Patterico's Pontifications

11/26/2017

Nancy Pelosi’s Defense of John Conyers: A Classic Case of Hyper-Partisanship

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:30 am

Hyper-partisanship has been on display by the left for years. The left defended Ted Kennedy, who got drunk, ran off a bridge with Mary Jo Kopechne in the passenger seat, and delayed calling police so they would not see how drunk he was. The left defended Bill Clinton, who not only abused his power with an intern and allegedly raped a woman, but lied about it under oath and used the power of his office to smear truthful women. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Carl Arbogast wrote earlier today about Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to condemn John Conyers on Meet the Press earlier today, but it’s worth a few more words to discuss her hyper-partisanship. If Pelosi were going to apply consistent standards, she would of course be calling for Conyers to resign. But instead, she relied on the classic defenses of the hyperpartisan. Watch as the spin proceeds:

CHUCK TODD: You said there’s now a zero tolerance. John Conyers. What does that mean for him? Right now. In or out?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: We are strengthened by due process. Just because someone is accused — and was it one accusation? Is it two? I think there has to be — John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women — Violence Against Women Act, which the left — right-wing — is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that, and he did great work on that. But the fact is, as John reviews his case, which he knows, which I don’t, I believe he will do the right thing.

CHUCK TODD: Why don’t you?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I believe that he — Excuse me. May I finish my sentence?

CHUCK TODD: Sure, sure.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: That he will do the right thing.

CHUCK TODD: And is the right thing what? Resign?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: He will do the right thing in terms of what he knows about his situation. That he’s entitled to due process. But women are entitled to due process as well.

CHUCK TODD: But he took advantage of a situation where he had a – the rules of Congress and I know you guys want to change these rules, but he got to hide his settlement, he got to — his accusers had to go through all sorts of craziness, so why is he entitled to new due process in this case?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: No, I I – we are talking about what we have heard. I’ve asked the Ethics Committee to review that. He has said he’d be open – he will cooperate with any review.

CHUCK TODD: Do you believe the accusers?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Excuse me?

CHUCK TODD: Do you believe John Conyers’ accusers?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I don’t know who they are. Do you? They have not really come forward. And that gets to —

CHUCK TODD: So you don’t know if you believe the accusations?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Well, that’s for the Ethics Committee to review. But I believe he understands what is at stake here and he will do the right thing.

Note how she starts with the classic position of the hyper-partisan: “John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women.” In other words, let’s talk about his politics. His politics are more important than what he has been accused of. If you hurt him, you hurt the policies that he stands for.

She looks like a fool and a cretin and a hypocrite saying that, of course. This position is always repellent to the non-partisan observer. It alienates swing voters and makes queasy the stomach of every person who is not a hyper-partisan. But that’s not her audience. Her audience is the hyper-partisans. Because she’s one herself, and she knows how to talk to them.

Then she moves on from that to raising quibbles about the accusations, engaging in sanctimony about due process, and suggesting that everyone will act properly if a process determines that the allegations are really true. Of course, only leftist hyper-partisans can say such things about Conyers with a straight face. Everyone else knows that the process itself will be a hyper-partisan joke, with all Democrats having mentally acquitted Conyers (and all Republicans having mentally convicted Conyers) before it starts.

There’s a reason she starts with the politics of it and only belatedly gets around to the rest. The politics is all that matters. Here’s Allahpundit:

As a Twitter pal notes, this is smoking-gun proof that the recent left-wing navel-gazing over whether Bill Clinton should have resigned 20 years ago is cynical nonsense. Faced with credible allegations against a much less powerful Democrat than Clinton in Conyers, one who’s waaaaaay past the age at which he should have retired and who’s been accused of having lost some of his mental capacity, the leader of the caucus whiffs on demanding that he step down. And worse than that, she cites his “icon” status as a point in his favor. Clinton, Conyers, and basically every male member of the Kennedy family, living or dead, would smile at that. It may be the single creepiest thing she’s ever said in public life.

Indeed. It’s a classic and repulsive example of hyper-partisanship. But what makes it disgusting? Is it her hypocrisy? Is it the laughably transparent phoniness of her arguments? The way her super-wide-open eyes stare while the dumb words come out of her mouth?

Or is it merely her politics that makes this a loathsome display?

In other words: would this appearance be something the right would defend, if Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers had a letter “R” after their names, and voted the way the right likes?

