"Bill" wrote in news:9i5se1Fju8U1
@mid.individual.net:

I keep seeing this everyday...

" 2.2 million without power, in the northeast"

You would think they would have some of it turned back on by now and I
would be seeing...

" 1.9 million without power, in the northeast"
" 1.6 million without power, in the northeast"
" 1.2million without power, in the northeast"
Etc.

That happened indeed, but the thread started out with 2.2 By now almost
everyone is back on power, except maybe some in CT. Last Sunday we drove
i278 and i78 into PA and saw at least 3 groups of 1 or 2 bucket trucks
plus a pickup "convoying" back West to Ohio, I believe. We all around
here are greatful for the workers who came out to help, and despise the
upper management derelicts who cut back on the tree pruning budget and
delayed (in some cases) getting the help for this organized in the right
timeframe.

We were out of power for 24 hrs only, but close to us businesses were out
almost 3 days. If your business is a restaurant, and you were prepared
for some highfaluting parties and catering, plus the high end Sunday
crowd, or the football crowd, that was financially not good, even if
insurance were to cover some of it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

You leftists won't even agree that the Constitution is important.
It's hard to get agreement on anything when the foundation is cracked.

That is sort of preempting the discussion. At least, if you mean that the
Constitution can only be interpreted by you. I seem to remember that the
Founding Fathers instituted something like the 3 branches of government.
Legislative, executive and judicial IIRC. If that is indeed correct, the
SCOTUS has ultimate power over what the Constitution means. Etc, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Bill wrote:

I keep seeing this everyday...

" 2.2 million without power, in the northeast"

You would think they would have some of it turned back on by now and I
would be seeing...

" 1.9 million without power, in the northeast"
" 1.6 million without power, in the northeast"
" 1.2million without power, in the northeast"
Etc.

cl-p.com has/had an outage map showing the devastation in CT. I believe
it is finally all or nearly all restored.

You are so right. You google the news every morning, and
start a new thread each day. We'll comment, under your
subject line. I'm glad you brought up the idea. I agree.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bill" wrote in message
...
I keep seeing this everyday...

" 2.2 million without power, in the northeast"

You would think they would have some of it turned back on by
now and I
would be seeing...

" 1.9 million without power, in the northeast"
" 1.6 million without power, in the northeast"
" 1.2million without power, in the northeast"
Etc.

On 12 Nov 2011 00:41:09 GMT, Han wrote:




That happened indeed, but the thread started out with 2.2 By now almost
everyone is back on power, except maybe some in CT.

CT was down to a couple of dozen. Then the rains and high winds came
yesterday and it went up to 10,000. I think everyone is back now.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:27:11 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:




cl-p.com has/had an outage map showing the devastation in CT. I believe
it is finally all or nearly all restored.


http://outage.cl-p.com/outage/mobile.aspx

still 148 out.

On 12 Nov 2011 00:45:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You leftists won't even agree that the Constitution is important.
It's hard to get agreement on anything when the foundation is cracked.

That is sort of preempting the discussion. At least, if you mean that the
Constitution can only be interpreted by you.

No. Now, read what I wrote.

I seem to remember that the
Founding Fathers instituted something like the 3 branches of government.
Legislative, executive and judicial IIRC. If that is indeed correct, the
SCOTUS has ultimate power over what the Constitution means. Etc, etc.

That's the current understanding, but irrelevant.

" wrote in
:

On 12 Nov 2011 00:45:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

You leftists won't even agree that the Constitution is important.
It's hard to get agreement on anything when the foundation is
cracked.

That is sort of preempting the discussion. At least, if you mean that
the Constitution can only be interpreted by you.

No. Now, read what I wrote.

I seem to remember that the
Founding Fathers instituted something like the 3 branches of
government. Legislative, executive and judicial IIRC. If that is
indeed correct, the SCOTUS has ultimate power over what the
Constitution means. Etc, etc.

That's the current understanding, but irrelevant.

Now you've got me. I have NO idea what you really mean. The
Constitution is the foundation of the law. It can only be changed by
amendment, IIRC. So in my opinion it is ALL-important. Does that mean
I'm not left-leaning?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 12 Nov 2011 12:40:47 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 12 Nov 2011 00:45:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You leftists won't even agree that the Constitution is important.
It's hard to get agreement on anything when the foundation is
cracked.

