because if you do that I won't have to pay an additional 10% of my wages of medical and dental insurance, and my car insurance will go down as well. Hell, you can even increase FICA to 10% with no wage cap... I'll still save lots of money!

But don't give me a load of bull about how cutting taxes for the rich will help me. It won't. The rich aren't going to pay above-market wages for labor "just because". They're not going to throw in a little extra with the rent, hire more people than they need, pay more for raw materials than they have to. The rich aren't going to say "hey, we just got a tax break, let's give the guys on the floor a bonus!" When the electric bill comes, they aren't going to round up to the nearest thousand and mail in a check with a sticky note saying "keep the change" on it.

I work in a factory. I use my hands to add intrinsic value to steel. You want to help me? Drive up demand for my product and my labor so I can be working 40 hours a week again, so I get regular raises and maybe, at the end of the year, some profit-sharing into my 401(k). And maybe even get some (gasp!) overtime!

Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in Environment/Energy
Wed Mar 18th 2009, 11:23 PM
I caught this article in Machine Design magazine. I wanted to share it because previously I had only heard of wave-driven power generation as scaled up, buoyant versions of those shake-powered flashlights.

This design uses a float attached to two water pumps. A field of floats woud pump massive amounts of seawater at moderate pressures through PVC piping to an on-shore generating station and through a turbine before being returned back to the ocean.

All the wiring would be located on land, with the hardware underwater being make of corrision-resistant materials such as PVC, stainless steel, concrete, bronze, and titatium.

Electricity From Ocean Waves

March 3, 2009
A novel design puts a spin on conventional hydroelectrics to harvest energy from the sea.

In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on sustainable-energy sources as part of ongoing efforts to combat climate change. The greatest success in the history of sustainable energy is hydroelectric power, which has been performing reliably for over 100 years. And more-recent technology effectively harnesses wind power, both on land and offshore. In fact, the use of wind power is now so widespread, it is easy to forget how recently the technology became acceptable for generating electric power. The question arises as to why a similar exploitation of the energy of ocean waves has not happened, a principal focus of this article. Also emphasized are the similarities between hydroelectric power and wave power, the principal connection being that water can be stored. A new wave-power device illustrates these similarities.


The Glenbower Wave Pump uses the heaving action of ocean waves to pump seawater to shore, where it is passed through conventional turbines to generate electric power before being returned to the ocean. The system may include onshore water storage to provide continuous operation, particularly where topographical conditions are favorable. The equipment consists of a series of wave-pump assemblies and pipework to deliver the water to shore under a pressure suitable for power generation on dry land.

A single wave-pump assembly consists of the following components: one float; four horizontal anchors connected to the float by mooring lines; two vertical anchors located directly under the float, two reciprocating pumps connected between the float and the vertical anchors; two surge tanks, one sitting on each of the two vertical anchors; a discharge pipe to carry the water to shore, and a small air pipe to supply pressurizing air from shore to the pump assembly (See “Wave-pump assembly” illustration).

The float is fabricated from mild steel, or from a light, corrosion-resistant material such as fiberglass. Since the float is also used to increase the surge-tank volume, it is designed as a pressure vessel and hence is depicted as a cylindrical vessel with spherical ends. The four mooring lines permit vertical movement of the float, as well as limited horizontal movement — the upwind lines being typically taut and the downwind lines being slack.

The pumps are a reciprocating type, not unlike a traditional hand-cranked pump. The connection at each end of the pump permits rotation about both horizontal axes. This lets the float respond to the random action of the waves, and also ensures that the pumps remain in pure tension or compression under the loading imposed by the rising and falling of the wave. The configuration of the pumps is generally similar to that of conventional air or hydraulic cylinders, except the rod is hollow and is used as the discharge pipe to convey the pumped water into the surge tanks.


According to the article, the floats would be 10' in diameter and 138' long, or 3 meters by 42 meters. The pump pistons would be almost 8 feet in diameter. They have calculations in the article for a couple of different scenarios that have a single float pump making over 360 horsepower. Of course after friction losses and turbine-conversion losses and such you'd probably only get maybe 100 HP out of the process but that's 100 free horsepower. About 75 kilowatts. No pollution, no carbon dioxide, just cheap energy.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Feb 21st 2008, 03:05 PM
Pick the catagory that best describes your experience in defensive gun uses.

