Borrowing a phrase from a Dirty Harry movie.
A most apt description of this treaty that isn't came from Betsy's Page. Newmark said that it is a useful tool for progressives to bash their opponents. Indeed. It appears to be the only real use for the treaty.
No matter what GOP candidate won the Presidency in 2016 or beyond, he would have had to deal with the same situation as Trump did--- a really bad non-treaty that the progressives insist is binding. If the GOP president said no, as Trump did, he would receive the same response that Trump is receiving. On the other hand, if he gave in, the Dems would have gotten a victory that, in effect, would be unearned. To put it another way, it was a huge bluff.
The bluffing didn't work on Bush, and now it hasn't worked on Trump. But one of these days it might. Each stood tall, like Dirty Harry.
The bluffing does work sometimes, though. The special prosecutor was a similar bluff. The GOP should never have allowed that.
Update (s) 6.4.17, 17:15 :
Note how many times the Dems admit that there is no evidence of "collusion", whatever that means, and leaving door open that there might be. Democrats are just totally fake right now. The way to combat fakery is with unrelenting and unwavering truth.
Not with getting wobbly.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Saturday, June 3, 2017
March for Truth?
"Progressives" marching for truth is like Satan marching for ice skates.
( don't like that one , huh?)
yuk, yuk
( don't like that one , huh?)
yuk, yuk
Swamp cooler arrives today
Prev Next
This post will go into the Power and electricity sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
When I left off this part of the series, I was testing the passive solar heating concept for the bedroom area of the RV. Since this is walled off now, it will take less electricity to climate control it. Now that the seasons have changed to near summer conditions, it is time to start testing the other part of the concept, which is a swamp cooler ( evaporative cooler ).
It has been on order for about a week now, and due to arrive today. I have made preparations for its installation. It should be an easy job.
When it arrives, I will get it ready promptly, and may even have some preliminary results before the day is over. Expect updates.
Update (s): 6.2.17, 17:37 :
The cooler did indeed arrive, and I began using it. It doesn't keep up with the heat, unfortunately. The thermometer shows nearly 90 degree farenheit. It has been running for about two hours. Nevertheless, I am not discouraged. The breeze coming from it feels okay, but not great. That is, at this temperature. If it gets hotter, which it may very well happen, then it may not be sufficient to be comfortable to sit around at this hour. Today is not a very hot day, and it is humid. These things need drier air than this. I did run the dehumidifier, but I think it adds heat to the room, so I have it off right now.
I will continue playing with this new toy until I get an idea of what it can do, and what it cannot do.
6.3.17, 6:35 :
After leaving the evaporator on all night, I noted that the temperature went down only about two degrees. It really doesn't cool very much. Also, I noted that the relative humidity inside the trailer was at seventy percent. That doesn't help the little cooler that can't very much. Upon turning on the dehumidifier, I noted the temperature went up three degrees. Ah hah! Well, the little cooler needs a little help, and now I know that the dehumidifier must stay in the hotter part of the trailer, while the cooler goes in the cooler part, that I hope will actually be cooler ( if that makes sense ).
I have been using zero water, which is probably not the ticket. These zero filters are not cheap. Perhaps I can use rain water that has been filtered by a sand filter, if I ever get one. They cost money, like everything else.
Everything is related to money even when you are not trying to use money. Doggone it.
6:35 :
Less than thirty minutes into using the evaporative cooler, the humidity level is at sixty percent. Also, when I turned on the dehumidifier, I took the temperature of the exhaust air--- nearly 95 degrees farenheit. Yikes. Unless that air is directly exhausted out of the trailer, it is counterproductive to run it.
While I think of that, I note that it is raining today. This explains the high humidity. Not a good day to make a test of this thing.
15:03 :
Still running this thing. It is a rainy day, but the sun still comes out. It is about the same temperature inside as outside. The dehumidifier is on, and I have it arranged so that at least some of the air goes outside.
It is probably as about as good as it gets with this thing.
This post will go into the Power and electricity sub-series of the off-the-grid main series of posts. These posts can be accessed from a table of contents and watched individually or in series from beginning to end.
When I left off this part of the series, I was testing the passive solar heating concept for the bedroom area of the RV. Since this is walled off now, it will take less electricity to climate control it. Now that the seasons have changed to near summer conditions, it is time to start testing the other part of the concept, which is a swamp cooler ( evaporative cooler ).