Surely not — right? After all, the single most embarrassing thing about her appearance is the way that she tries to make the offenses of her own side seem “different” than those of people on the right. And every attempt she makes to distinguish the two is openly lame and laughably unconvincing.

And when people try to say “but it’s different when I do it” — yet their reasons are transparently unconvincing to anyone who is not as partisan as they are — they come off looking like idiots, just like Pelosi does here. And that’s embarrassing for them and everyone who supports them.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

95 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi’s Defense of John Conyers: A Classic Case of Hyper-Partisanship”

  1. Same woman who attacks the Trump Administration for trying to reduce the kangaroo courts using Title IX to destroy young men’s lives demands due process for Conyers, but not Moore.

    NJRob (b00189)

  2. Why is all the hand-wringing being done by Leftists while conservatives languish in the Valley of Denial? Confession us hood for the soul and we sure hear a lot of soulful pleas for democrats to step down out of concern for the women.

    Admiral Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  3. Conyers is very trashy but I don’t see as to how he needs to resign

    happyfeet (5bd5f1)

  4. After all, the single most embarrassing thing about her appearance is the way that she tries to make the offenses of her own side seem “different” than those of people on the right. And every attempt she makes to distinguish the two is openly lame and laughably unconvincing.

    I see what you’re doing.

    Is there a way to post a mirror for your guests?

    Admiral Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  5. I think who should resign are coward pigs like war hero John McCain who lie during their campaign and promise to do repeal on Obamacare then they spit in the faces of their voters like they were garbage

    happyfeet (5bd5f1)

  6. This is what I would expect from san fran nan.

    mg (60b0f7)

  7. John Conyers once saved a woman from sexual abuse by throwing himself on top of her. She didn’t even thank him.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  8. Teh Kristol – McMuffin Combo… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/372675.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. I’m John Conyers, I’m not only the president of the sexual abuse club for men, I’m also a client.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  10. Conyers is only coppin’ feels while his prison-bitch wife is serving her sentence for the usual grifter-huckster crap.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. Allegedly.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  12. I’ll Trump the hyperpartisanship with a clean sweep of everyone from Washington except non-abusing staffers who will proxy daily business until we have tryouts for a new team.

    Admiral Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  13. Hey aren’t icons being torn down right now?

    Let’s chain iconoclasts and iconoblasts in a stadium together and let them fight it out.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  14. As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

    Admiral Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  15. Liberalism is all about championing degenerate behaviors, lack of personal accountability and responsibility, and hatred of Judeo-Christian values and western civilization.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  16. REPUBLICANS DEFENSE OF RICHARD NIXON: A CLASSIC CASE OF ‘HYPER-PARTISANSHIP’

    ‘Did any Republicans publicly defend Richard M. Nixon during and after the Watergate scandal?’

    [Yep.]

    ‘There was always a hardcore of about 25–30 percent of Americans who stood by Nixon’s consistently throughout the scandal. There were many stubborn Republicans and right-wing media outlets like the National Review that defended him until the evidence became overwhelming. There were grassroots movements by Rabbi Baruch Korff and Reverend Moon of the Unification Church who lashed themselves to Nixon’s cause, attracting thousands, even millions of followers. There were also astroturf movements of letter-writers and phone callers who were run directly out of the White House (a young Karl Rove among them). The GOP party leaders, Hugh Scott in the Senate and John Rhodes in the House, avoided overtly criticizing Nixon or calling for his resignation for fear of alienating the President and the party’s base (sound familiar?).’

    ‘As late as July 1974, there were still 11 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who voted against impeachment. The most notable are probably Charles Wiggins of California, who continually insisted that the Democrats didn’t have enough direct evidence proving Nixon’s guilt, and Charles Sandman of New Jersey, who mostly whined and sneered sarcastically about how mean liberals were. Still, the Democrats were united and there were enough Republicans on the committee convinced of Nixon’s guilt (six voted for multiple articles of impeachment) that they were able to recommend impeachment hearings to the House as a body.’