That is sort of preempting the discussion. At least, if you mean that
the Constitution can only be interpreted by you.

No. Now, read what I wrote.

I seem to remember that the
Founding Fathers instituted something like the 3 branches of
government. Legislative, executive and judicial IIRC. If that is
indeed correct, the SCOTUS has ultimate power over what the
Constitution means. Etc, etc.

That's the current understanding, but irrelevant.

Now you've got me. I have NO idea what you really mean.

Leftists often can't see the nose on their face.

The Constitution is the foundation of the law.

It is *supposed* to be.

It can only be changed by amendment, IIRC.

Now you're getting warm. Or Convention. At least that's the idea. However,
leftists have other ideas.

So in my opinion it is ALL-important. Does that mean
I'm not left-leaning?

It means you're *really* confused. ...as in schizo. ;-)

No, it means you're not hopeless.

" wrote in
news
On 12 Nov 2011 12:40:47 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 12 Nov 2011 00:45:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

You leftists won't even agree that the Constitution is important.
It's hard to get agreement on anything when the foundation is
cracked.

That is sort of preempting the discussion. At least, if you mean
that the Constitution can only be interpreted by you.

No. Now, read what I wrote.

I seem to remember that the
Founding Fathers instituted something like the 3 branches of
government. Legislative, executive and judicial IIRC. If that is
indeed correct, the SCOTUS has ultimate power over what the
Constitution means. Etc, etc.

That's the current understanding, but irrelevant.

Now you've got me. I have NO idea what you really mean.

Leftists often can't see the nose on their face.

The Constitution is the foundation of the law.

It is *supposed* to be.

It can only be changed by amendment, IIRC.

Now you're getting warm. Or Convention. At least that's the idea.
However, leftists have other ideas.

So in my opinion it is ALL-important. Does that mean
I'm not left-leaning?

It means you're *really* confused. ...as in schizo. ;-)

No, it means you're not hopeless.

Maybe there are idiot leftists and enlightened liberals, just like there
are idiotic teapartie-ists and reasonable conservatists.

Hopefully I am enlightened and you are reasonable.

Please change adjectives as you see fit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Nov 9, 5:00*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 09 Nov 2011 21:11:20 GMT, Han wrote:



The ghastly thing was that gas stations were ALSO without power, so
there was no way to get generator food.

Why didn't any gas stations have generators?

Same reason they don't here. *They cost money and the station
operators don't see a payback in most cases. *CT is considering a
couple of new laws that will required at least some stations to have
generators.

I imagine it could be a $3000 to $6000 investment to do it and while
the oil companies are making money, the local station owner is on a
thin margin.

$3000 to $6000? A neighbor had a 12KW Generac installed at his
house. That was $7K. I suspect to power a gas station you're
looking
at a lot more than that. Still it seems like it might make sense to
require new stations to have them as a public safety measure. Only
problem with that is that new stations don't go up very often and
unless
you mandated it for a significant number of existing ones, it would
take
a very long time to do much good.

A free market solution would be to allow stations to charge whatever
they feel like for gas in an emergency. If I had a station, I'd put
in
a generator and charge $1 a gallon more when the power is out.
That would do several things. First it would make gas availabe during
power outages. Second, it would pay for the generator installation,
maintenance, etc. Third, it would discourage people from buying the
gas during an emergency unless they really needed it.

OF course, our liberal friends call that price gouging and many places
have laws that prevent anyone from doing it. So, the gas station has
no generator, people have no gas, and the workers have the day off
and don't get paid.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:43:38 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:




I imagine it could be a $3000 to $6000 investment to do it and while
the oil companies are making money, the local station owner is on a
thin margin.

$3000 to $6000? A neighbor had a 12KW Generac installed at his
house. That was $7K. I suspect to power a gas station you're
looking
at a lot more than that.

Why? Running a couple of pumps, a couple of lights, and the cash
register would not take all that much. If it is connected to a
convenience store with refrigeration, if you want to keep the
compressor going for air, yes, that would take a lot.

You neighbor probably wants to keep the central AC going. 12kw is a
lot of power. What does a gas pump need, maybe a quarter hp? Take a
minimalist approach and cost will not be that bad.

