Paul E

BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul E

  • Rank
    1,000 Post Club!


  • About Me:
    Mostly I'm along the shore around E. Lyme and Waterford. Secret spots not even on the map.
  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Besides fishing I play tournament level foosball.

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Taking-a-hike Sanford? Yep - he’s probable the GOP’s plan B.
  2. (Sorry I couldn’t get the author’s pictures included) The cartoonist behind the strip XKCD explains how the skies blush and why sailors care. By Randall Munroe, Aug. 13, 2019 (NYTimes) According to popular lore, you can predict the weather based on sky color. The saying typically goes, “Red sky at night, sailor’s delight. Red sky at morning, sailors take warning.” This saying has been around in various forms for a long time — there’s a version of it in the Bible (1). The reason it’s lasted so long is that it actually works, at least in certain parts of the world. The red sky method doesn’t have as much to do with the red clouds themselves as you might think — instead, it’s a way of using the sun to do an X-ray of the atmosphere over the horizon, and then using clouds above you as a screen on which to project the results! In the temperate zones, weather systems generally move from west to east. They don’t move too fast — in general, weather moves across the Earth at driving speed or slower — so a storm system a thousand miles to your west won’t reach you for a day or so. Because of the curve of the Earth and the haze of the atmosphere, you can’t see the clouds to your west; if you could, weather forecasting would be a lot easier. The “red sky” trick gets around this by using the sun. Red wavelengths pass through air more easily than blue ones. When the sun is setting in the west, its light passes through hundreds of miles of atmosphere — becoming extremely red in the process — before hitting the clouds above you. Shorter blue wavelengths bounce off the air and go off in other directions. This is why the sky is blue — it reflects blue light. White clouds reflect all colors, so when red light shines on them, they look red, too. If there are storm clouds to your west, the red sunlight is stopped before it can get to you, and the sunset doesn’t look particularly red. On the other hand, if there’s clear air for hundreds of miles to your east, the sunlight passes all the way through to reach the sky above you, turning it red. If there are any clouds overhead, the red light illuminates them, creating a spectacular sunrise. When weather moves west to east, a red sky at night means that there are clouds overhead, but clear skies to the west — which tells you that the weather will likely be clearing up. A red sky in the morning, on the other hand, means that there’s clear air to the east . . . but clouds overhead. That means the clear zone is moving away, and clouds are moving in. This saying doesn’t work in the tropics, where prevailing winds tend to move east to west and are generally more unpredictable. On the other hand, weather in the tropics is much more stable — excepting the occasional unpredictable cyclone — so there’s less need for this kind of rule of thumb. 1. “When it is evening, ye say, ‘It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowering.’” — Matthew 16:2–3.
  3. Trump Needs a Primary Challenge By Joe Walsh. (Mr. Walsh is a former Republican member of Congress from Illinois.) Aug. 14, 2019 There’s a strong case for President Trump to face a Republican primary challenger. I know a thing or two about insurgencies. I entered Congress in 2011 as an insurgent Tea Party Republican. My goals were conservative and clear: restrain executive power and reduce the debt. Barack Obama was president then, and it was easy for us to rail against runaway spending and executive overreach. Eight years later, Mr. Trump has increased the deficit more than $100 billion year over year — it’s now nearing $1 trillion — and we hear not a word of protest from my former Republican colleagues. He abuses the Constitution for his narcissistic trade war. In private, most congressional Republicans oppose the trade war, but they don’t say anything publicly. But think about this: Mr. Trump’s tariffs are a tax increase on middle-class Americans and are devastating to our farmers. That’s not a smart electoral strategy. It’s one of the many reasons Mr. Trump is ripe for a primary challenger. In fact, it would buck the historical trend if he didn’t have one. More often than not, unpopular presidents face primary challengers. Since leaving Congress in 2013, I’ve been the host of my own conservative talk radio show several hours a day, five days a week. The only time a majority of my conservative audience has noticeably broken with the president is when he signed the omnibus spending bill in 2017 that ballooned the deficit. Fiscal responsibility is an issue the American electorate cares about but that our elected officials disregard from the top down — including the Tea Party in the Trump era. Fiscal matters are only part of it. At the most basic level, Mr. Trump is unfit for office. His lies are so numerous — from his absurd claim that tariffs are “paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us,” to his prevarication about his crowd sizes, he can’t be trusted. In Mr. Trump, I see the worst and ugliest iteration of views I expressed for the better part of a decade. To be sure, I’ve had my share of controversy. On more than one occasion, I questioned Mr. Obama’s truthfulness about his religion. At times, I expressed hate for my political opponents. We now see where this can lead. There’s no place in our politics for personal attacks like