It has been on order for about a week now, and due to arrive today. I have made preparations for its installation. It should be an easy job.
When it arrives, I will get it ready promptly, and may even have some preliminary results before the day is over. Expect updates.
Update (s): 6.2.17, 17:37 :
The cooler did indeed arrive, and I began using it. It doesn't keep up with the heat, unfortunately. The thermometer shows nearly 90 degree farenheit. It has been running for about two hours. Nevertheless, I am not discouraged. The breeze coming from it feels okay, but not great. That is, at this temperature. If it gets hotter, which it may very well happen, then it may not be sufficient to be comfortable to sit around at this hour. Today is not a very hot day, and it is humid. These things need drier air than this. I did run the dehumidifier, but I think it adds heat to the room, so I have it off right now.
I will continue playing with this new toy until I get an idea of what it can do, and what it cannot do.
6.3.17, 6:35 :
After leaving the evaporator on all night, I noted that the temperature went down only about two degrees. It really doesn't cool very much. Also, I noted that the relative humidity inside the trailer was at seventy percent. That doesn't help the little cooler that can't very much. Upon turning on the dehumidifier, I noted the temperature went up three degrees. Ah hah! Well, the little cooler needs a little help, and now I know that the dehumidifier must stay in the hotter part of the trailer, while the cooler goes in the cooler part, that I hope will actually be cooler ( if that makes sense ).
I have been using zero water, which is probably not the ticket. These zero filters are not cheap. Perhaps I can use rain water that has been filtered by a sand filter, if I ever get one. They cost money, like everything else.
Everything is related to money even when you are not trying to use money. Doggone it.
6:35 :
Less than thirty minutes into using the evaporative cooler, the humidity level is at sixty percent. Also, when I turned on the dehumidifier, I took the temperature of the exhaust air--- nearly 95 degrees farenheit. Yikes. Unless that air is directly exhausted out of the trailer, it is counterproductive to run it.
While I think of that, I note that it is raining today. This explains the high humidity. Not a good day to make a test of this thing.
15:03 :
Still running this thing. It is a rainy day, but the sun still comes out. It is about the same temperature inside as outside. The dehumidifier is on, and I have it arranged so that at least some of the air goes outside.
It is probably as about as good as it gets with this thing.
X37-C plus Stratolauncher plus NTR upper stage ends "Pony Express" Era of Spaceflight ... updated 6.3.17
Updated on 6.2.17, originally posted 1.4.14:
Note: The Stratolauncher rolled out of its hanger the other day. However, the rest of this post is a lot of fantasy.
Which is why I started my own "moonshot". No fantasy, no fakery, but something real that I could do myself.
Little did I realize how big of a challenge that that would turn out to be.
update to the update: Come to think of it, Elon Musk was once a part of this project. Since that time to this, Musk has perfected his technology of landing a first stage rocket after finishing its burn. Now, if he had stayed with the Stratolauncher program, would they have had a 100 per cent reusable system? No, Musk still needs a reusable second stage.
Fast turnaround? Musk hasn't done that yet. But he probably figured he didn't need the Stratolauncher anyway. He may well be right.
6.3.17, 10:00 :
If the Sabre Engine, under development by Reaction Engines of the UK, can be mated with the X-37C, it may get to orbit without an NTR, and return with the all of the components being reusable. The biggest component, the airframe that lifts off the ground, is almost ready to fly now. A thought, anyway.
The original post follows:
I'll make a series out of this one. The first was the X-37C post, made on September 11th. The second post was a brief followup last month.
An idea for this post came from how the XCOR's Lynx will get to the Karman line. It will fire its engines and get only to Mach 3, and then drift upwards to the Karman line before returning to the ground. The idea here is to get to the Karman line with some momentum and let the NTR do the rest of the lifting to orbit.
It has occurred to me that the mass of the X-37C is close to the mass envisioned in James Dewar's book "The Nuclear Rocket". Let's say we want to replace his idea of using solid rocket boosters to be launched from a cargo plane--- with a launch from a Stratolauncher and an airbreather engine like the SABRE engine being developed for the Skylon SSTO.
This warrants another speculation alert, of course.
Dewar wanted his package to mass out at 91k lbs. Presumably, this would be a 17k pound payload into orbit. That's pretty close to the X-37C's mass. I didn't see any provision in Dewar's concept that would save the hydrogen tank. We should want to be able to do that.
The SABRE engines wouldn't be required to go to orbit, so we could economize on mass there by making that booster smaller. It won't be needing oxygen tanks since it is only going to be used in its airbreathing mode. The Stratolauncher helps save mass here too, because it imparts the first 30k feet of altitude to the orbiter.
Instead of going to orbit, the SABRE engines would separate at Mach 5.5 and 85k altitude, thus imparting momentum to the 91k mass of Dewar's NTR module. The module would drift upwards to the Karman line or possibly well below it and then light up the nuke booster. The SABRE powered booster would do a RTLS (return to launch site ). The 91k NTR's mass could probably be increased, since the airbreathing booster would not have to carry oxygen. The downside is that the NTR would be losing momentum as it waits for the nukes to warm up.
You could play around with the masses in order to optimize the design so that it will make it all fully reusable with a fast turnaround. For example, instead of a "cocoon" that enables the nuclear core to be fished out of the ocean, some landing gear could be supplied so that it can land like a plane. Also, the tank could be made into a lifting body shape and designed so as to survive a reentry. If more mass is needed, you may have some margin in the concept for that. Up to 500k pounds could be lifted by the Stratolauncher.
I'm thinking that it should be optimized so that that you don't have to use onboard oxygen for the first stage ascent. The SABRE provides that capability. The second stage on up to orbit would use the higher ISP capability of a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR)--- up to 1000 ISP.
Hopefully, there is a design that would enable all these advantages to be incorporated in a practical design that could be fully reusable and with a fast turnaround. The launch costs could be brought down so as to make space more accessible. That's what James Dewar believes the NTR can do. Dewar compared the chemical rocket to the "Pony Express". A nuclear rocket could take us to the next level.
Update:
Running the numbers seems to confirm that this could work. As for the rest, it would have to fit under the wing of the Stratolauncher and it would have to pass through all the red tape.
Update:
The entire mass of the thing except the X37-C and booster, could fit on a X33 airframe. You'd have to mate the NTR booster on to that, but if you could, the thing would mass at less than the X33 launcher originally planned.
The X33 failed because of the large hydrogen tanks, but those would be much reduced by an airbreathing engine for most of the trip. The X33 was a demonstrator only, not designed for orbital velocity, but suborbital velocities and altitude mentioned here.
The X33 would have to be redesigned for this, though. The imagination runs a bit too freely, perhaps.
Update:
After crunching the numbers even further, I am beginning to wonder if you even need the Stratolauncher. You may be able to use a 747 in the same way that it was used to transport the Shuttle. In addition, all of the fuel should fit inside the X-33 fuselage so that it can be made into a cargo holder for the NTR. This configuration would allow the same X-33 airframe to house the NTR/X-37C and be lifted by a 747. A minimum of new stuff would have to be invented.
next
Note: The Stratolauncher rolled out of its hanger the other day. However, the rest of this post is a lot of fantasy.
Which is why I started my own "moonshot". No fantasy, no fakery, but something real that I could do myself.
Little did I realize how big of a challenge that that would turn out to be.
update to the update: Come to think of it, Elon Musk was once a part of this project. Since that time to this, Musk has perfected his technology of landing a first stage rocket after finishing its burn. Now, if he had stayed with the Stratolauncher program, would they have had a 100 per cent reusable system? No, Musk still needs a reusable second stage.
Fast turnaround? Musk hasn't done that yet. But he probably figured he didn't need the Stratolauncher anyway. He may well be right.
6.3.17, 10:00 :
If the Sabre Engine, under development by Reaction Engines of the UK, can be mated with the X-37C, it may get to orbit without an NTR, and return with the all of the components being reusable. The biggest component, the airframe that lifts off the ground, is almost ready to fly now. A thought, anyway.
The original post follows:
I'll make a series out of this one. The first was the X-37C post, made on September 11th. The second post was a brief followup last month.
An idea for this post came from how the XCOR's Lynx will get to the Karman line. It will fire its engines and get only to Mach 3, and then drift upwards to the Karman line before returning to the ground. The idea here is to get to the Karman line with some momentum and let the NTR do the rest of the lifting to orbit.
It has occurred to me that the mass of the X-37C is close to the mass envisioned in James Dewar's book "The Nuclear Rocket". Let's say we want to replace his idea of using solid rocket boosters to be launched from a cargo plane--- with a launch from a Stratolauncher and an airbreather engine like the SABRE engine being developed for the Skylon SSTO.
This warrants another speculation alert, of course.
Dewar wanted his package to mass out at 91k lbs. Presumably, this would be a 17k pound payload into orbit. That's pretty close to the X-37C's mass. I didn't see any provision in Dewar's concept that would save the hydrogen tank. We should want to be able to do that.
The SABRE engines wouldn't be required to go to orbit, so we could economize on mass there by making that booster smaller. It won't be needing oxygen tanks since it is only going to be used in its airbreathing mode. The Stratolauncher helps save mass here too, because it imparts the first 30k feet of altitude to the orbiter.
Instead of going to orbit, the SABRE engines would separate at Mach 5.5 and 85k altitude, thus imparting momentum to the 91k mass of Dewar's NTR module. The module would drift upwards to the Karman line or possibly well below it and then light up the nuke booster. The SABRE powered booster would do a RTLS (return to launch site ). The 91k NTR's mass could probably be increased, since the airbreathing booster would not have to carry oxygen. The downside is that the NTR would be losing momentum as it waits for the nukes to warm up.
You could play around with the masses in order to optimize the design so that it will make it all fully reusable with a fast turnaround. For example, instead of a "cocoon" that enables the nuclear core to be fished out of the ocean, some landing gear could be supplied so that it can land like a plane. Also, the tank could be made into a lifting body shape and designed so as to survive a reentry. If more mass is needed, you may have some margin in the concept for that. Up to 500k pounds could be lifted by the Stratolauncher.
I'm thinking that it should be optimized so that that you don't have to use onboard oxygen for the first stage ascent. The SABRE provides that capability. The second stage on up to orbit would use the higher ISP capability of a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR)--- up to 1000 ISP.
Hopefully, there is a design that would enable all these advantages to be incorporated in a practical design that could be fully reusable and with a fast turnaround. The launch costs could be brought down so as to make space more accessible. That's what James Dewar believes the NTR can do. Dewar compared the chemical rocket to the "Pony Express". A nuclear rocket could take us to the next level.
Update:
Running the numbers seems to confirm that this could work. As for the rest, it would have to fit under the wing of the Stratolauncher and it would have to pass through all the red tape.
Update:
The entire mass of the thing except the X37-C and booster, could fit on a X33 airframe. You'd have to mate the NTR booster on to that, but if you could, the thing would mass at less than the X33 launcher originally planned.
The X33 failed because of the large hydrogen tanks, but those would be much reduced by an airbreathing engine for most of the trip. The X33 was a demonstrator only, not designed for orbital velocity, but suborbital velocities and altitude mentioned here.
The X33 would have to be redesigned for this, though. The imagination runs a bit too freely, perhaps.
Update:
After crunching the numbers even further, I am beginning to wonder if you even need the Stratolauncher. You may be able to use a 747 in the same way that it was used to transport the Shuttle. In addition, all of the fuel should fit inside the X-33 fuselage so that it can be made into a cargo holder for the NTR. This configuration would allow the same X-33 airframe to house the NTR/X-37C and be lifted by a 747. A minimum of new stuff would have to be invented.
next
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Thank you, Mr. President
President Trump did the right thing. He may get hammered for it, but that is okay. Sometimes you have to do the hard thing and risk getting hammered, because it is the right thing to do.
The so-called green energy jobs are a mirage. The arguments in favor of the Paris agreement are absurd at best.
Good riddance.
The so-called green energy jobs are a mirage. The arguments in favor of the Paris agreement are absurd at best.
Good riddance.
Krugman and the Climate of Hate...Updated 6.1.17; 12:15
Update: 6.1.17; 12:15
Note: A blast from the past. Compare this with what happened with Kathy Griffin. Can we just end this "Climate of Hate" stuff?
Of course, when the so-called right does anything, it is always different and far worse....
I might add that that Gabby Giffords was mentioned in the Krugman piece, but did Krugman call for gun control when the DNC staffer was murdered in the middle of the 2016 election?
Maybe the Russians snuffed the guy so he could not talk. What does Krugman have to say?
The original post follows:
I was going to ignore Krugman on this Climate of Hate business, but I've changed my mind. So, what did it exactly? Believe it or not, I am going to at least try to understand where he is coming from when he writes the stuff he does. I've written several posts about Krugman. He strikes me as a super partisan guy on the left. If you want to have an independent judgment, you take Krugman with a double dosed grain of salt.
First of all, I don't take his Climate of Hate stuff seriously. It doesn't even matter to him on an intellectual basis anyway. If it did, he wouldn't have anything to say. There is no connection between the Arizona shootings and anything the Tea Party did or said. If there was, he would be all over it. No, this is an emotional reaction. He really needs to make the connection on an emotional level, because no intellectual level exists.
I think the emotional reaction comes from this quote about Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly:
Since I don't listen to either of these two, I am at somewhat of a loss to counter it with anything. Yet, he mentions actual things said in terms of jokes about shooting government officials. Can this be corraborated anywhere? I spent some time looking this up and the jokes never rose to the level that Krugman is attempting to put it. If anything thought the jokes were controversial, some mention of it would have been in the forefront, but it isn't. If it isn't in the forefront, how could it contribute to a climate of hate? Isn't he making a bigger deal of these jokes than they really are?
Krugman finishes up with this question:
If the only example he gives aren't examples at all, but are just jokes that never rise above the level of even being controversial, he doesn't have much of a case. He can't make the case, he can only engage in hyperbole.
Is he really interested in making our discourse less toxic, or he is just trying to take advantage of a situation in order to get a political advantage? If he wants less toxic discourse, he would stick to the facts of the situation. The facts do not support his charges. Dismiss the rest as political hyperbole.
Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 5:15pm cst
Well, the left just wants to insist on this, don't they? I used to read the Mahablog, and sometimes I still do, but it is stuff like this that turns me off. Evidently, she wants to hold somebody or anybody but the one responsible, responsible for the shooting in Arizona.
This implies someone else was responsible for the shooting. Like who, for instance? If she really believes anyone else is responsible for this, let's see the evidence, shall we? She and Krugman have yet to produce one shred of evidence that anyone except the accused had anything to do with this.
Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 9pm, cst
If guilt is to be assigned to someone, then who is guilty? This question could arise, if Loughman is insane, and one insists on assigning guilt. If he is insane, he can't be responsible. In such cases, who then shall be responsible?
What happens if you can't assign blame to any one person? In such cases, it becomes an issue for society to consider. Yet why would such consideration amount to much? People die every day. It may seem callous to say it, but a few deaths are not that big a deal in the larger scheme of things. It isn't just my opinion. Look around. How much concern does anyone have for the loss of life that occurs every single day? Nobody really cares that much.
Liberals pretend to care. Do they really care about these people who died and Giffords who is fighting for her life as of this writing? Or is this just political theatre?
Note: A blast from the past. Compare this with what happened with Kathy Griffin. Can we just end this "Climate of Hate" stuff?
Of course, when the so-called right does anything, it is always different and far worse....
I might add that that Gabby Giffords was mentioned in the Krugman piece, but did Krugman call for gun control when the DNC staffer was murdered in the middle of the 2016 election?
Maybe the Russians snuffed the guy so he could not talk. What does Krugman have to say?
The original post follows:
I was going to ignore Krugman on this Climate of Hate business, but I've changed my mind. So, what did it exactly? Believe it or not, I am going to at least try to understand where he is coming from when he writes the stuff he does. I've written several posts about Krugman. He strikes me as a super partisan guy on the left. If you want to have an independent judgment, you take Krugman with a double dosed grain of salt.
First of all, I don't take his Climate of Hate stuff seriously. It doesn't even matter to him on an intellectual basis anyway. If it did, he wouldn't have anything to say. There is no connection between the Arizona shootings and anything the Tea Party did or said. If there was, he would be all over it. No, this is an emotional reaction. He really needs to make the connection on an emotional level, because no intellectual level exists.
I think the emotional reaction comes from this quote about Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly:
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Since I don't listen to either of these two, I am at somewhat of a loss to counter it with anything. Yet, he mentions actual things said in terms of jokes about shooting government officials. Can this be corraborated anywhere? I spent some time looking this up and the jokes never rose to the level that Krugman is attempting to put it. If anything thought the jokes were controversial, some mention of it would have been in the forefront, but it isn't. If it isn't in the forefront, how could it contribute to a climate of hate? Isn't he making a bigger deal of these jokes than they really are?
Krugman finishes up with this question:
So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic?
If the only example he gives aren't examples at all, but are just jokes that never rise above the level of even being controversial, he doesn't have much of a case. He can't make the case, he can only engage in hyperbole.
Is he really interested in making our discourse less toxic, or he is just trying to take advantage of a situation in order to get a political advantage? If he wants less toxic discourse, he would stick to the facts of the situation. The facts do not support his charges. Dismiss the rest as political hyperbole.
Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 5:15pm cst
Well, the left just wants to insist on this, don't they? I used to read the Mahablog, and sometimes I still do, but it is stuff like this that turns me off. Evidently, she wants to hold somebody or anybody but the one responsible, responsible for the shooting in Arizona.
However, I doubt very much that the shootings will change anything. Those most at fault deny their responsibility.
This implies someone else was responsible for the shooting. Like who, for instance? If she really believes anyone else is responsible for this, let's see the evidence, shall we? She and Krugman have yet to produce one shred of evidence that anyone except the accused had anything to do with this.
Update: Mon. 1/10/11, approx 9pm, cst
If guilt is to be assigned to someone, then who is guilty? This question could arise, if Loughman is insane, and one insists on assigning guilt. If he is insane, he can't be responsible. In such cases, who then shall be responsible?
What happens if you can't assign blame to any one person? In such cases, it becomes an issue for society to consider. Yet why would such consideration amount to much? People die every day. It may seem callous to say it, but a few deaths are not that big a deal in the larger scheme of things. It isn't just my opinion. Look around. How much concern does anyone have for the loss of life that occurs every single day? Nobody really cares that much.
Liberals pretend to care. Do they really care about these people who died and Giffords who is fighting for her life as of this writing? Or is this just political theatre?
Porn and Outrage Porn--- what's the diff?
I'm listening to Barnhardt's latest podcast. She's going off on Ariana Grande, whoever that is. Yep, I am so out of it that I don't know who this person is.
She's connected to the Manchester terrorist event in the UK. Anyway, Barnhardt says that Grande is actually into "porn" as she describes it. Well, I cannot vouch for it, since I am not at all familiar with this artist.
I did do a minor research of Grande, but I didn't listen to her music or anything. However, it doesn't surprise me a bit if she is a bit of a pervert. Why bother? It only will scandalize anybody to find that out. Then you get into outrage porn.
Outrage porn? My understanding of what this term is may well be incorrect, but I think it is when people go off on a tangent in reacting to something that outrages them. So, they make a statement for the world to see, and the people get into that too. So, it is like everybody getting off on something, like it was porn or something that they watch or consume.
It could well be that when getting mad enough to be in a outrage, and insisting that the world knows about it, is something of a pornographic moment. People love to be angry about something.
So, does this mean that we shouldn't be outraged at what is being done to innocent little girls who go to these concerts and see what amounts to porn? I don't think venting about it on the internet is really going to make any difference.
The thing to do it seems, is to do what you can in your own life. Don't add to porn, but clean yourself up. If that is possible, that is. People are so into porn, don't you know. It is worth a lot of clicks.
But the truth is just so boring.
Yeah, I guess that may be a bit of jealousy coming out. Let's have some porn, by golly. That will get their attention. It would help make my blog more popular. (yay me)
She's connected to the Manchester terrorist event in the UK. Anyway, Barnhardt says that Grande is actually into "porn" as she describes it. Well, I cannot vouch for it, since I am not at all familiar with this artist.
I did do a minor research of Grande, but I didn't listen to her music or anything. However, it doesn't surprise me a bit if she is a bit of a pervert. Why bother? It only will scandalize anybody to find that out. Then you get into outrage porn.
Outrage porn? My understanding of what this term is may well be incorrect, but I think it is when people go off on a tangent in reacting to something that outrages them. So, they make a statement for the world to see, and the people get into that too. So, it is like everybody getting off on something, like it was porn or something that they watch or consume.
It could well be that when getting mad enough to be in a outrage, and insisting that the world knows about it, is something of a pornographic moment. People love to be angry about something.
So, does this mean that we shouldn't be outraged at what is being done to innocent little girls who go to these concerts and see what amounts to porn? I don't think venting about it on the internet is really going to make any difference.
The thing to do it seems, is to do what you can in your own life. Don't add to porn, but clean yourself up. If that is possible, that is. People are so into porn, don't you know. It is worth a lot of clicks.
But the truth is just so boring.
Yeah, I guess that may be a bit of jealousy coming out. Let's have some porn, by golly. That will get their attention. It would help make my blog more popular. (yay me)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)