    ‘It was only after the smoking gun tape came out on August 5th, 1974 that all mainstream support of Nixon evaporated. And even then, there were a handful of holdouts, most notably Earl Langrebe, an Indiana Congressman who went on national TV on August 8th and said “I’m standing by this President until he and I are taken out into the street and shot.” The Moonies were still demonstrating on Nixon’s behalf the day he announced his resignation. Even when he resigned, he retained a near-record low, but still disturbingly high 24 percent approval rating.’

    https://www.quora.com/Did-any-Republicans-publicly-defend-Richard-M-Nixon-during-and-after-the-Watergate-scandal 

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  17. It’s worse here because it is something that he is doing NOW, rather than something he stopped doing 40 years ago. He won’t resign and they won’t expel him. Censure is possible.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  18. Dear DSPCA:

    What’s your take on Gary Studds serving 8 terms after getting caught with a 17-yo Senate page boy?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  19. As it’s clear our esteemed host is trying to set a trap for those of us who believe that Alabamans should vote for Roy Moore, I’d point out a slight difference: if Mr Conyers has to leave, there will be a special election and, given his district, the winner will be another Democrat. Mrs Pelosi isn’t protecting a slim majority.

    Republicans, on the other hand, are, and must. Roy Moore might be a scumbag, but if he is, the case is that he was a scumbag thirty-odd years ago, and appears to have reformed his behavior since then. If he loses, the GOP loses a Senate seat until January of 2021.

    “Hyper-partisan?” If that’s how you wish to define it, go right ahead, but one thing is clear: no real conservative can credibly argue that the United States would be better off with Doug Jones in the Senate rather than Roy Moore.

    That is the ugly truth: we cannot afford to throw away a Senate seat, not under these circumstances. Were we talking about a Democrat like Joe Manchin, we might be able to tolerate the loss, but even with someone like Mr Manchin, we run the risk of John McCain and Bob Corker then defecting to the Democrats, due to their extreme hatred for Donald Trump, and handing Chuck Schumer the power to block every single Presidential appointee, and to stop all conservative legislation.

    Let me be clear here: not one single Democrat can be trusted! Despite the allegations, a Senate controlled by the Democrats still confirmed Clarence Thomas, but today we cannot count on even the most moderate cabinet officers to get Democratic votes for confirmation. Only two Republicans voted against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as Secretary of State, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor received many Republican votes. Even Samuel Alito was filibustered, and got few Democratic votes.

    How many times have conservatives, including our host, combitched that while the Democrats stood strong, when the chips were down, Republicans rolled over and played dead? If Republicans have now become hyper-partisan, it’s because not doing so is rolling over and playing dead! If we do not play to win, we will most surely lose.

    The Dana who can see a slight difference (ecab7a)

  20. Roy Moore’s a good person that’s for sure (not scumbag)

    happyfeet (5bd5f1)

  21. Wow… ASPCA goes back nearly a half century to dig up the Left’s favorite boogeyman, Richard Milhous Nixon.

    I guess they’ll always have Nixon to kick around. Tippecanoe and Tyler too, hoser!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. Colonel Haiku

    It’s hard to feel the touch of a woman thru glass.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  23. Seven of Nine totally went to swingers clubs on the Holodeck.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  24. Speaking of hypocrisy, this time on immigration, here’s a clip from Bill Clinton’s 1995 SotU, where he calls for Trump’s immigration program and is roundly applauded:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

    (spoiler: it didn’t happen)

    Kevin M (752a26)

  25. What roles have The Welfare State and Friggin’in the Riggin’ played in Human Evolution ya dirty buggah?

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  26. @18

    That was an eight term abortion.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  27. John McCain and Bob Corker then defecting to the Democrats, due to their extreme hatred for Donald Trump

    There are a number of GOP Senators who dislike Trump along with Corker and McCain. Flake, Paul, Sasse, Collins, Heller and Graham have been critical.

    Maybe it’s time to have a formal break in the GOP rather than have the choice be binary forever. Pretty sure the Dems have their own fracture to worry about.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  28. BTW, Nixon was a better president than Obama, even from a progressive standpoint.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  29. Seven of Nine totally went to swingers clubs on the Holodeck.

    Seven of Nine was in an intimate multiway relationship before she got there.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  30. “Nixon was a better president than Obama, even from a progressive standpoint.

    More honest too, although that ain’t sayin much.

    harkin (a9a478)

  31. 22… heh, PandP… since ASPCA is a movie buff, I picture him in the Jim Carrey role where he riffs on the Billy Hayes character in Midnight Express tortured by his girlfriend’s bare breast pressed against the glass.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. Kevin M

    Would you rather be Seven of Nine on STTNG or in a class action lawsuit?