Please do not include any military, police, or armed security work. The current controversy stems from private gun ownership.

(on edit: added "with a gun" to choice #5)
Read entry | Discuss (68 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Jan 11th 2008, 03:16 PM
I don't normally read the National Rifle Association magazine. I'm not a member, and while the technical writing is pretty good, the political stuff makes my stomach turn. And I'm a gun owner, for the record.

But a guy at work left the February 2007 issue of "American Rifleman" in the lunchroom, and I snagged it. Hey, it's free, right?

And oh, it was glorious reading. While I'm generally not particularly happy with the stance of the Democratic party on firearms, the FEAR the NRA had of the newfound power of the new Democratic Majority was thrilling!

Finally, kick-ass Democrats ready to grab the fascist Republicans by their lies and conspiracies and illegal activities and twist and squeeze until the public was screaming for action against the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the entire RNC!

And they were scared. A few selected excerpts...

By Marshall Lewin

With many key committee chairs and positions of power held by anti-gun members, there`s a very real danger that they could hijack Congress and turn it into their own gun-ban juggernaut.

For proof of that, just look to the U.S. Senate, which confirms or kills federal judicial nominations and ratifies or rejects international treaties.

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts--the first stop for every one of the president`s nominations to the federal bench--may now be chaired by one of the most anti-gun politicians on Capitol Hill, Brooklyn gun-ban extremist New York Sen. Charles Schumer.

Like Schumer, Biden is rated "F" by the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) for his countless votes against firearm freedom. Like Schumer, Biden voted to expose the lawful firearm industry to crippling lawsuits; to extend and expand the Clinton gun bans; to allow a ban on most hunting-rifle ammunition; and to deny the free-speech rights of groups like the NRA during elections.

Now, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden can use his power to sabotage pro-freedom nominees for U.N. ambassador--as he did with Second Amendment defender John Bolton--and bully fellow senators into accepting whatever gun-ban treaty the U.N. concocts in the name of fighting international terrorism.

Biden is sure to have a committed ally in California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who may chair the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security.

In fact, if you total up all the congressional votes on which the NRA has ever taken a position, you`ll see that, throughout her career, Pelosi has voted against your firearm freedoms more than 98 percent of the time!

In other words, she voted with the NRA a grand total of once.

Just for a moment, consider the frightening fact that as speaker of the House, Pelosi is first in line of succession behind Vice President Dick Cheney to become president of the United States.

But she doesn`t have to be president --even as House speaker, Pelosi has the power to do enormous harm to your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Conyers has repeatedly called for a total ban on all handguns, and over his congressional career has cast at least 61 votes against gun owners` and hunters` rights. What that means is that he has voted against you and your beliefs 94 percent of the time.

Imagine the damage that could result from a House Judiciary Committee chaired by Conyers--a man who says that the Second Amendment confers no individual rights at all.

The House Ways and Means Committee is now chaired by New York anti-gun Congressman Charles Rangel. What that means is that the committee in charge of raising your taxes is now run by a man who once praised Cuban communist dictator Fidel Castro as "brilliant."

Like fellow gun-banner Bill Clinton, Rangel has a long and legendary anti-gun record. Accord-ing to The New York Times, shortly after Election Day, Rangel "sketched out an expansive federal agenda" that included "teaming up with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on gun control."

With Rangel at the controls of Congress` tax machine, look for new "sin taxes" on firearms and ammunition; new, punitive tariffs on firearm and ammunition imports--the possibilities are limitless.

The NRA, of course, expected the Democrats to use their new-found power to attack the Second Amendment full-throttle. They have, as a lobbyist organization should have, tunnel vision. And they were wrong.

I, and I believe most DUers, thought that the newfound Democratic majority, with the active, angry support of the voters, would instead charge after the corrupt, warmongering Republicans like "a starved chihuahua on a pork chop", to quote Scott Adams.

The entire right-wing establishment felt the same way! They were shitting their pants! Investigations. Hearings. Grand juries. Testimony. Subpoenas. Reigning in the Imperial President. Overriding vetos. De-funding the occupation of Iraq. Finding out what really happened in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Breaking up monopolies, especially the media ones. Jamming our progressive legislative agendas down their reich-wing throats. Sideways, just to make it a little more painful.