that, and I regret making them. I didn’t vote for Mr. Trump in 2016 because I liked him. I voted for him because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. Once he was elected, I gave him a fair hearing, and tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I soon realized that I couldn’t support him because of the danger he poses to the country, especially the division he sows at every chance, culminating a few weeks ago in his ugly, racist attack on four minority congresswomen. The fact is, Mr. Trump is a racial arsonist who encourages bigotry and xenophobia to rouse his base and advance his electoral prospects. In this, he inspires imitators. Republicans should view Mr. Trump as the liability that he is: No matter his flag-hugging, or his military parades, he’s no patriot. In front of the world, he sides with Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence community. That’s dangerous. He encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and he refuses to take foreign threats seriously as we enter the 2020 election. That’s reckless. For three years, he has been at war with our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as he embraces tyrants abroad and embarrasses our allies. That’s un-American. And despite what his enablers claim, Mr. Trump isn’t a conservative. He’s reckless on fiscal issues; he’s incompetent on the border; he’s clueless on trade; he misunderstands executive power; and he subverts the rule of law. It’s his poor record that makes him most worthy of a primary challenge. Mr. Trump has taken the legitimate differences that Americans have on policy and turned them into personal division. He’s caused me to change my tone and to reflect upon where I went over the line and to focus on policy differences moving forward. We now have a president who retweets conspiracy theories implicating his political opponents in Jeffrey Epstein’s death. We now have a president who does his level best to avoid condemning white supremacy and white nationalism. Yes, William Weld, the former Massachusetts governor, is challenging Mr. Trump from the center. But the president is more vulnerable to a challenge from the right. I’m on the right, and I’m hugely disappointed that challenge hasn’t yet materialized. Mr. Trump’s most vulnerable against a challenger who’d make the case for strong borders — instead of warning of “invaders,” dragging us down, turning neighbor against neighbor. A majority of Americans want fixes to our most basic problems. We need someone who could stand up, look the president in the eye and say: “Enough, sir. We’ve had enough of your indecency. We’ve had enough of your lies, your bullying, your cruelty, enough of your insults, your daily drama, your incitement, enough of the danger you place this country in every single day. We don’t want any of this anymore, and the country certainly can’t stand four more years of it.” Joe Walsh, a former Illinois congressman, is a nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email:
  4. If it had four wheels...
  5. If you have environmental concerns please do not voice them on this platform! Our president has, through word and deed, declared that the patriotic approach will be to put profit before all else. So, let’s all get behind his efforts to eliminate protections, catch and kill what you can, pillage whilst there are still profits to be had, screw the future and above all remember: we are doing this in order to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! And, screw all those “other” people, too. U.S. Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act By Lisa Friedman (NYT) Aug. 12, 2019 WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday announced that it would change the way the Endangered Species Act is applied, significantly weakening the nation’s bedrock conservation law credited with rescuing the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the American alligator from extinction. The changes will make it harder to consider the effects of climate change on wildlife when deciding whether a given species warrants protection. They would most likely shrink critical habitats and, for the first time, would allow economic assessments to be conducted when making determinations. The rules also make it easier to remove a species from the endangered species list and weaken protections for threatened species, a designation that means they are at risk of becoming endangered. Overall, the new rules would very likely clear the way for new mining, oil and gas drilling, and development in areas where protected species live. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said the changes would modernize the Endangered Species Act and increase transparency in its application. “The act’s effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation,” he said in a statement Monday. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement the revisions “fit squarely within the president’s mandate of easing the regulatory burden on the American public, without sacrificing our species’ protection and recovery goals.” The new rules are expected to appear in the Federal Register this week and will go into effect 30 days after that. Environmental organizations denounced the changes as a disaster for imperiled wildlife. David J. Hayes, who served as a deputy interior secretary in the Obama administration and is now executive director of the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School of Law, said the changes would “straitjacket the scientists to take climate change out of consideration” when determining how to best protect wildlife. “We all know that climate change is now the greatest threat ever to hundreds of species,” Mr. Hayes said. A recent United Nations assessment, some environmentalists noted, has warned that human pressures are poised to drive one million species into extinction and that protecting land and biodiversity is critical to keep greenhouse gas emissions in check. Climate change, a lack of environmental stewardship and mass industrialization have all contributed to the enormous expected global nature loss, the United Nations report said. Ever since President Richard M. Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act into law in 1973, it has been the main United States legislation for protecting fish, plants and wildlife, and has acted as a safety net for species on the brink of extinction. The peregrine falcon, the humpback whale, the Tennessee purple coneflower and the Florida manatee all would very likely have disappeared without it, scientists say. Republicans have long sought to narrow the scope of the law, saying that it burdens landowners, hampers industry and hinders economic growth. Mr. Bernhardt wrote in an op-ed last summer that the act places an “unnecessary regulatory burden” on companies. They also make the case that the law is not reasonable because species are rarely removed from the list. Since the law was passed, more than 1,650 have been listed as threatened or endangered, while just 47 have been delisted because their populations rebounded. Over the past two years Republicans made a major legislative push to overhaul the law. Despite holding a majority in both houses of Congress, though, the proposals were never taken up in the Senate. With Democrats now in control of the House, there is little chance of those bills passing. The Trump administration’s revisions to the regulations that guide the implementation of the law, however, mean opponents of the Endangered Species Act are still poised to claim their biggest victory in decades. One of the most controversial changes removes longstanding language that prohibits the consideration of economic factors when deciding whether a species should be protected. Under the current law, such determinations must be made solely based on science, “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of determination.” Gary Frazer, the assistant director for endangered species with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, said that phrase had been removed for reasons of “transparency.” He said the change leaves open the possibility of conducting economic analyses for informational purposes, but that decisions about listing species would still be based exclusively on science. Environmental groups saw a danger in that. “There can be economic costs to protecting endangered species,” said Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization. But, he said, “If we make decisions based on short-term economic costs, we’re going to have a whole lot more extinct species.” The new rules also give the government significant discretion in deciding what is meant by the term “foreseeable future.” That’s a semantic change with far-reaching implications, because it enables regulators to disregard the effects of extreme heat, drought, rising sea levels and other consequences of climate change that may occur several decades from now. When questioned about that change and its implications in the era of climate change, Mr. Frazer said the agency wanted to avoid making “speculative” decisions far into the future. Among the animals at risk from this change, Mr. Caputo listed a few: Polar bears and seals that are losing crucial sea ice; whooping cranes whose migration patterns are shifting because of temperature changes; and beluga whales that will have to dive deeper and longer to find food in a warmer Arctic. Jonathan Wood, a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative group that has represented landowners in opposing endangered species designations, said he believed the changes would improve the law by simplifying the regulatory process and making the law less punitive. “It’s a shift away from conflict in favor of more collaboration and cooperation,” he said.
  6. Grass carp. You can tell by how chilled they all appear.
  7. Discerning people choose bluefish and throw the stripers back.
  8. So, the most reasonable explanation is that the thief is someone who’s been fishing next to you all night? Generally sneak thiefs are people you don’t see - not the ones you see.
  9. If you resemble that remark you’d know that there are no “little” Polacks.
  10. Not “ here” meaning not in the Main Forum. Just sayin...
  11. Come on...tell us where you’re going
  12. Just sayin’...I play hard. Leisure is being set-up in front of the idiot box. Sport leaves you mentally and physically drained, bruised and otherwise beat to heck. For me fishing is a sport - if it were easy, I’d make it harder . So, no white buckets, no cooler, no chair and most likely no natural lighting. Plenty of scars, however. Remember - that which doesn’t make you stronger kills you.
  13. I thought we’d gotten past the point where believing “killing sharks” was a good thing.
  14. Sure, you may want to retire to a low-tax state but do you want to have been born and raised in one? Having lived in SC, TN and KY - as well as PA, I will tell you that there are very few benefits to living in a low-tax state unless you are relatively well compensated for your job or already wealthy. For raising a young, educated family it’s not easy. If you are outside of a metropolitan area (aka: If you are ‘county’) it’s really hard. You can’t be laughing at the people of other states without acknowledging the environment that got them there. This isn’t North vs South it’s acceptable education, infrastructure vs the bare minimum.