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  33. @31 Colonel Haiku

    John Conyers is a good man. His depth perception is off. He needs polarized glasses. Or put him behind glass like Hannibal Lecter.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  34. Is there any reason we can’t treat congressional offices like they’re gas stations in a bad neighborhoods?

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  35. Penn and Teller wrote:

    Would you rather be Seven of Nine on STTNG or in a class action lawsuit?

    Blasphemy! Seven of Nine was on the otherwise forgettable Star Trek: Voyager, not Next Generation.

    The Star Trek fan Dana (ecab7a)

  36. Well, the icon has resigned. So, in the end, wasted breath by San Fran Nan!

    Maybe he has an endorsement deal with Fruit of the Loom. 😉

    Patricia (5fc097)

  37. Mr M wrote:

    Seven of Nine totally went to swingers clubs on the Holodeck.

    Seven of Nine was in an intimate multiway relationship before she got there.

    Then you wish to copulate?” — Seven of Nine

    The Dana who thought that Deep Space Nine was the best Star Trek series (ecab7a)

  38. Mr M wrote:

    BTW, Nixon was a better president than Obama, even from a progressive standpoint.

    [snort!] Everybody was a better president than Barack Hussein Obama. Jimmy Carter was a better president than Mr Obama.

    The wryly amused Dana (ecab7a)

  39. False equivalency (unstated).

    Moore is being condemned as unworthy for life based on allegations about conduct 40 years ago, which he has denied. The allegations have indicia of corroboration, but both the allegations and the corroboration are not without problems.

    Against that, he has 40 years of service since that time about which he can be judged in juxtaposition to the allegations.

    Conyers, on the other hand, is alleged to have been RECENTLY engaged in misconduct while in office, using the power of his elected position to take advantage in all sorts of ways — not just sexual aggressiveness. He has settled allegations in at least one instance that we know of, and while the fact of the settlement isn’t conclusive of culpability, the steps taken to cover up the settlement, and how the young woman’s career was destroyed on Capitol Hill in the process are all suggestive of culpability.

    To say you can’t distinguish between defense of one and defense of the other is intellectually dishonest.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  40. Would you rather be Seven of Nine on STTNG or in a class action lawsuit?

    I’d rather be Six of Nine or Eight of Nine

    Kevin M (752a26)

  41. More to the point, not only has he used the power of his office to take advantage of subordinates, but he has also used that power to punish those that resisted. And Congress itself has allowed those who speak up to be blackballed.

    Ryan needs to step up here. At the very least this calls for censure, but the institution itself is in need of reform. House rules should prescribe consequences to members who abuse staff.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  42. Interestingly seven of nine was married to jack Ryan, who mAde some lurid insinuations,
    in her divorce filing, which axelrod used his media contacts to release: because his opponent was (do I need to spell it out) of course the first series i became aware of was the retro x files dark skies where she played a Russian agent.

    narciso (d1f714)


  43. 36.Well, the icon has resigned. So, in the end, wasted breath by San Fran Nan!

    “— Michigan Rep. John Conyers,* under investigation over allegations he sexually harassed female staff members, said Sunday he will step aside as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee while fiercely denying he acted inappropriately during his long tenure in Congress.”

    Conyers did not “resign”, he stepped down from his position maintaining both his seat and his threat to women.

    In true Democrat leftist fashion he will now be repackaged as The Panther of the House thereby taking a page from another Democrat leftist and pervert, Sen. Drown’em Kennedy.

    * Notice no (D) after Conyers.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  44. Well JR did end up across from William “Denny Crane” Shatner so I wonder who had a “hand” in that?

    Thanks for the correction. I’d say Janeway was SoN’s DUFF.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  45. @37

    If they all looked like Janeway there wouldn’t be a Next Generation.

    She had great hair, ok?

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  46. Has there ever been a devout Muslim in space? The sun sets every forty minutes.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  47. Well there was a Saudi prince, who was a payload specialist. On the shuttle

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. Would you rather be Seven of Nine on STTNG or in a class action lawsuit?

    Seven of Nine was on Voyager, not TNG.

    Duh.

    Dave (445e97)

  49. Just what the world needs: more Star Trek nerds.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. Maybe they confused her with denise Crosby who was on for one season

    narciso (d1f714)

  51. @46 Has there ever been a devout Muslim in space? The sun sets every forty minutes.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35) — 11/26/2017 @ 4:50 pm

    There are 10 listed. ‘Malaysia’s space agency, Angkasa, convened a conference of 150 Islamic scientists and scholars in 2006 to address the question, among others, of how to pray towards Mecca in space. A document was produced in early 2007 called A Guideline of Performing Ibadah (worship) at the International Space Station (ISS) and was approved by Malaysia’s National Fatwa Council.’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_astronauts

    If you’re gonna crack wise, PP, crack wise.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  52. Sundown you better take care

    If you’ve been sneaking around my

    Matter/anti-matter containment field

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  53. P&P
    Probably prayer times would be based on the place one left Earth. Or it might be something similar to this.

    http://www.practicalhalacha.com/halacha/3352-when_to_pray__traveler_s_questions__crossing_from_

    There’s a reason this is somewhat of relevance to Christians, which like a good storyteller I will save for the end.

    Glossary: alot hashachar is the very earliest light of dawn, about 72 minutes before sunrise.
    Shacharis is the morning prayers, which can be said anytime from first light to almost the third hour of the morning (there are some technical issues I am ignoring).

    Mincha is the afternoon prayer and may be said starting one half hour after mid-day, and must be said before the end of the day. Maariv is the evening prayer, to be said after nightfall and before mid-night. Again there are technicalities I am ignoring.

    One technical thing not to ignored: an hour is one twelfth of the period between sunrise and sunset–not sixty minutes except on the day of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. It therefore varies from place to place and from day to day. Thus, right now the hour for me in Florida is longer than the hour for Sammy in New York. During the summer that will be reversed. But for both of us the hour now is shorter than it is in summer.

    Mid-day is not noon by the clock but the halfway point between sunrise and sunset, and similarly with mid-night.

    And the reason this is relevant to Christians: mincha can be said earlier, but the preferred time is no earlier than the third hour of the afternoon. And references to the third hour in the Gospels and Acts should be understood with that in mind.

    kishnevi (5a7bdb)

  54. I felt like I should say something nice about Janeway. I think there was some Catholic guilt transference during a transporter mishap.

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  55. I felt like I should say something nice about Janeway.

    Fun fact, Genevieve Bujold was originally cast (and hired) to play the role of Janeway on Voyager.

    After (IIRC) one day of shooting they dumped her because her acting was so stiff and she was unable to knock out scenes at the pace required for a weekly TV series.

    Dave (445e97)

  56. Mrs. Colombo, Mulgrew and Whi can forget remo Williams (Fred ward the action boomlet) ibtersting the previous candidate was Genevieve bujold

    narciso (d1f714)

  57. Ok nerds. Star Date or Moon Date for Non Christian astronauts?

    Pinandpuller (80bd35)

  58. Frankly I was mire partial to an earlier era with Erin gray, from buck Rogers, before jeri Ryan.

    narciso (d1f714)

  59. Conyers and Moore are different cases. Besides, the push by the GOP establishment to ditch anti-establishment pols over minor things has gotten us to this point. The more they try to make us live with useless pieces of cr** like McCain, the closer we come to a civil war within the GOP.

    Politicians are normally dirtbags, especially by the time they get to the top. Come to grips with it. Get rid of McConnell and Ryan first, and then think about the supposed sins of Moore.

    Donaldo (95053d)

  60. I would have watched Voyage with someone else as Janeway. Perhaps Mary McDonnell? She kicked as as President Roslyn.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  61. voyager.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  62. Who knows if they were seriously considering bujold in that era. At the time of that series Mcdonnell had been in Dan is with wolves and sneaker, a prescient little film about hacking, that I can recallm

    narciso (d1f714)

  63. And the reason this is relevant to Christians: mincha can be said earlier, but the preferred time is no earlier than the third hour of the afternoon. And references to the third hour in the Gospels and Acts should be understood with that in mind.

    kishnevi (5a7bdb) — 11/26/2017 @ 5:45 pm

    Very good. Christians like me just need to know what time is 30 minutes before sunset so I don’t give my confession to the TWRA.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  64. Could you imagine Juliette Binoche or Eva Green as Janeway?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  65. I would have watched Voyage with someone else as Janeway. Perhaps Mary McDonnell? She kicked as as President Roslyn.

    Kevin M (752a26) — 11/26/2017 @ 6:34 pm

    There’s a Dunbar street in Nashville and every time I see it I yell,” Dunbar! Soldier Fort!”

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  66. They brought Anita hill out if cold storage, because her fifteen minutes have long since been up, her claims were ludicrous, but this what sophisticated dialigue means in 2017.

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. Cobie Smulders or even Narciso fave Michelle Dockery might work, but yes Erin Gray could get it in the BR to Silver Spoons era.

    urbanleftbehind (fc08fe)

  68. Who knows if they were seriously considering bujold in that era.

    Seriously considering? She was on the set and doing scenes.

    Some uncharitable person posted Bujold’s takes from her one day on the set, spliced together for comparison with Mulgrew’s replacement performance that eventually aired in the Voyager pilot episode.

    It’s interesting, in a cringe-worthy sort of way…

    Engage!

    Dave (445e97)

  69. I think that Nancy was just trying to “save face,” but didn’t do a very good job of it. Her old-style defense may well signify what finally pushes many of the old politicians out: younger people are not as likely to tolerate minimizing it.

    But it also looks like Nancy is being held accountable, for instance here, by the left:

    Nancy Pelosi Botches the #MeToo Moment
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/nancy-pelosi-botches-the-metoo-moment

    Tillman (a95660)

  70. Sorry Mcdonnell, mental hiccup, of course the second season of br was aknost as bad as Galactica 1980, which was in turn the sci-fi version of abba

    narciso (d1f714)

  71. Ok nerds. Star Date or Moon Date for Non Christian astronauts?

    Sidereal time. Noon to noon is a day with reference to the sun (solar day), but the earth has moved 1/365th of the way around the sun during that day. One full turn of the earth with reference to a distant star is about 4 minutes shorter than a 24 hour “solar day.”

    In space, then you care about how far the earth has turned, not how the sun has moved. So set your watches for a 23hr 56 minute day.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  72. the second season of br was aknost as bad as Galactica 1980

    The fourth season makes up for everything. How many shows do they have people taken out and shot?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  73. aknost as bad as Galactica 1980, which was in turn the sci-fi version of abba
    narciso (d1f714) — 11/26/2017 @ 8:03 pm

    Dude ABBA is awesome. Still.

    Pinandpuller (1af504)

  74. In space, then you care about how far the earth has turned, not how the sun has moved. So set your watches for a 23hr 56 minute day.
    Kevin M (752a26) — 11/26/2017 @ 9:34 pm

    I was thinking more about Solar vs Lunar calendars. But that is interesting. I guess that’s what you’re saying, only the Earth’s rotation matters.

    There’s something I never understood about so-called spin gravity. Wouldn’t the spin make it impossible for people to stand perpendicular to the “floor”? I’m just basing this off stuff like Bio of a Space Tyrant by Piers Anthony. Have you ever read those books?

    Pinandpuller (1af504)

  75. There’s something I never understood about so-called spin gravity. Wouldn’t the spin make it impossible for people to stand perpendicular to the “floor”?

    Not sure if serious. The Earth spins, and we have no problem (usually) standing on it.

    Dave (445e97)

  76. 53. kishnevi (5a7bdb) — 11/26/2017 @ 5:45 pm

    One technical thing not to ignored: an hour is one twelfth of the period between sunrise and sunset–not sixty minutes except on the day of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. It therefore varies from place to place and from day to day. Thus, right now the hour for me in Florida is longer than the hour for Sammy in New York. During the summer that will be reversed. But for both of us the hour now is shorter than it is in summer.

    For most purposes in which “hours” are used. They are really fractions of the day.

    But for purposes of calculating the length of a lunar month, and the calendar, actual hours and chalokim (parts) are used. (An hour is divided into 60 x 18 = 1080 parts. Typically this is expressed as so and so many minutes and so and so many chalokim but in older sources I think it may be just chalokim)

    A chelek can also be divided into 76 “moments” (in English) – a bit more than 1/23 of a second. I don’t know but this might be the smallest perceptible period of time. But I don’t know where this came from.

    This division comes from Babylonia.

    Sammy Finkelman (c31643)

  77. Just to clear up all the misinformation.

    One second is the amount of time that elapses during PRECISELY 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation emitted by the hyperfine transition in the ground state of the Cesium-133 atom at a temperature of absolute zero.

    Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a flat-earther or a religious fanatic. Or both.

    /sarc

    Dave (445e97)

  78. Dave @79. Only since 1967. And I think they made the second a little bit too short, (for he current period of the earth’s rotation) because they had to add too many leap seconds.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  79. @pinandpuller, Dave:There’s something I never understood about so-called spin gravity. Wouldn’t the spin make it impossible for people to stand perpendicular to the “floor”? I’m just basing this off stuff like Bio of a Space Tyrant by Piers Anthony. Have you ever read those books?

    The bigger the radius of the station the less difficult for people to stand perpendicularly. Throwing a ball though will still be weird.

    The Earth spins, and we have no problem (usually) standing on it.

    The Earth spins very very slowly. A structure simulating gravity with spin must spin very, very quickly to get Earthlike gravity.

    Imagine a habitable hollow sphere, the same size as the Earth. No gravity inside there (ht Newton) so if you want to be pulled toward the floor, you need to spin it. You want a a comfortable 9.8 m/s^2, so you would need 17 rotations per 24 hrs*, while the Earth of course only makes 1 in that time.

    And that’s a really huge structure, something the size that humans could actually build now would need much higher rotation than that.

    *sqrt(9.8 m/s^2 / 6,350,000 m)/ (2 pi rad / rev) * 3600 s / hr * 24 hr / day = 17.1 rev / day

    Frederick (0997b5)

  80. I doubt an artificial gravity station would have 1 g gravity, anymore than spacecraft (or even airliners) have 1 atm air pressure. Certainly not in one of the first implementations.

    Generally there are advantages in weighing less, and lunar gravity (~g/6) would be plenty to walk around and keep things from flying around.

    The station would likely be a cylinder or annulus, not a sphere. Supposing it was 1 km radius, and using round numbers (g = 10 m/s^2, g_station = g/6)

    omega = sqrt(~1/600) ~ 1/25 rad/s ~ 0.4 rpm. Not that bad, although looking out the window at a distant object like the earth would probably give you motion sickness.

    The tangential speed of the outer rim would be 40 m/s, which is nothing.

    If it’s 100 m radius (~size of the ISS) instead of 1 km, it has to spin ~3 times faster, etc.

    Of course one can imagine countless engineering complications.

    Dave (445e97)

  81. It’s still a Rube Goldberg way of doing it. A more elegant way would be sub-floors composed of captive quantum black holes in force fields, utilizing the same technology we have for faster than light space torpedoes in which the quantum black holes provide both the propulsive force and warhead.

    nk (dbc370)

  82. @Dave: Supposing it was 1 km radius, the tangential speed of the outer rim would be 40 m/s, which is nothing.

    Not anything you’d notice if you stood up too fast, but if you threw a ball there would be a lot of complications. 40 m/s is about 60 mi/hr, which I wouldn’t say was “nothing”, it’s enough speed that things which get out of place are going to present safety hazards.

    The point of my comment though was to respond to your “the Earth spins, and we have no problem (usually) standing on it.”. No, we wouldn’t because the Earth spins far too slowly for us to notice any effects due to spin. In a space station, even like the one you describe, there would definitely be a learning curve, not necessarily standing but other kinds of motion we take for granted.

    Frederick (0997b5)

  83. Why haven’t they built a pinwheel station, instead if this jalopy the list and mir

    narciso (d1f714)

  84. Not anything you’d notice if you stood up too fast, but if you threw a ball there would be a lot of complications. 40 m/s is about 60 mi/hr, which I wouldn’t say was “nothing”, it’s enough speed that things which get out of place are going to present safety hazards.

    I meant “nothing” compared to relative velocities routinely achieved by objects in orbit.

    Not sure what you mean by “a lot of complications”. The behavior of objects in a rotating frame of reference is completely described by the fictitious centrifugal and coriolis “forces” (also the Euler “force”, if the rate of rotation is changing). The centrifugal “force” is what creates the illusion of gravity.

    The coriolis “force” would appear to create an upward or downward acceleration on objects thrown tangentially (depending on whether they are thrown in or opposite the direction of rotation), and a forward or backward (with respect to the direction of rotation) acceleration on objects thrown radially in or out.

    However, very importantly, the Coriolis “force” can do no work in the rotating system, because it always acts normal to the velocity of the moving object. Therefore, it cannot increase the kinetic energy of any projectile, as viewed by an observer inside the station, and thus can’t make the projectile “more dangerous” (obviously it *can* make the motion less predictable since trajectories deviate from what we expect in non-rotating systems – firing a gun inside a rotating space station would be a bad idea for multiple reasons…).

    The point of my comment though was to respond to your “the Earth spins, and we have no problem (usually) standing on it.”. No, we wouldn’t because the Earth spins far too slowly for us to notice any effects due to spin. In a space station, even like the one you describe, there would definitely be a learning curve, not necessarily standing but other kinds of motion we take for granted.

    Well, the (linear) speed of rotation at the surface of the earth is of course far greater than in the space station of my example.

    You are right that some adaptation to the coriolis forces would be required. Actually people have done experiments on this. Early studies suggested that 3-4 rpm was the maximum rotational speed that nearly everyone could adapt to fairly easily. This paper says that the early studies were overly pessimistic. But as I showed, only a fraction of an rpm (or perhaps ~1 rpm on an ISS-sized structure) is necessary to make artificial gravity of lunar strength. Since coriolis “forces” are proportional to the speed of the object in question, and our limbs don’t really move very fast, the effects are necessarily pretty small.

    Dave (445e97)

  85. Oops, forgot to link the paper.

    Dave (445e97)

  86. Dave

    I’m talking about in a hollow sphere or cylinder a la 2001.

    Pinandpuller (b122d5)

  87. You guys might be interested in John Ringo’s Troy Rising series.

    Pinandpuller (b122d5)

  88. I’m talking about in a hollow sphere or cylinder a la 2001.

    So am I.

    Dave (b1127f)

  89. I didn’t take physics or the advanced maths so I am ignorant of many things. Are you saying if I’m in the center of a hollow sphere of a certain size in deep space and a spin is put on it I will be drawn to the hull?

    Pinandpuller (b122d5)

  90. I can understand being flung off a sphere in the absence of gravity but being flung from the center to the hull sounds like some Pellucidar nonsense. But like I said I have a strong blind spot.

    Pinandpuller (b122d5)

  91. I got geometry ok. I was building a wood wood-box for my wood stove the other day. I got a great bevel but I put it on the wrong part so there wasn’t enough wood for the hinge screws to bite. But that’s fine. As long as I keep my fingers out of the way of spinning blades. I have a do over.

    Pinandpuller (b122d5)

  92. I didn’t take physics or the advanced maths

    Shame on you!

    so I am ignorant of many things. Are you saying if I’m in the center of a hollow sphere of a certain size in deep space and a spin is put on it I will be drawn to the hull?

    No, it doesn’t work quite like that. Also, let’s use a cylinder instead of a sphere.

    First, at the center of rotation, there is no “artificial gravity”. It goes from zero at the center, to a maximum value at the hull. We have been discussing the maximum value, assuming people are standing on the hull.

    Second, the origin of the “artificial gravity” is the fact that you are moving in a circle about the center of the cylinder. A better way to think of it is: suppose you start on the inside wall of the hull, and the station slowly starts to spin while you hold onto a railing or hand-hold. You will then be orbiting the center of the center of the station at the rate of rotation as the station itself.

    Once the station reaches a steady rotation rate, you will be able to stand up and walk on the inner side of the hull, feeling just like there is gravity pulling you to the “floor”. Apart from a few other weird and usually small effects (the coriolis force I mentioned), everything around you will behave as if there were gravity pulling toward the hull. If you drop something, it will accelerate downward and fall to the floor. If you jump up (a modest distance), you will land just like in gravity (remember one difference is that the “artificial gravity” gets weaker as you move in from the hull.

    It is not gravity, but a result of Newton’s First Law. Your body (and every other massive object) wants to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity. If the hull of the station suddenly disintegrated, you would fly off in a straight line tangent to the direction of you happened to be going at that moment (think of what happens if you spin an object on a string in a circle above your head, and string suddenly breaks). But as long as the hull of the station is there, it doesn’t let you fly off in a straight line – it pushes back on you, in a direction toward the center of rotation. This is what creates the sensation of gravity.

    Objects inside the rotating station actually *do* move in perfectly straight lines (until they hit the wall of the station), as seen by someone *outside* who isn’t rotating with it. But to you, inside and spinning with the station, the paths appear to curve in exactly the way the path of an object traveling through gravity curves downward to the earth.

    This (fictitious forces) is one of the more difficult concepts in classical mechanics, so I apologize if I’ve not explained it clearly enough (feel free to ask questions if you like).

    Dave (b1127f)

  93. What about tidal forces? Let’s say you’re 5’8″. If your feet are circling at 60 mph, how fast is your head moving?

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3557 secs.