Impeachment!!! Gonzales, Rove, Addington, Cheney, BUSH!!!

Orange jumpsuits. Manacles. Leg irons. Supermax prisons. Mug shots.

And then.... impeachment is off the table. Democrats signal that, no matter what criminal evidence comes to light, BushCo is free to finish his term with honor. Subpeonas are ignored, with no consequences. Testimony consists of "I don't recall", and nobody pays for it. Bush vetoes go un-over-ridden. Republicans filibuster, and nobody makes them stick to their guns. Democrats are forced to accept Republican minority legislation! Democrats don't perform their own filibusters to stop the lemming Republicans.

The NRA article was right in one respect.

With the U.S. Senate divided 51 to 49, and with red and blue voters matched almost 1 to 1, you might expect that the Democrats who squeaked out a takeover of both houses of Congress would seek moderation, prudence, caution and common ground.

The current crop of Democrats obviously don't want to do what is needed. And they don't watnt o hear about what they're suppose to be doing. The recent post about Speaker Pelosi's rejected postcard made note of the fact that she had not held any town hall-style meetings in well over a year. "Battered Democrat syndrome", perhaps. Or the dragging of the political dividing line to the right means that many Dems are just moderate Republicans that had the boundry dragged over them. Or maybe they're being blackmailed. Patriot Act lets the administration do that.

But it's obvious the only solution to this problem is more Democrats. New, fresh, un-battered Democrats need to be voted in to replace Republicans and DINOs. Enough so that they can drag the "we gotta be bipartisan", established, 'get-along' Democrats kicking and screaming down the path of light and right.

Okay, rant over. Time to get in the shower and get ready for work.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Nov 10th 2007, 04:07 PM

Put them in perspective

The Nov. 7 Star Tribune proclaimed in big bold type proclaims that 853 soldiers were killed in Iraq this year.

How about a headline which puts the war dead in perspective? Minnesota alone is on target for a total of 500 people to be killed in traffic accidents this year. More than 12,000 people have been murdered in the United States since January.

A total of 853 soldiers killed protecting this country from terrorist attacks doesn't seem so bad compared to the carnage that occurs every day in the United States. It is probably safer to be in Iraq that walking down a street in a major U.S. city or driving on one of our overcrowded roads. So let's not get so excited about casualties in Iraq.


This is my response that I sent in. I don't know if they'll print it or not. But it made me feel damn good to write it!!!!

This is in response to Saturday's letter by Harold Olson.

Mr. Olson, the entire worth of your "put them in perspective" letter is that the soldiers died "protecting this country from terrorists attacks." If this were true, then your letter would be accurate.

However, they our boys engaged in the occupation of Iraq are not dying to protect us from terrorism. They are dying to secure long-term American oil companies control of MidEast oil, and in the process making Republican industries such as Big Oil, Big Defense, and security & military contractors rich with "cost-plus" contracts, no auditing, and no oversight. They are dying so that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney can claim sweeping powers and immunity to criticism as a "war president" and continue to terrorize the populace. They are dying so Republicans can rape the Treasury then shrug and say "Gee, looks like there's no money for S-CHIP or infrastructure. I guess they're going to have to go private instead!" And they are dying because the inflated egos of the Republicans will not admit they were wrong to invade in the first place.

And, ultimately, we are losing in Iraq because the warmongering Republicans do not have the moral or political courage to do what is necessary to "win" (as they define it) in Iraq, namely, instituting a draft to flood Iraq with troops for a decade, nationalizing the defense industry to keep them supplied, and creating war taxes to pay for it. The Republicans don't even have the moral courage to take care of our wounded boys properly.

Regardless of original intent, the Iraq Invasion and Occupation that we were lied into is now a cash cow for Republican-dominated industries, businessmen and corporations that, in the next few election cycles, will have tons of money to give to the GOP. And that is the most shameful aspect of this entire endeavor.

Read entry | Discuss (22 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Oct 28th 2007, 04:16 PM


Thank you for stopping and reading these instructions first *cough* SQUATCH *cough*.

The purpose of this poll is to see how the general public perceives one aspect of American firearm laws. I'm not trying to find your opinion, whether or not something should or shouldn't be permitted. Nor am I trying to find out what the law is.

I'm trying to find out how well the general public has been educated by the popular and news media, the politicians, the activists, and the lobbyists on this issue. I want to know what people THINK the law is. What their impression is.

If you DON'T know what the law is, I would appreciate it if you voted your perception and kicked the thread.

If you DO know what the law is, I would appreciate it if you abstained from revealing what the law is, voted "I know what the law is" instead, and kicked the thread.

If nobody has disclosed what the law it 24 hours or so after posting, I'll post it for general edification.

Question: is it your impression that the since-expired 1993 Federal Assault Weapons Ban regulated fully-automatic rifles and pistols?

For the purposes of this poll, "fully-automatic rifles and pistols" are guns that, when the trigger is held down, fire two or more rounds.

And special thanks to Ms. Toad for her helpful suggestion in the last poll.
Read entry | Discuss (11 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Oct 16th 2007, 12:09 PM


Thank you for stopping and reading these instructions first.

The purpose of this poll is to see how the general public perceives one aspect of American firearm laws. I'm not trying to find your opinion, whether or not something should or shouldn't be permitted. Nor am I trying to find out what the law is.

I'm trying to find out how well the general public has been educated by the popular and news media, the politicians, the activists, and the lobbyists on this issue. I want to know what people THINK the law is. What their impression is.

If you DON'T know what the law is, I would appreciate it if you voted your perception and kicked the thread.

If you DO know what the law is, I would appreciate it if you abstained from voting or revealing what the law is, but kick the thread anyway.

If nobody has disclosed what the law it 24 hours after posting, I'll post it for general edification.

Question: is it your impression that, on a federal level, fully-automatic firearms are readily available for sale to the general public?

For the purposes of this poll, "fully-automatic firearms" are guns that, when the trigger is held down, fires two or more rounds.

Also for the purposes of this poll, "general public" means Mr. and Mrs. Law-Abiding American with a clean criminal and mental-health record.

Okay, you can vote now...
Read entry | Discuss (20 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in Guns
Sat Oct 13th 2007, 02:48 AM
Repeating firearms are guns that have a mechanism that, only when physically manipulated by the shooter, will allow the shooter to fire multiple shots without reloading the gun.

Nearly all repeaters fall into the following categories:



Slide- or pump-action

Revolving action

Bolt-action guns are typically rifles of the sort that rotates to lock and unlock the bolt. The handle is typically located convenient to the shooter's right hand, the same hand used to pull the trigger. To cycle the mechanism, the shooter first rotates the bolt counter-clockwise, then yanks the bolt rearward as far as it can go. This extracts and ejects the loaded cartridge, fired or not. The bolt is then pushed forward, which strips a fresh cartridge from the magazine and inserts it into the barrel, and in some designs, cocks the firing mechanism. Finally, the bolt is rotated clockwise, which lock the bolt in place and, in many designs, cocks the firing mechanism. These types of bolt-actions are called "turnbolt repeaters". There are some designs that are simply pulled straight back and pushed forward, but those are not common.

Bolt-action guns are almost all rifles, and are typically fed from a stacked magazine that may be fixed or detachable. Rifles the fire rimfire ammunition are often made with fixed tubular magazines that hold cartridges nose-to-tail underneath the barrel.

This turnbolt repeater has a fixed stacked magazine with a hinged floorplate for quick, safe unloading. It does not protrude from the rifle.

This turnbolt repeater has a detachable stacked magazine for quick, safe loading and unloading. It protrudes from the rifle.

Lever-action guns are typically rifles that use a lever with a loop for the shooter's hand to cycle the mechanism. The lever is located where the shooter holds the rear grip, and the shooter uses his or her trigger hand to work the lever after pulling the trigger. To cycle the mechanism, the shooter slips his or her hand into the loop below the grip and pushes down with the top of the hand. The lever moves down and forward, unlocking the bolt and moving it rearwards while extracting and ejecting the loaded cartridge and cocking the external hammer. The shooter then pulls the lever up and rearwards, causing the bolt to move forward, loading a cartridge from the magazine into the barrel, and locking the bolt closed. The gun is now ready to fire.

They are typically fed from a fixed tubular magazine attached to the underside of the barrel that holds the cartridges in a nose-to-tail configuration.

This lever-action rifle features a tubular magazine loaded through an opening just below the bolt. Some designs can be loaded by unscrewing the front of the magazine instead.

Slide-action/pump-action guns are typically shotguns with a foregrip that is used to operate the firing mechanism. The shooter uses his or her non-trigger hand to slide the foregrip back and forth after pulling the trigger. To cycle the mechanism after firing a shot, the shooter pulls back briskly on the foregrip. This causes the shotgun's bolt to unlock and slide rearward while extracting and ejecting the loaded shotshell and cocking the firing mechanism. Then the slide is pushed forward briskly, causing to bolt to move forward, strip a fresh shell from the magazine, and load it into the barrel, then finally locking the bolt closed.

Shotguns are almost always fed from a tubular magazine attached to the underside of the barrel that holds the shells in a nose-to-tail configuration.

This pump-action shotgun features a tubular magazine loaded though an opening located underneath the gun and in front of the triggerguard.

Revolving action guns are typically handguns called "revolvers", which have a cylinder behind the barrel which has holes bored in it for holding and firing cartridges. Unlike a magazine, which only holds cartridges until they can be loaded into the barrel, the cartridges in a revolver are fired in the cylinder. The cylinder acts as an array of separate firing chambers for the barrel.

Revolver mechanisms come in two types: single-action and double-action. Single-action revolvers have triggers whose only purpose is to release a cocked hammer. If the hammer does not cock, the gun will not fire. To fire a single-action revolver, the shooter draws back and cocks the hammer, typically with the shooter's thumb. This also causes the cylinder to rotate, putting a fresh cartridge in line with the barrel, then locking itself in place. With the hammer cocked, the shooter then pulls the trigger, which releases the hammer and fires a shot. For the next shot, the shooter must manually cock the hammer again.

Double-action revolvers have a mechanism that allows the trigger to both cock and release the hammer. There are two ways to fire a double-action revolver. You can shoot it like the single-action revolver described above, or you can simply keep pulling the trigger. Each time the trigger is pulled, the hammer is drawn backward while the cylinder rotates a fresh cartridge behind the barrel. One the fresh cartridge is aligned, the cylinder locks itself in place. Further pressure on the trigger will cause the drawn-back hammer to release and fire a shot. This type of trigger pull is longer and heavier than the single-action one.

Single-action revolvers typically have a fixed cylinder that is loaded and unloaded through a loading gate, while double-action revolvers typically have a swing-out cylinder for rapid loading and unloading.

This single-action revolver has a loading gate (shown closed) between the hammer and cylinder. An under-barrel hand ejector lets the shooter push out cartridges one at a time.

This double-action revolver has a cylinder that opens up. Cartridges are inserted into the rear of the cylinder. The rod protruding from the front of the cylinder is the ejector. Pushing this rod rearwards briskly will eject all of the cartridges simultaneously.
Read entry | Discuss (13 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in Environment/Energy
Wed Oct 03rd 2007, 02:30 PM
And not puddle-jumpers, either. Jets the size of a 737 or A320

Fewer trips for the fuel truck
Developments debuted at the Paris Air Show put airliners on a track toward flying more passengers while using less fuel.

Robert Rowe
Contributing Editor

"It really was way ahead of its time."

We're talking about the Piaggio Aero Industries P180, a perennial regular at the Paris Air Show. The Avanti is an ‘efficiency machine' conceived out of the oil crisis of the late ‘70s and hatched by the late ‘80s. Despite wise-cracks about its looks when it first appeared (like, "Is it flying back wards?"), events at this past summer's Paris Show foretell its re-emergence as in-vogue platform because of its high performance and fuel economy. It has props but cruises at 41,000 ft, runs 460 mph, and on a typical 345-mile flight arrives within five minutes of a jet. But that jet will burn 50% more fuel!


It's not like aviation has stood still in operational efficiency or in reducing noise and pollution. Consider the often-cited productivity factor, passenger miles/gallon (pmpg), a measurement that accounts for the economics of the engine and airframe as a system. This is the fuel economy of a transport airplane averaged over its passenger capacity. The Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787, both now close to entering service, are expected to get over 80 pmpg. This is a whopping 3X improvement over early jets (i.e. 707-120). The air transportation fleet overall average today is about 47 pmpg. Modern 70-seat twin-engine short-haul turboprops get about 52 pmpg.


And this is about the easyJet ecoJet:

The “easyJet ecoJet”: to cut CO2 emissions by 50% by 2015
easyJet has today become the first airline to outline the environmental requirements that must be met by the next generation of short-haul super-clean aircraft; and unveiled its design of what such an aircraft could look like for operation by 2015.

Dubbed the “easyJet ecoJet”, the aircraft would need to be 25% quieter and would emit 50% less CO2 and 75% less NOx than today’s newest aircraft (the 737 and A320 families of aircraft).


In easyJet’s current configuration and operation, the projection for the eco-liner would generate less than 47g of CO2 per passenger km. For comparison, easyJet’s current operations generate 97.5g of CO2 per passenger km, the Toyota Prius emits 104g of CO2 per kilometre; and the European car industry has recently been given a target to achieve 130g of CO2 per kilometre.

Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by krispos42 in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Sep 03rd 2007, 08:42 PM
About 90 minutes or so ago, I fell asleep for a nap on my bed. I don't normally take naps, because when I wake up it tastes like something died in my mouth. Like now, for example. But I was tired and the sun was setting, so I fell asleep for an hour or so.

I dreamed I was in some sort of building like a small warehouse full of boxes of government files. I was working on my computer, probably doing DU stuff.

In my dream, there had been a series of robberies of files, so when I heard suspicious noises, I knew exactly what they were.

I got up and began investigating the source of these strange noises, and shortly came across Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general. He was carrying a pistol and was wearing a dark-blue windbreaker with FBI on the back and arms in yellow letters, like they do in the movies.

I grabbed him and dragged him towards the sounds of the noises, but he seemed to be strangely reluctant to go. Finally, we came and saw two people in hoodies crawling all over towers of cardboard boxes of files.

I said to him "THERE THEY ARE!", but he war reluctant to do anything. I kept prodding him, and finally said "There are two of them give me a gun so I can help." He didn't want to do that, either, so I reached over and grabbed his backup pistol from his belt. In my dream, it was a Phoenix Arms model HP22, which is exactly the pistol that I own and had been shooting on Saturday with a couple of friends.

So I confronted them with the little .22. I think I yelled "Freeze!". The froze and looked up, then looked intently at Gonzo. I think they were black, but it might just have been the shadows.

Gonzo eventually did, but reluctantly. The situation is really tense, and I'm waiting for Gonzo to begin handcuffing them or calling for backup or something. Instead, they begin talking. And as they talk, Gonzo gradually lowers his gun until it's pointing at the floor.

Eventually I realize that they are having a conversation as familiars, that they know each other and have worked together in the past! Eventually, as the talking goes on, they realize I'm not going to shoot anybody without some kind of signal from Gonzo, and just sort of creep back to what they were doing.

I realize this, lower the pistol, and start screaming at Gonzo, asking him WHY he didn't arrest them, WHY he didn't call for backup, WHAT did he know about those two intruders. He didn't respond, so eventually I give up. I give him the gun back and storm over to my computer, fully intending to write about this to my congressman and start a huge scandal.

I turn on the lamp with the fluorescent bulb on my desk, sign into my computer, and begin to type. Then there's a power surge, and the light gets really bright. I quickly pull the chain to turn the lamp off, then as things settle down I pull the chain again. The CFB comes back on again, but it has been damaged. It is buzzing and barely lit. I shrug and continue to type.

I peripherally am aware of Gonzo moving around the warehouse, turning off lights. Finally, after a couple of minutes, I realize I haven't heard him moving around for a while.

And then it hits me: with the lamp broken, Gonzo can kill me and blame it on bad lighting!!!!!!! Plant the cheapie gun on me, which is identical to one I own! Hell, maybe it's not LIKE my gun, it IS my gun!


I jump up out of my chair and race down a corridor to the exit.

And then I woke up.

Snapped awake, actually, and took a few seconds to orient myself.

Aside from the sheer fact that I'm having a conspiracy-theory dream about Gonzo (ugh!), what is weird is that I don't normally remember my dreams! And not with this much detail!

It was INTENSE!!!.
Read entry | Discuss (8 comments)
Profile Information
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
40703 posts
Member since Thu May 4th 2006
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.