Last night, CT had 148 homes still without power. This morning was
750. I just refreshed the map and it is up to. 1282 Windy, but sunny
day.
http://outage.cl-p.com/outage/mobile.aspx

I guess more tree trimming is needed.

That's the best worded post I've seen in a while.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

A free market solution would be to allow stations
to charge whatever they feel like for gas in an
emergency. If I had a station, I'd put in a generator
and charge $1 a gallon more when the power is out.

That would do several things. First it would make
gas availabe during power outages. Second, it
would pay for the generator installation, maint-
enance, etc. Third, it would discourage people
from buying the gas during an emergency unless
they really needed it.

OF course, our liberal friends call that price
gouging and many places have laws that prevent
anyone from doing it. So, the gas station has
no generator, people have no gas, and the
workers have the day off and don't get paid.

On Nov 12, 4:17*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
That's the best worded post I've seen in a while.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...

A free market solution would be to allow stations
to charge whatever they feel like for gas in an
emergency. *If I had a station, I'd put in a generator
and charge $1 a gallon more when the power is out.

That would do several things. *First it would make
gas availabe during power outages. *Second, it
would pay for the generator installation, maint-
enance, etc. *Third, it would discourage people
from buying the gas during an emergency unless
they really needed it.

OF course, our liberal friends call that price
gouging and many places have laws that prevent
anyone from doing it. *So, the gas station has
no generator, people have no gas, and the
workers have the day off and don't get paid.

Thanks! Glad you liked it.

Han wrote:

I seem to remember that the
Founding Fathers instituted something like the 3 branches of
government. Legislative, executive and judicial IIRC. If that is
indeed correct, the SCOTUS has ultimate power over what the
Constitution means. Etc, etc.

That's the current understanding, but irrelevant.

Now you've got me. I have NO idea what you really mean. The
Constitution is the foundation of the law. It can only be changed by
amendment, IIRC. So in my opinion it is ALL-important. Does that
mean I'm not left-leaning?

No, it means you are wrong. While ONE mechanism for changing the
Constitution is by amendment as you said, there are others. One trivial way
is for Congress to assert that a bill it passes is not subject to judicial
review. Fortunately, this is rare.

Another is by re-defining what the Constitution says.

The word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. The Court, however,
says that privacy exists in the "emanations and penumbras" of the document
itself.*

Words sometimes change their meanings. "Suffer the little children to come
unto me" does not mean children should be whipped before they go to church!
When the King James Bible was written, "suffer" meant "allow" (from whence
we get the word "suffragette"). "A well-regulated militia..." meant having a
firearm that works properly . We see remnants of that definition in a "well
regulated timepiece." There are those who would take "well-regulated" to
mean "organized and subject to military discipline and regulation," but they
fail to note that the 2nd Amendment was written BEFORE there were any
government "regulations" to speak of.

The interesting question, then, is whether the Court sticks to the ORIGINAL
meaning of the Constitution's words, or whether the Court applies the
CURRENT meaning of the words.

It's not trivial.

---------------
* Interestingly, the Court has found that privacy exists only in matters of
sex. There have been only three cases before the Supreme Court that have
been decided on the basis of privacy:

* Griswold v. Connecticut on the issue of birth control,
* Roe v. Wade on the issue of abortion, and
* Lawrence v. Texas on the issue of unnatural sex acts.

On 11/12/2011 12:19 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:43:38 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:




I imagine it could be a $3000 to $6000 investment to do it and while
the oil companies are making money, the local station owner is on a
thin margin.

$3000 to $6000? A neighbor had a 12KW Generac installed at his
house. That was $7K. I suspect to power a gas station you're
looking
at a lot more than that.

Why? Running a couple of pumps, a couple of lights, and the cash
register would not take all that much. If it is connected to a
convenience store with refrigeration, if you want to keep the
compressor going for air, yes, that would take a lot.


Pumps ain't just pumps any more- they are POS terminals. Even for cash
sales, if the backroom computer and/or connection to computer in sky is
down, the pumps are locked out. ISTR from one of the TV shows, that the
buried tanks have sensors now as well, and those have to be able to
phone home.

This ain't your daddy's gas station any more.

--
aem sends...

Ed Pawlowski esp snet.net wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:43:38 -0800 (PST), "trader4 optonline.net"
trader4 optonline.net wrote:




I imagine it could be a $3000 to $6000 investment to do it and while
the oil companies are making money, the local station owner is on a
thin margin.

$3000 to $6000? A neighbor had a 12KW Generac installed at his
house. That was $7K. I suspect to power a gas station you're
looking
at a lot more than that.

Why? Running a couple of pumps, a couple of lights, and the cash
register would not take all that much. If it is connected to a
convenience store with refrigeration, if you want to keep the
compressor going for air, yes, that would take a lot.

You neighbor probably wants to keep the central AC going. 12kw is a
lot of power. What does a gas pump need, maybe a quarter hp? Take a
minimalist approach and cost will not be that bad.

There you go again, asshole, trolling for answers.
--















Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.ta gs.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.gi ganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 11:19:49 -0600
From: Ed Pawlowski esp snet.net
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
Subject: TIP: 2.2 million without power, in the northeast
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:19:53 -0500
Message-ID: kdatb7hiqc4ttp2rc630eivvoo0q3e5s38 4ax.com
References: j8ic0r$2ph$1 dont-email.me 1bOdnRxD47__dyfTnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d earthlink.com Xns9F98A4ADA64Bikkezelf 207.246.207.164 0rtlb71g1t01cjdeu69e2l0i7srne33isq 4ax.com e25e8420-5807-4801-aeb5-184606c866a8 hh9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 23
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Vy4LK6PVQXvH2rzV6x/iiTG7Z1saeEa4y+0AW/NBVDow2GI3AyBBMl0KwY0aiT0NCGF8ed9TUWD2nP9!C4M8oRDZ IHKprreZ3KtS5KD0Kaq4GBvWG0YQRlXa1Oi2DkbafRbgaknR/EMDbEDmbMmKAdA=
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2129

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I seem to remember that the
Founding Fathers instituted something like the 3 branches of
government. Legislative, executive and judicial IIRC. If that is
indeed correct, the SCOTUS has ultimate power over what the
Constitution means. Etc, etc.

That's the current understanding, but irrelevant.

Now you've got me. I have NO idea what you really mean. The
Constitution is the foundation of the law. It can only be changed by
amendment, IIRC. So in my opinion it is ALL-important. Does that
mean I'm not left-leaning?

No, it means you are wrong. While ONE mechanism for changing the
Constitution is by amendment as you said, there are others. One
trivial way is for Congress to assert that a bill it passes is not
subject to judicial review. Fortunately, this is rare.

Another is by re-defining what the Constitution says.

The word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. The Court,
however, says that privacy exists in the "emanations and penumbras" of
the document itself.*

Words sometimes change their meanings. "Suffer the little children to
come unto me" does not mean children should be whipped before they go
to church! When the King James Bible was written, "suffer" meant
"allow" (from whence we get the word "suffragette"). "A well-regulated
militia..." meant having a firearm that works properly . We see
remnants of that definition in a "well regulated timepiece." There are
those who would take "well-regulated" to mean "organized and subject
to military discipline and regulation," but they fail to note that the
2nd Amendment was written BEFORE there were any government
"regulations" to speak of.

The interesting question, then, is whether the Court sticks to the
ORIGINAL meaning of the Constitution's words, or whether the Court
applies the CURRENT meaning of the words.

It's not trivial.

---------------
* Interestingly, the Court has found that privacy exists only in
matters of sex. There have been only three cases before the Supreme
Court that have been decided on the basis of privacy:

* Griswold v. Connecticut on the issue of birth control,
* Roe v. Wade on the issue of abortion, and
* Lawrence v. Texas on the issue of unnatural sex acts.

Of course you are right. Doesn't the Constitution describe how it can be
amended? And isn't judicial review included in that? As far as words
changing meaning over time, that is only natural, otherwise we would all
still use something akin to Neanderthalese. An important aspect for the
courts to decide. And much breath has been spilled over that!!

Sorry, I can't find anything about your statement that Congress can
assert that a bill it passes is not subject to judicial review. That
seems contrary to everything I'd believe in.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid