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.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Newt strikes Iowa gold
www.examiner.com
quote:
That's not the angle of attack that could sink Newt. It is the opposite angle, that he's dangerous. But dangerous to who?
quote:
That’s right, the novel idea that conservative constitutionalists and Tea Party base members embrace the notion of returning federal courts to their constitutional limit of interpreting the constitution and not making new federal law is in Newt Gingrich’s powerhouse.Comment:
That's not the angle of attack that could sink Newt. It is the opposite angle, that he's dangerous. But dangerous to who?
Newt Gingrich: “Utterly irrational” to Block the Keystone Pipeline (12-15-11) Fox News Debate
h/t Free Republic
The pipeline "cave" wouldn't have happened if the Republicans hadn't stepped in and put this into the bill. There are some who think Obama won't dare to kill the pipeline now. There are more hardhat workers than environmentalists even if the wackos may have more money.
Update:
Flashback: The environmental review by the State Dept has been completed for months. The real reason Obama delayed the decision was because of environmentalist objections and threats.
quote:
The pipeline "cave" wouldn't have happened if the Republicans hadn't stepped in and put this into the bill. There are some who think Obama won't dare to kill the pipeline now. There are more hardhat workers than environmentalists even if the wackos may have more money.
Update:
Flashback: The environmental review by the State Dept has been completed for months. The real reason Obama delayed the decision was because of environmentalist objections and threats.
quote:
"[T]he American people are still waiting on the president for action ... nearly three years of delay have left a cloud of uncertainty around a project that will bring so many immediate jobs and so much secure energy to our country," Upton said in a statement.[ emphasis mine]
Driving: Will nanny state take it away?
Frank J. Fleming - NYPOST.com h/t Behind the Black
quotes:
Governments are risk averse. The less influence the government has, the less influence this phenomenon will have. We already pay a lot for a big, overpowering, nanny state government. But we really aren't safe, that's the whole point.
Update:
The argument given by Bill Whittle below is faultless. But, it may be too much like the argument between the wolf and the lamb in Aesop's Fables.
quotes:
Face it: We’re just not those people anymore. We don’t do dangerous things where lots of people could be hurt . . . even if they’re really cool and fun ideas. You can say we value human life more now, but it’s probably more apt to say we’re much sissier.
We’ll be a much safer people, at least until another country decides to steal our lunch money.Comment:
Governments are risk averse. The less influence the government has, the less influence this phenomenon will have. We already pay a lot for a big, overpowering, nanny state government. But we really aren't safe, that's the whole point.
Update:
The argument given by Bill Whittle below is faultless. But, it may be too much like the argument between the wolf and the lamb in Aesop's Fables.
A Very Beatable President
The Weekly Standard Jay Cost
quote:
As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit says, "don't get cocky".
quote:
Add all this up, and we’re left with this conclusion: If things continue on the same trajectory as they have over the last three years, the president will face a near insuperable challenge for reelection. Provided that the GOP nominates a reasonably attractive candidate, it will truly be one for the history books if Obama can be reelected with a terribly weak economy, a massively unpopular health care bill, an obscenely large deficit, and no compelling case for a second term.Comment:
As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit says, "don't get cocky".
Friday, December 16, 2011
Bachmann spreading rumors of Gingrich Tea Party payoffs in South Carolina
legalinsurrection.com
quote:
Yep, and I am beginning to take note. Look at this glowing introduction of Newt Gingrich by Bachmann in 2008.
quote:
I have been warning you about Bachmann for months. Spreading rumors of payoffs directed at the Tea Party is just the latest confirmation.Comment:
Yep, and I am beginning to take note. Look at this glowing introduction of Newt Gingrich by Bachmann in 2008.
Gingrich is not a conservative?
Uploaded by blogspotKitmanTV on Oct 23, 2011
You can see from this video that Democrats would absolutely FEAR a Gingrich presidency. You will see the most super negative campaign in history if Gingrich wins the nomination.
You can see from this video that Democrats would absolutely FEAR a Gingrich presidency. You will see the most super negative campaign in history if Gingrich wins the nomination.
The Keystone Ultimatum
wsj online
quote:
Looks like Obama has stepped in it again. But that's only 8 Senators. They will need several more to pass it.
quote:
The Keystone codicil is now being negotiated in the Senate, where at least eight Democrats have said publicly they hope the project goes forward: Jon Tester and Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Lousiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.comment:
Looks like Obama has stepped in it again. But that's only 8 Senators. They will need several more to pass it.
Watch The Super Tense Moment When Jon Corzine Was Served Papers During His Hearing Recess
www.businessinsider.com
Corzine is shown trying to avoid being served, so I wondered if that actually helps him in any way. The answer is not likely. If the process server can show that reasonable effort has been made, he can be served by newspaper, for instance. The law probably won't allow him to avoid being served, but that varies from state to state.
Corzine is shown trying to avoid being served, so I wondered if that actually helps him in any way. The answer is not likely. If the process server can show that reasonable effort has been made, he can be served by newspaper, for instance. The law probably won't allow him to avoid being served, but that varies from state to state.
IBT: Cold Fusion: The Impact of Rossi’s E-Cat to the World
By ranina sanglap | December 15, 2011 10:55 AM EST
quote:
That's what it all about, baby.
Update:
More here.
quote:
Ultra cheap energy would be a boon to the flagging world economy. Manufacturers will be able to provide cheaper goods. Households will have a cheaper utility bill which means extra cash to buy products on the market. Energy intensive industries will become more financially feasible.Comment:
That's what it all about, baby.
Update:
More here.
Last night's Sioux City debate
Fox news stream sucked, so I couldn't watch it all. So I went to other pages that were liveblogging it. But they weren't serious. To get a serious assessment of it this morning, I went to Barone. I respect Barone's opinion, but I don't like Romney. As a matter of fact, if he gets the nomination, I may seriously consider not voting in this election. Because it won't make any difference.
Barone is negative on Paul, but I may give him serious consideration. I wince at his foreign policy statements, but I think he would be good if anybody is interested in doing more than just paying lip service to small, limited government.
Gingrich would not be as cold turkey as Paul, but I think that he would at least slow down the rate of growth of government. That may be as about as good as we can do, from a realistic standpoint.
Perry is interesting, but he is too cowboy. Also, he will remind people of Bush, which is a big handicap for him. He is reliably small government conservative type, but it won't mean anything if he gets the country involved in military adventures.
I don't like Bachmann at all. She seems more interested in attacking other candidates than attacking Obama. This may not be fair, but that's the impression she is leaving me with.
Huntsman and Santorum may not last long enough to get a good enough look, unfortunately.
The clock is running down pretty fast now. If I had to choose today, it would be between Paul and Gingrich. Not necessarily in that order. Perry may have a chance if he tones down the cowboy act.
Update:
The more I read about the debate, the worse Paul looks. We can't use diplomacy on Iran, it won't work. I agree we need to stay out of wars, but diplomacy alone won't do the job. It didn't work with Japan in 1941.
Gingrich doesn't look as good either. That leaves me with a problem. I think that Gingrich should just stop defending his work on the GSE's and agree to give the money back to the Treasury. The only way to stop this kind of criticism is to stop fighting it.
Barone is negative on Paul, but I may give him serious consideration. I wince at his foreign policy statements, but I think he would be good if anybody is interested in doing more than just paying lip service to small, limited government.
Gingrich would not be as cold turkey as Paul, but I think that he would at least slow down the rate of growth of government. That may be as about as good as we can do, from a realistic standpoint.
Perry is interesting, but he is too cowboy. Also, he will remind people of Bush, which is a big handicap for him. He is reliably small government conservative type, but it won't mean anything if he gets the country involved in military adventures.
I don't like Bachmann at all. She seems more interested in attacking other candidates than attacking Obama. This may not be fair, but that's the impression she is leaving me with.
Huntsman and Santorum may not last long enough to get a good enough look, unfortunately.
The clock is running down pretty fast now. If I had to choose today, it would be between Paul and Gingrich. Not necessarily in that order. Perry may have a chance if he tones down the cowboy act.
Update:
The more I read about the debate, the worse Paul looks. We can't use diplomacy on Iran, it won't work. I agree we need to stay out of wars, but diplomacy alone won't do the job. It didn't work with Japan in 1941.
Gingrich doesn't look as good either. That leaves me with a problem. I think that Gingrich should just stop defending his work on the GSE's and agree to give the money back to the Treasury. The only way to stop this kind of criticism is to stop fighting it.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Subscribed videos 12/15/2011
STRATOLAUNCH IS THE FUTURE OF SPACEFLIGHT!!!!!!
Uploaded by OTmikhail on Dec 14, 2011
$2 = 2 WATT LED 12v led bulb 26 smd
Uploaded by GREENPOWERSCIENCE on Dec 14, 2011
Banana Sweepstakes Week 7 - Win a Supersize B-17 Flying Fortress Bomber
Uploaded by bananahobby on Dec 13, 2011
Christmas Vampire Tag
Uploaded by wolfbracker on Dec 13, 2011
Uploaded by OTmikhail on Dec 14, 2011
$2 = 2 WATT LED 12v led bulb 26 smd
Uploaded by GREENPOWERSCIENCE on Dec 14, 2011
Banana Sweepstakes Week 7 - Win a Supersize B-17 Flying Fortress Bomber
Uploaded by bananahobby on Dec 13, 2011
Christmas Vampire Tag
Uploaded by wolfbracker on Dec 13, 2011
Live blog of tonight’s presidential debate in Sioux City, Iowa
Live blog of tonight’s presidential debate in Sioux City, Iowa
That's not the right link? Maybe this one is.
or this
That's not the right link? Maybe this one is.
or this
Romney bets on old rules as Newt moves under radar
Michael Barone, Washington Examiner
quotes:
Maybe more than old rules v. new rules going on here. Maybe there's a schism developing in the ranks that threatens to grow into a chasm. Any victory may become a Pyrrhic one, so a bit of caution is warranted.
quotes:
- Under the old rules, then, Romney seems to have constructed an impregnable fire wall in New Hampshire, able to withstand the surge -- McBride calls it a "bubble" -- for Newt Gingrich that has been sweeping much of the country.
- Mitt Romney is betting, and betting more than the $10,000 he offered to bet in last Saturday's debate, that Rath is right -- and that the old rules still apply.
Maybe more than old rules v. new rules going on here. Maybe there's a schism developing in the ranks that threatens to grow into a chasm. Any victory may become a Pyrrhic one, so a bit of caution is warranted.
MITT V. NEWT: THE HEAD V. THE HEART!
DICK MORRIS TV: LUNCH ALERT!
Comment: An interesting take, but I don't necessarily agree with all of Morris' analysis. He makes some good points, though, so it's worth watching.
Comment: An interesting take, but I don't necessarily agree with all of Morris' analysis. He makes some good points, though, so it's worth watching.
Why Newt's Lunar Base Is a Good Idea
Ray Villard, Discovery News via RealClearScience
quote:
Comment:
Gingrich's name is misspelled, but that's ok! I like moon base idea, of course. I've been writing about it for months.
quote:
This is where Gingerich’s moon mining moon base comes in. Humans would be needed to go to the moon to operate a large drilling rig to burrow thorough lava layers and take core samples with the telltale isotopic record from the sun's travels.
Perhaps only through the potential big bucks of commercial lunar mining could geologic science have an opportunity to hitchhike back to the moon's surface. The geological exploration would hit an unintended pay dirt far more valuable than helium 3 -- a history book of our sun's galactic odyssey.
Comment:
Gingrich's name is misspelled, but that's ok! I like moon base idea, of course. I've been writing about it for months.
The Media Elite And The GOP Ruling Class Turn Their Focus To Gingrich
Investors.com, L. Brent Bozell
quote:
The link to ruling class should be read in its entirety in order to appreciate the point Bozell is making. It may be useful here for me to go back and re read the piece and extract from it key points:
The ruling class doesn't like Gingrich. Does that make Gingrich a part of the country class as defined above?
You may be able to tell who's who because of number 4 in the list above: identity trumps all.
quote:
It brings us back to Angelo Codevilla's piece last summer in the American Spectator titled "America's Ruling Class." What Codevilla called the "country class" — the party of freedom, as opposed to the "ruling class," which resents the country's input — has rarely captured the GOP flag.[ note: link added]Comment:
The link to ruling class should be read in its entirety in order to appreciate the point Bozell is making. It may be useful here for me to go back and re read the piece and extract from it key points:
- Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits.
- But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.
- Americans' conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified.
- Wealth? ...But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers ... their careers and fortunes depend on government ...For our ruling class, identity always trumps.
- But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.
- ...Progressives began to look down on the masses, to look on themselves as the vanguard, and to look abroad for examples to emulate.
- Franklin Roosevelt brought the Chautauqua class into his administration and began the process that turned them into rulers.
- By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty.
- Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don't have to.
- Similarly, by taxing the use of carbon fuels and subsidizing "alternative energy," our ruling class created arguably the world's biggest opportunity for making money out of things that few if any would buy absent its intervention. [ Comment: I called this "rent seeking".]
- Any "green jobs" thus created are by definition creatures of subsidies -- that is, of privilege. What effect creating such privileges may have on "global warming" is debatable. But it surely increases the number of people dependent on the ruling class
- The citizen might end up dissatisfied with what "the system" offers. But when he gave up his money, he gave up the power to choose, and became dependent on all the boards and commissions that his money also pays for and that raise the cost of care. [ Comment: Obamacare]
- That is why today's Congress consists more and more of persons who represent their respective party establishments -- not nearly as much as in Britain, but heading in that direction. Once districts are gerrymandered "safe" for one party or another, the voters therein count less because party leaders can count more on elected legislators to toe the party line.
- The government empowers the persons it has chosen over those not chosen, deems them the sector's true representatives, and rewards them. They become part of the ruling class.
- The union's leadership is part of the ruling class's beating heart. [ Comment: Wisconsin!]
- By the 1990s federal courts were invalidating amendments to state constitutions passed by referenda to secure the "positive rights" they invent, because these expressions of popular will were inconsistent with the constitution they themselves were construing.
- Since unmarried mothers often are or expect to be clients of government services, it is not surprising that they are among the Democratic Party's most faithful voters.
- This dismissal of the American people's intellectual, spiritual, and moral substance is the very heart of what our ruling class is about. [ Comment: Yes,and if you disagree with them, why, you are just an ignorant redneck.]
- The fact that the "hockey stick" conclusion stands discredited and Mann and associates are on record manipulating peer review
- All the dummies and blockheads are with him..." This is all about a class of Americans distinguishing itself from its inferiors.
- Describing America's country class is problematic because it is so heterogeneous. ...it is different because of its non-orientation to government and its members' yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others
- the country class's characteristic cultural venture -- the homeschool movement -- stresses the classics across the board in science, literature, music, and history even as the ruling class abandons them.
- "The sum of good government," said Thomas Jefferson, is not taking "from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."
- America's pro-family movement is a reaction to the ruling class's challenges
- ...many among the vast majority of Americans who believe and pray that today's regime is hostile to the most important things of all. Every December, they are reminded that the ruling class deems the very word "Christmas" to be offensive.
- The few who tried to make it so the party treated as rebels: Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. [ Comment: Newt Gingrich???]
- The ruling class denies its opponents' legitimacy. [ Comment: Ironic that Obama is illegitimate according to the rule of law.]
The ruling class doesn't like Gingrich. Does that make Gingrich a part of the country class as defined above?
You may be able to tell who's who because of number 4 in the list above: identity trumps all.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
David Cameron's Finest Hour
www.realclearpolitics.com Pat Buchanan
quote:
Comment:
Looks like a marriage made in hell. Europe's union is cracking, but in order to repair it, everyone must give up something. The price for that repair was too high for the Brits, but what about the rest?
quote:
Given the hostile attitude of Greeks, Italians and many others to years of austerity to pay back debts, given the growing reluctance of the European Central Bank, Germany and Northern Europe to bailing out deadbeats, given the lack of resources available, are not defaults in the eurozone almost inevitable?
Comment:
Looks like a marriage made in hell. Europe's union is cracking, but in order to repair it, everyone must give up something. The price for that repair was too high for the Brits, but what about the rest?
Video: Paul Allen Unveils New Commercial Space Program
Verum Serum
I like this concept. It can fly to its release point, and then fly back. The first stage could be positioned in a perfect location for return to launch site. Most likely, that could be Edwards AFB. It may look otherwise, since their base is actually in New Mexico.
But I think of it this way: if you are going to recover the first stage, what better way to do it than to fly out into the Pacific thereby setting up a trajectory that requires the least amount of maneuvering. Thus, it will use the least amount of fuel and could well be the least risky method of recovering the first stage.
You could even take off from Edwards mostly empty and fuel the rocket with airborne refueling technique. I say mostly empty because refueling with LOX while in the air may be a little too complicated.
Maybe they won't do it the way I've speculated, but it would seem to be the most logical path to me.
Update:
Stratolaunch Systems Press Conference 13.12.11
I like this concept. It can fly to its release point, and then fly back. The first stage could be positioned in a perfect location for return to launch site. Most likely, that could be Edwards AFB. It may look otherwise, since their base is actually in New Mexico.
But I think of it this way: if you are going to recover the first stage, what better way to do it than to fly out into the Pacific thereby setting up a trajectory that requires the least amount of maneuvering. Thus, it will use the least amount of fuel and could well be the least risky method of recovering the first stage.
You could even take off from Edwards mostly empty and fuel the rocket with airborne refueling technique. I say mostly empty because refueling with LOX while in the air may be a little too complicated.
Maybe they won't do it the way I've speculated, but it would seem to be the most logical path to me.
Update:
Stratolaunch Systems Press Conference 13.12.11
Subscribed videos 12/14/11
Slow news day today, or so I went to my youtube channel and looked up some videos. I'll post these and then get back to the news and see if anything popped up today.
LED HIGH POWERED 21 watt indoor lighting Light Emitting Diode vs Compact Fluorescent
Green Power Science
Christmas Carol CAPTION FAIL
Hitler vs Vader 2. Epic Rap Battles of History Season 2
LED HIGH POWERED 21 watt indoor lighting Light Emitting Diode vs Compact Fluorescent
Green Power Science
Christmas Carol CAPTION FAIL
Hitler vs Vader 2. Epic Rap Battles of History Season 2
Coulter: Romney The "Most Conservative" Candidate In GOP Field
realclearpolitics.com
She said she would support Gingrich or whoever the nominee is. She even joked that she would support Dahmer over Obama. Too bad that is not the attitude of all conservatives. You have to think that any of the candidates are better than four more years of this.
She said she would support Gingrich or whoever the nominee is. She even joked that she would support Dahmer over Obama. Too bad that is not the attitude of all conservatives. You have to think that any of the candidates are better than four more years of this.
Taking their anti-Newt ball and going home for the general election
William A. Jacobson
quote:
Comment:
If the professor is right, how the heck can the Republicans win? Only by nominating Romney? I smell more manipulation.
quote:
There has been plenty of griping and talk by Tea Partiers that if Romney is the nominee, they’re staying home in November.
I don’t believe it for a second. When push comes to shove, they will not choose four more years of Obama.
But I do believe that many conservatives and libertarians who hate Newt Gingrich will stay home, because their feelings are expressed in intensely personal, not just political, ways.
Comment:
If the professor is right, how the heck can the Republicans win? Only by nominating Romney? I smell more manipulation.
Walter Williams: Economic Fairness
Townhall
quote:
Wow. I'm starting to notice something about Obama. He keeps blaming others for what he does himself. This is called projection. How? Let's look at the quote carefully and analyze, shall we? He accuses the free market of "taking", but is that what free markets are all about? No, it is not. Free markets are about free exchange, not confiscation. There is a free exchange of value for value. Now look at what governments do. They definitely take at the point of a gun. There is no exchange, and there is no freedom. Governments are about compulsion, not freedom. You must do what the government says, you have no choice in the matter. A business doesn't make you buy their stuff. You have a choice.
This projection phenomenon seems to happen repeatedly with Obama. The recent business about the XL pipeline and the payroll tax holiday extension is another case in point. The president accused the Republicans of politicizing the extension, but isn't that what Obama did by bringing it up in the first place? Class warfare anyone? Millionaire surtax to pay for middle class tax cut? If he wants to play politics, fine. But he's doing more than that. He's putting a halo on his own head and then doing what he's blaming the Republicans for doing. If that ain't projection, there isn't any such thing.
quote:
Explaining his new hero, Teddy Roosevelt, Obama said: "But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can.Comment:
Wow. I'm starting to notice something about Obama. He keeps blaming others for what he does himself. This is called projection. How? Let's look at the quote carefully and analyze, shall we? He accuses the free market of "taking", but is that what free markets are all about? No, it is not. Free markets are about free exchange, not confiscation. There is a free exchange of value for value. Now look at what governments do. They definitely take at the point of a gun. There is no exchange, and there is no freedom. Governments are about compulsion, not freedom. You must do what the government says, you have no choice in the matter. A business doesn't make you buy their stuff. You have a choice.
This projection phenomenon seems to happen repeatedly with Obama. The recent business about the XL pipeline and the payroll tax holiday extension is another case in point. The president accused the Republicans of politicizing the extension, but isn't that what Obama did by bringing it up in the first place? Class warfare anyone? Millionaire surtax to pay for middle class tax cut? If he wants to play politics, fine. But he's doing more than that. He's putting a halo on his own head and then doing what he's blaming the Republicans for doing. If that ain't projection, there isn't any such thing.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Obama and the Failure of Capitalism
Robert Ringer
Oops! The presidential pretender went and did it again. A lot of red ink has passed over the socialist dam since he unthinkingly told Joe the Plumber that he wants to “spread the wealth around.”
Or since he told Charlie Gibson that “It’s a matter of fairness” when Gibson repeatedly asked him to explain why he would want to raise the capital-gains tax when the historical evidence proves that higher capital-gains taxes actually decrease government revenues.
Of course, there have been endless not-so-subtle clues as to Obama’s impeccable collectivist credentials since then, but, on the whole, he tends to choose his words carefully so as not to awaken the sleeping frogs. One must always be mindful not to let the water get too hot.
But last week Obama let it all hang out in a speech at a Kansas high school when he said, “[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, ‘Let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. The market will take care of everything,’ they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.”
Moving in for the kill, he went on to say, “And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. … I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory. We simply cannot return to this brand of you’re-on-your-own economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.”
That’s right, folks, capitalism had nothing to do with the United States becoming the most prosperous country in the history of the world. It had nothing to do with millions of ambitious people starting with nothing and becoming millionaires and even billionaires. And it has nothing to do with the fact that “poor people” (as defined by the Census Bureau) in the U.S. live better than middle-class people in most other countries.
When Obama says that cutting taxes and regulations doesn’t work, who in the world is he talking about? Everything works. The question is, for whom does it work, and how well? Collectivism works exceedingly well for politicians whose chief objective is to stay in office, but it destroys the lives of millions of people on the dole who might otherwise become productive citizens.
True to his favorite tactic of turning the facts upside down, when Obama says “it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory,” it sounds as though he’s referring to communism rather than capitalism. Communism has been tried throughout the world — from Cuba to Russia, from North Korea to China — and it’s worked wonderful for guys with names like Castro, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Mao. But for the masses it has consistently delivered poverty, loss of freedom, and death.
Capitalism, on the other hand, has worked for the masses — whenever and wherever it has been tried. Even in its impure state (i.e., not laissez faire) it has delivered spectacular wealth and a high standard of living to all those who are willing to work.
“You’re on your own economics” is a cute catchphrase — the kind of dismissive ridicule the left loves to employ — but the truth is that being “on your own” is a good thing. When the government leaves people alone, it makes it easier for them to innovate and create wealth. And when wealth is created, it accrues to everyone’s benefit, whether it is reinvested, spent on goods and services, or saved (which adds to capital formation and, in turn, spurs economic growth and job creation).
But what about those who are truly unable to care for themselves; e.g., quadriplegics, the blind, and the mentally ill? What would happen to them in a truly free society? Fortunately, the Western way of life is based on a code of ethics and morality that motivates Americans, in particular, to be remarkably charitable.
No civilized person wants to see those who are seriously health challenged or mentally challenged suffer, so the question is not whether or not such people should be helped. The question is, who is best equipped to help them — politicians, whose chief aim is to perpetuate their own power, or free individuals, who have a genuine desire to be charitable to those who are incapable of fending for themselves?
If the scam of politicians taking from those who produce and giving the stolen loot to those whom they deem to be “in need” worked, the poverty rate would not be about the same today (14.3 percent) as it was when the Great Society was launched back in 1965. What Lyndon Johnson’s “generosity” proved is that it doesn’t matter how much of other people’s money you give away, it does nothing to lift people up. The hard evidence shows that it is government’s redistribution-of-wealth policies that have not worked.
The far left has succeeded in perpetuating a cult of dependency that keeps career criminals like Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid in power. And, unfortunately, those who claim to be in favor of capitalism — primarily Republican career politicians — have consistently gone along with welfare programs that have bankrupted the country and stripped millions of people of the motivation to tap into their true potential and better their lives.
If one assumes that a community organizing ne’er-do-well like Barack Obama — who has never built anything in his life — sincerely wants to help the middle class, he would have to simultaneously believe that he’s an ignoramus.
How does increasing America’s debt by $4 billion a day help the poor?
How do more than 40,000 pages of tax regulations — regulations that take time and money away from job creators — help the poor?
How does an $800 billion “stimulus bill” — which turned out to be nothing more than a wish list of political pork — help the poor?
How do regulations that prevent oil drilling and coal mining — activities that could create a massive number of jobs and reduce our dependency on foreign oil — help the poor?
How does destroying the housing market through government-created failures like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac help the poor?
Yes, we do need to be on our own. More regulation is the last thing in the world we need. The greatest regulator is, and always has been, the marketplace. Those of us who have engaged in entrepreneurship know that the marketplace is a brutal, unforgiving regulator. But how in the world can you expect a community organizer to know that when he’s never started or operated a business? You have to experience the brutality of the marketplace, firsthand, in order to appreciate just how well it works.
Maybe Obama and his supposedly sincere leftist pals should study Galveston, Texas and try to understand why opting out of the Social Security system has worked so well for its citizens. Or why job-creating companies are stampeding out of anti-business, high-tax states like New York and California and escaping to business-friendly states such as Nevada, Florida, and Texas that have no state income taxes.
The truth is that, throughout history, the vile left has never been interested in lifting people up. Instead of focusing on income inequality, their focus should be on setting people free — to be on their own! — to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
Sorry, Barack, but your socialist and communist mentors — from papa Obama to Frank Marshall Davis, from Saul Alinsky to Jeremiah Wright — had it all wrong. It is collectivism, in all its ugly incarnations, that doesn’t work. So-called trickle-down economics, on the other hand, does work — and always will. It’s built into the system.
Barack Obama would do well to listen to a once starry-eyed collectivist named Bill Clinton, who recently said, in an interview with Newsmax’s Chris Ruddy, “We don’t have a lot of resentment against people who are successful. We kind of like it, Americans do. It’s one of our best characteristics. If we think someone earned their money, we do not resent their success. That’s why there’s been very little class conflict in American history.”
We’re less than a year away from finding out who is right in his assessment of the average American — Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2011 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
Oops! The presidential pretender went and did it again. A lot of red ink has passed over the socialist dam since he unthinkingly told Joe the Plumber that he wants to “spread the wealth around.”
Or since he told Charlie Gibson that “It’s a matter of fairness” when Gibson repeatedly asked him to explain why he would want to raise the capital-gains tax when the historical evidence proves that higher capital-gains taxes actually decrease government revenues.
Of course, there have been endless not-so-subtle clues as to Obama’s impeccable collectivist credentials since then, but, on the whole, he tends to choose his words carefully so as not to awaken the sleeping frogs. One must always be mindful not to let the water get too hot.
But last week Obama let it all hang out in a speech at a Kansas high school when he said, “[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, ‘Let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. The market will take care of everything,’ they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.”
Moving in for the kill, he went on to say, “And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. … I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory. We simply cannot return to this brand of you’re-on-your-own economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.”
That’s right, folks, capitalism had nothing to do with the United States becoming the most prosperous country in the history of the world. It had nothing to do with millions of ambitious people starting with nothing and becoming millionaires and even billionaires. And it has nothing to do with the fact that “poor people” (as defined by the Census Bureau) in the U.S. live better than middle-class people in most other countries.
When Obama says that cutting taxes and regulations doesn’t work, who in the world is he talking about? Everything works. The question is, for whom does it work, and how well? Collectivism works exceedingly well for politicians whose chief objective is to stay in office, but it destroys the lives of millions of people on the dole who might otherwise become productive citizens.
True to his favorite tactic of turning the facts upside down, when Obama says “it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory,” it sounds as though he’s referring to communism rather than capitalism. Communism has been tried throughout the world — from Cuba to Russia, from North Korea to China — and it’s worked wonderful for guys with names like Castro, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Mao. But for the masses it has consistently delivered poverty, loss of freedom, and death.
Capitalism, on the other hand, has worked for the masses — whenever and wherever it has been tried. Even in its impure state (i.e., not laissez faire) it has delivered spectacular wealth and a high standard of living to all those who are willing to work.
“You’re on your own economics” is a cute catchphrase — the kind of dismissive ridicule the left loves to employ — but the truth is that being “on your own” is a good thing. When the government leaves people alone, it makes it easier for them to innovate and create wealth. And when wealth is created, it accrues to everyone’s benefit, whether it is reinvested, spent on goods and services, or saved (which adds to capital formation and, in turn, spurs economic growth and job creation).
But what about those who are truly unable to care for themselves; e.g., quadriplegics, the blind, and the mentally ill? What would happen to them in a truly free society? Fortunately, the Western way of life is based on a code of ethics and morality that motivates Americans, in particular, to be remarkably charitable.
No civilized person wants to see those who are seriously health challenged or mentally challenged suffer, so the question is not whether or not such people should be helped. The question is, who is best equipped to help them — politicians, whose chief aim is to perpetuate their own power, or free individuals, who have a genuine desire to be charitable to those who are incapable of fending for themselves?
If the scam of politicians taking from those who produce and giving the stolen loot to those whom they deem to be “in need” worked, the poverty rate would not be about the same today (14.3 percent) as it was when the Great Society was launched back in 1965. What Lyndon Johnson’s “generosity” proved is that it doesn’t matter how much of other people’s money you give away, it does nothing to lift people up. The hard evidence shows that it is government’s redistribution-of-wealth policies that have not worked.
The far left has succeeded in perpetuating a cult of dependency that keeps career criminals like Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid in power. And, unfortunately, those who claim to be in favor of capitalism — primarily Republican career politicians — have consistently gone along with welfare programs that have bankrupted the country and stripped millions of people of the motivation to tap into their true potential and better their lives.
If one assumes that a community organizing ne’er-do-well like Barack Obama — who has never built anything in his life — sincerely wants to help the middle class, he would have to simultaneously believe that he’s an ignoramus.
How does increasing America’s debt by $4 billion a day help the poor?
How do more than 40,000 pages of tax regulations — regulations that take time and money away from job creators — help the poor?
How does an $800 billion “stimulus bill” — which turned out to be nothing more than a wish list of political pork — help the poor?
How do regulations that prevent oil drilling and coal mining — activities that could create a massive number of jobs and reduce our dependency on foreign oil — help the poor?
How does destroying the housing market through government-created failures like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac help the poor?
Yes, we do need to be on our own. More regulation is the last thing in the world we need. The greatest regulator is, and always has been, the marketplace. Those of us who have engaged in entrepreneurship know that the marketplace is a brutal, unforgiving regulator. But how in the world can you expect a community organizer to know that when he’s never started or operated a business? You have to experience the brutality of the marketplace, firsthand, in order to appreciate just how well it works.
Maybe Obama and his supposedly sincere leftist pals should study Galveston, Texas and try to understand why opting out of the Social Security system has worked so well for its citizens. Or why job-creating companies are stampeding out of anti-business, high-tax states like New York and California and escaping to business-friendly states such as Nevada, Florida, and Texas that have no state income taxes.
The truth is that, throughout history, the vile left has never been interested in lifting people up. Instead of focusing on income inequality, their focus should be on setting people free — to be on their own! — to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
Sorry, Barack, but your socialist and communist mentors — from papa Obama to Frank Marshall Davis, from Saul Alinsky to Jeremiah Wright — had it all wrong. It is collectivism, in all its ugly incarnations, that doesn’t work. So-called trickle-down economics, on the other hand, does work — and always will. It’s built into the system.
Barack Obama would do well to listen to a once starry-eyed collectivist named Bill Clinton, who recently said, in an interview with Newsmax’s Chris Ruddy, “We don’t have a lot of resentment against people who are successful. We kind of like it, Americans do. It’s one of our best characteristics. If we think someone earned their money, we do not resent their success. That’s why there’s been very little class conflict in American history.”
We’re less than a year away from finding out who is right in his assessment of the average American — Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2011 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
Paul Allen, Spacex and Burt Rutan are teaming up for Stratolaunch
Next Big Future
Nothing was said about the reusability of the rocket part of the launch system. I presume that Spacex still wants to do that. Here's a video
Update:
Aiming for manned orbital missions as well as for cargo. Reusability is in the plan, but won't be initially. This is a much bigger plane than what has ever been built before- An 225. A commenter said that the A380 weighs more.
Update:
I like it!
Nothing was said about the reusability of the rocket part of the launch system. I presume that Spacex still wants to do that. Here's a video
Update:
Aiming for manned orbital missions as well as for cargo. Reusability is in the plan, but won't be initially. This is a much bigger plane than what has ever been built before- An 225. A commenter said that the A380 weighs more.
Update:
I like it!
Gingrich, Paul Virtually Tied for First Place in Iowa
By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online
Comment:
Sigh. Just more poll watching. People are being manipulated. Stop watching polls, dammit.
Comment:
Sigh. Just more poll watching. People are being manipulated. Stop watching polls, dammit.
CSM: Joe Lieberman contradicts Sarah Palin: Where's evidence of insider trading? (VIDEO)
In a USA Today op-ed Tuesday, Sarah Palin charged that Congress is guilty of insider trading. Sen. Joseph Lieberman told reporters at a Monitor breakfast he's seen no evidence.
Palin's op-ed here. Here's a quote from that piece:
Palin's op-ed here. Here's a quote from that piece:
Our permanent political class relies on an apathetic and uninformed public to get away with this stuff. But if there is one issue that unites Americans across the political spectrum, it's absolute disgust with the corruption of our elected leaders. Congress and the White House need to earn the American people's trust again. We the people are not going to give up until we get the sudden and relentless reform we deserve or, as the book says, "we throw them all out" in 2012.
A Shameful State Department Initiative
American Thinker Pam Geller
quote:
Comment:
This is galling that it would even be discussed at all. Evidently, First Amendment rights only apply to some, others have special privileges that must come first.
quote:
Today the Islamized State Department will be meeting with the Islamic supremacist Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to discuss strategies and develop action plans in which to impose the restriction of free speech (or blasphemy, as truthful speech about Islam is considered in Islamic law) under the Sharia here in America.
Comment:
This is galling that it would even be discussed at all. Evidently, First Amendment rights only apply to some, others have special privileges that must come first.
A Week of E-Cat News Flurry
Pure Energy Systems News November 29, 2011
Comment:
I'm a little behind on these developments, this will help catch up a bit. Here's a few tidbits
Comment: Of course, if he had a US patent, his concerns for his intellectual property could be satisfied.
Update:
Cold Fusion Now has a post up about patents and the patent process. Written by David French: David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property.
Comment:
I'm a little behind on these developments, this will help catch up a bit. Here's a few tidbits
- Rossi replies to Josephson's call for another test. Rossi stated he cannot meet Josephson’s demands because it would reveal what he considers his trade secrets to a potential competitor.
- Uppsala University Eager To Test Andrea Rossi E-Cat
- Andrea Rossi E-Cat Will Soon Have Scientific Framework quote: "Recently, we received update that the contracted research between Andrea Rossi and the University of Bologna will start in a few weeks."
- Quick Poll of E-Cat World Readers Results: -Rossi has discovered a new way to make useful energy (55%, 825 Votes)
- Don't Know (21%, 319 Votes)
- Rossi has nothing and is perpetrating a hoax/scam (13%, 191 Votes)
- Rossi honestly thinks he has achieved cold fusion but is mistaken (8%, 123 Votes)
- Rossi has discovered a form of energy but it is insignificantly small (3%, 32 Votes)
Comment: Of course, if he had a US patent, his concerns for his intellectual property could be satisfied.
Update:
Cold Fusion Now has a post up about patents and the patent process. Written by David French: David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property.
JP Aerospace: How to Build a Magnetohydrodynamic Generator (video)
This is a slide show, actually. With a short firing test at the end. I don't suspect that anyone could directly copy this and build their own working prototype. Might help if you knew exactly what you're doing.
Gingrich-Huntsman Lincoln Douglas style debate
No better way to become familiar with the candidates is to listen to them yourself. Or read their books, which I've read Romney's book and Gingrich's book. Here's the latest debate which was about foreign policy.
You get a lot of comments from some places that this was a ho hum affair. Really? If you are sincerely interested how can you be bored with this?
quote (from link above):
You get a lot of comments from some places that this was a ho hum affair. Really? If you are sincerely interested how can you be bored with this?
quote (from link above):
turned out to be a festival of self-congratulation intended less to tease out differences between Newt Gingrich and Jon HuntsmanIt's not supposed to be about gotchas and being entertained, it is about being informed. If you want to be better informed, do yourself a favor and watch this. Listening to those who throw spitballs may be entertaining, but not necessarily informative.
Code Red Fallacies
The title of this post is a mode of thinking in which there is a risk of making some serious mistakes. I used that term in reviewing Thomas Friedman's book. If you're interested, the link to that review is on the sidebar, near the bottom of the page.
Anyway, the fallacy that I want to write about now is the fallacy of the media as information providers. This would seem to be an implausible fallacy in that this is their business, that is, to provide information. But if the information is not truthful nor accurate, it is as if there was no information at all. Secondly, a business exists in order to make a profit. If making a profit and providing truthful and accurate information is in conflict with each other, which do you think will suffer first? Finally, if the business profits from false information, it will provide that false information, because that is where the money is. In sum, you can't count on a business model to provide information unless that business's reputation exists solely upon its ability to provide truthful and accurate information. It may exist to do the exact opposite, in which you must have some way to determine its reliability.
It doesn't have to be left wing nor right wing information sources. I am thinking of an example at the moment, which is Michael Savage. I think Savage may be more interested in making a profit upon providing information, but not necessarily truthful nor accurate information. The second example would be Glenn Beck. I am not to sure about a guy who said he would support a third party candidate in any case, when he must know that a third party always fails, and if that third party splits the Republican vote, Obama must win by default. His information is therefore suspect, because how could he possibly be sincere about Obama, yet act in a manner that is completely in accordance to what Obama needs to win?
People may feel that they need a guide, for they are busy. But guys like this are not helpful. In such cases as that, some real harm may come from having their followers being duped into being influenced by their words and acts. That's real code red stuff. As for this blog, I will try my level best to be accurate and truthful and I won't sell out for popularity, nor money. I will call them like I see them, even if it hurts. For if you don't have the truth, you really don't have anything.
Anyway, the fallacy that I want to write about now is the fallacy of the media as information providers. This would seem to be an implausible fallacy in that this is their business, that is, to provide information. But if the information is not truthful nor accurate, it is as if there was no information at all. Secondly, a business exists in order to make a profit. If making a profit and providing truthful and accurate information is in conflict with each other, which do you think will suffer first? Finally, if the business profits from false information, it will provide that false information, because that is where the money is. In sum, you can't count on a business model to provide information unless that business's reputation exists solely upon its ability to provide truthful and accurate information. It may exist to do the exact opposite, in which you must have some way to determine its reliability.
It doesn't have to be left wing nor right wing information sources. I am thinking of an example at the moment, which is Michael Savage. I think Savage may be more interested in making a profit upon providing information, but not necessarily truthful nor accurate information. The second example would be Glenn Beck. I am not to sure about a guy who said he would support a third party candidate in any case, when he must know that a third party always fails, and if that third party splits the Republican vote, Obama must win by default. His information is therefore suspect, because how could he possibly be sincere about Obama, yet act in a manner that is completely in accordance to what Obama needs to win?
People may feel that they need a guide, for they are busy. But guys like this are not helpful. In such cases as that, some real harm may come from having their followers being duped into being influenced by their words and acts. That's real code red stuff. As for this blog, I will try my level best to be accurate and truthful and I won't sell out for popularity, nor money. I will call them like I see them, even if it hurts. For if you don't have the truth, you really don't have anything.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Michael Savage is not doing anybody any favors
With this.
His reasoning? Let's go over the points one by one.
Update:
It looks like the candidates are all beating themselves up. Not looking good.
Update:
Moderate Voice: Conservative Talker Michael Savage Offers Gingrich $1 Million to Drop Out of Race
quote: ( I got a chuckle out of this one)
Michael Savage is more about Michael Savage than anything else. He has some credibility issues as far as I'm concerned.
His reasoning? Let's go over the points one by one.
- Failure to deliver on contract with America. Comment: Looks to me like they got most of it done, at least.
- Global Warming ad with Pelosi. Comment: You can do something about carbon without cap and trade, but this may be a valid point.
- Amnesty. Comment: Issue is a bit overwrought.
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Comment: He took money, but this isn't illegal, immoral, nor fattening. But it may not have been a good thing. Corruption remark is more of the overwrought routine again.
- Being divorced, etc. Comment: If women voters were so concerned about this, what explains Clinton?
- Right wing social engineering remark. Comment: So what? Anything a Republican does is right wing by definition. What's the big deal?
- He's a fat, old, white man. Comment: If that is a disqualification, we may as well cease being who we have been all through American history. Funny how someone's appearance was considered to be overcome by a black man in the White House, so now being a white man is no longer cool. Must be a bitch to be a conservative like Savage who comes off that way, and he isn't a good liberal either.
Update:
It looks like the candidates are all beating themselves up. Not looking good.
Update:
Moderate Voice: Conservative Talker Michael Savage Offers Gingrich $1 Million to Drop Out of Race
quote: ( I got a chuckle out of this one)
If Mitt Romney had a sense of humor he’d now bet Savage a can of his hair spray that Gingrich won’t drop out.
Michael Savage is more about Michael Savage than anything else. He has some credibility issues as far as I'm concerned.
David Brooks says Newt Gingrich once proposed putting mirrors in space
www.politifact.com
quote:
Comment:
Unfortunately, it does appear that Gingrich is a little too enamored with big government with respect to space. He would have to be watched carefully, if he were to become president. Who would do that? Democrats? Republicans?
one more quote:
Comment:
The mirrors part is probably designed to hurt Newt. If Newt is smart, he may want to revisit his ideas from time to time and improve upon them. Otherwise, he's going to be marginalized like this. Also, if he gets the nomination, it will be because people believe he is a small government conservative. If he wants to continue to be seen as such, he'd better act like one.
Update:
To be fair with Gingrich, here is a quote from the debate:
Comment:
That's the right tone and the right approach. Let's see the follow up.
Update:
Here's a link to a question about space in the first Republican debate. Amongst the responses, it appears that Gingrich is the only one who has actually done significant thinking about it.
There's a risk of the Governor Moonbeam reaction that may rear its ugly head.
Update:
I've written about Romney's book here and here. Gingrich's book will be for the next update to this post.
Update:
Gingrich's book may not have gotten posted about here. I'll keep looking, but if I can't find it, I'll write up something.
quote:
The space-mirror system seemed so outlandish that we felt compelled to check whether Gingrich really suggested it.
Comment:
Unfortunately, it does appear that Gingrich is a little too enamored with big government with respect to space. He would have to be watched carefully, if he were to become president. Who would do that? Democrats? Republicans?
one more quote:
Our ruling
Gingrich co-wrote his book more than a quarter century ago, and since he doesn’t appear to have reiterated the call for floating mirrors in recent years, we can safely assume the idea is no longer at the top of his policy agenda. But did cite the idea approvingly in his book, so we rate Brooks’ statement True.
Comment:
The mirrors part is probably designed to hurt Newt. If Newt is smart, he may want to revisit his ideas from time to time and improve upon them. Otherwise, he's going to be marginalized like this. Also, if he gets the nomination, it will be because people believe he is a small government conservative. If he wants to continue to be seen as such, he'd better act like one.
Update:
To be fair with Gingrich, here is a quote from the debate:
“I’m proud of trying to find things that give young people a reason to study science and math and technology and telling them that some day in their lifetime, they could dream of going to the moon, they could dream of going to Mars,” he told the Ames, Iowa crowd. “And I’m happy to defend the idea that America should be in space and should be there in an aggressive, entrepreneurial way.”[ emphasis mine]
Comment:
That's the right tone and the right approach. Let's see the follow up.
Update:
Here's a link to a question about space in the first Republican debate. Amongst the responses, it appears that Gingrich is the only one who has actually done significant thinking about it.
There's a risk of the Governor Moonbeam reaction that may rear its ugly head.
Update:
I've written about Romney's book here and here. Gingrich's book will be for the next update to this post.
Update:
Gingrich's book may not have gotten posted about here. I'll keep looking, but if I can't find it, I'll write up something.
Proposal: Removing Earth's Radiation Belts
This is a similar idea I read in the book reported on this time last year.
One of many useful tasks could be the removal of the Van Allen Belts. Other tasks include removing space junk, repairing and removing non functional satellites, and guarding space from rogue asteroids. This is in addition to supporting exploration and development.
It is much cheaper to launch from the moon ( 14 times cheaper according to this). Wouldn't it make sense to do this or at least look into doing it? Gingrich appears to be interested. Romney's criticism is based upon the current paradigm. That paradigm has to be replaced with a new paradigm of cheaper access to space. The current space program is not about that, to put it bluntly.
One of many useful tasks could be the removal of the Van Allen Belts. Other tasks include removing space junk, repairing and removing non functional satellites, and guarding space from rogue asteroids. This is in addition to supporting exploration and development.
It is much cheaper to launch from the moon ( 14 times cheaper according to this). Wouldn't it make sense to do this or at least look into doing it? Gingrich appears to be interested. Romney's criticism is based upon the current paradigm. That paradigm has to be replaced with a new paradigm of cheaper access to space. The current space program is not about that, to put it bluntly.
Samizdata
One of my old hangouts when blogging was new. It's been awhile since I've been there, and so I came back to look around. Not much has changed. Here's a piece that may be worth reading:
Why paper money is collapsing
Gold is selling off big today, but that may not matter much. The markets are very unstable now, as big swings one way then the next occur continually. Gold is one of those indicators that something is amiss with the currency. But you wouldn't know it today.
Much depends upon how this financial mess gets handled. If it plays out as I expect, the powers that be will try to paper over it as they've been doing. In that case, gold will resume its move higher and higher. That's been the long term trend now, no reason to expect that this will change.
Why paper money is collapsing
Gold is selling off big today, but that may not matter much. The markets are very unstable now, as big swings one way then the next occur continually. Gold is one of those indicators that something is amiss with the currency. But you wouldn't know it today.
Much depends upon how this financial mess gets handled. If it plays out as I expect, the powers that be will try to paper over it as they've been doing. In that case, gold will resume its move higher and higher. That's been the long term trend now, no reason to expect that this will change.
Focus Folks, Its Obama
Yeah, I was just thinking that myself with respect to the Iowa debate. But this admonition was made way back in August and he felt the need to do it again very recently.
We are being manipulated, but it is even more distressing to see Republicans doing the same thing. The candidates need to stop reacting to polls and start hammering Obama more. They need to be proactive, not reactive. They need to manipulate the media instead of being manipulated themselves. Time to take control, or be controlled.
The only one who seems to get it is Gingrich.
Update:
Just to show I'm not all in for Gingrich, here's a critical video of Gingrich
We are being manipulated, but it is even more distressing to see Republicans doing the same thing. The candidates need to stop reacting to polls and start hammering Obama more. They need to be proactive, not reactive. They need to manipulate the media instead of being manipulated themselves. Time to take control, or be controlled.
The only one who seems to get it is Gingrich.
Update:
Just to show I'm not all in for Gingrich, here's a critical video of Gingrich
Sunday, December 11, 2011
The Rich Are Not Conservative
American Thinker
quote:
Comment:
Republicans are accused for being "for the rich", but it doesn't seem to help them much at the polls with these same rich people, who don't vote for them.
quote:
Where is income highest in America? It is not where oil company executives live or where computer software executives roost, but rather the environs of our nation's capital: ten of the top-sixteen highest-income places in America are Virginia or Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Forbes Magazine lists the place with the highest income in America as Falls Church City, Va.
Comment:
Republicans are accused for being "for the rich", but it doesn't seem to help them much at the polls with these same rich people, who don't vote for them.
Blogging has been lighter than light
I could have posted that blogging was light, but that would be wrong. It was nonexistent yesterday. That's the first time in a year or more since that has happened.
Why? Nothing wrong here, but the thought flashed into my mind that blogging is an utter waste of time. So why bother? It's almost as if I had given up finally. The blog is going nowhere and there seemed to be no point in doing it anymore at all. The traffic had built up and then fell off a cliff. The reason for that made no sense. It wasn't the quality of the posts, because I think the quality of the posts I'm putting up is getting better all the time. Besides, the traffic has risen and fallen before, that's not exactly what was bugging me.
That last post kinda figured into it I was feeling. What I read in that link was so bad that nothing is going to matter anyway since everybody is going to be in a world of excrement. And here I was writing about outer space when nothing like that is going to happen. The people running things have so thoroughly failed that the system is going to fall apart. Who the hell knows where it will all lead to.
So, I spent most of the day yesterday watching DVD's. I watched Deliverance, because there's a scene in there where Lewis says what I just wrote above. "The system is going to fail." And I thought about the current state of events and it looks like that may well be the case. The law of the jungle will be the only law as it was during parts of that movie. It was a struggle for survival- until they got back to civilization. What happens if there's no civilization to come back to?
My thinking has gone through all sorts of permutations. But it always comes back to the same thing. Money. Yet, it seems to me that it is not an evil thing in and of itself. Money is only the medium of exchange. There's a saying that money is the root of all evil. But money can't be evil. Nothing inanimate can be evil, as evil can only exist in the heart of a moral being. Money is inert, it is a living being with a knowledge of good and evil that can make an inert thing like money into something good or evil. It is not the thing itself, but what is done with the thing.
You need money to make this system work, but that isn't enough. You need a moral system so that the money can be handled properly. It is the breakdown in that moral system which is what's creating a problem. Money isn't being handled properly and the system is going to fail because of that. The cause isn't the money itself, it is the lack of morality that makes the money system workable. When the money system fails, the whole system must fail with it. That's because money is the lifeblood of the economic system. Money makes this world go around and if it is sick, we are all going to be sick along with it.
In the frontier days here in the USA, most people would farm their own land. If the money system failed, there was still a way to grow your own food. With a roof over your head, you could make out OK. During the Great Depression, which my mother lived through, she, like most people at that time, lived on a farm. She told me she didn't know that there was a depression. They had everything they needed on the farm. But we have gotten away from that. What happens when the wheels of commerce fall off because of the money problem? People can't get food, then you've got a big problem. A stable society is now destabilized. People do desperate things when they are desperate. With no food nor no prospect of food, people will start getting desperate.
I watched some of the Republican debate last night. I turned it off when the topic seemed to be switching towards Gingrich's marital problems over the years. This discussion reminded me of something I read about Abraham Lincoln. The story went something like this: some objections were being made about General Grant and his drinking. Lincoln said he couldn't spare this man, and besides, he understood that Grant no longer had that problem. But if that were not the case, Lincoln said that he would find out what Grant was drinking and give a barrel of it to all his generals.
I think that serves as a good example of what is what's missing when the discussion gets to Gingrich's moral failings. It doesn't have anything to do with the problem we are facing. It is analogous to the Lincoln story. Gingrich's marital history is irrelevant. But people are treating it as if it were.
Who do you pay attention to? I think you should deal with relevant issues, like how to solve the money problem. Gingrich's marital history hasn't got much to do with the money problem we are facing. Yes, it is a moral problem, but not much to do with how to handle money. That's the point.
Martial problems are longer range problems. The near term is going to be more urgent. The money problems are relevant now. How to solve them and who is the best one to solve them should be the focal point of the discussion.
Wouldn't it be tragic that too many people disqualified Newt Gingrich because of his marital history, but he was the only one who could lead us out of this mess? It would have been tragic for the USA if Lincoln replaced Grant with another general because of Grant's history with regard to his drinking. Lincoln was wise to keep Grant. Is it wise to disqualify Gingrich because of his moral failings? As if everybody else was morally fit enough to sit in judgment of him.
I didn't know Gingrich was interested in mining the moon. He was, and yet it seemed to be treated as if it were a joke. Why is mining the moon not being taken seriously? The resources of Earth are limited, but not the resources of the solar system and beyond. Isn't scarce resources given as the reason why we must conserve? But what if resources were not limited, but were unlimited? Then the capacity for growth would know no limits. I would rather have that choice than the choice for limitations, which could lead to a diminished standard of living for all of us.
If we didn't need to mine the Earth anymore because we could get everything we needed from space, wouldn't that be a good thing for the Earth?
You could start with energy. There's more energy in space than we could possibly use on Earth. But if we conquered space, we could make that energy available to us all. If you had enough energy, you can do just about anything. You could grow your own food, desalinate seawater, clean up pollution, and so on and so on. Lots of energy is required for a high standard of living. It would make much more sense to get more of it than to act as if it were limited and impose limits upon the use of it.
It's too expensive to do this in space now. But why should that be an obstacle. Plenty of things were expensive in the past, but not expensive now. If it is a good thing to have, then ingenuity will find a way to make it available at a reasonable cost. That's what creates wealth and that can help us solve our money problems. But we won't get there if we insist on being blinded by our own misconceptions and refuse to see what is possible.
Why? Nothing wrong here, but the thought flashed into my mind that blogging is an utter waste of time. So why bother? It's almost as if I had given up finally. The blog is going nowhere and there seemed to be no point in doing it anymore at all. The traffic had built up and then fell off a cliff. The reason for that made no sense. It wasn't the quality of the posts, because I think the quality of the posts I'm putting up is getting better all the time. Besides, the traffic has risen and fallen before, that's not exactly what was bugging me.
That last post kinda figured into it I was feeling. What I read in that link was so bad that nothing is going to matter anyway since everybody is going to be in a world of excrement. And here I was writing about outer space when nothing like that is going to happen. The people running things have so thoroughly failed that the system is going to fall apart. Who the hell knows where it will all lead to.
So, I spent most of the day yesterday watching DVD's. I watched Deliverance, because there's a scene in there where Lewis says what I just wrote above. "The system is going to fail." And I thought about the current state of events and it looks like that may well be the case. The law of the jungle will be the only law as it was during parts of that movie. It was a struggle for survival- until they got back to civilization. What happens if there's no civilization to come back to?
My thinking has gone through all sorts of permutations. But it always comes back to the same thing. Money. Yet, it seems to me that it is not an evil thing in and of itself. Money is only the medium of exchange. There's a saying that money is the root of all evil. But money can't be evil. Nothing inanimate can be evil, as evil can only exist in the heart of a moral being. Money is inert, it is a living being with a knowledge of good and evil that can make an inert thing like money into something good or evil. It is not the thing itself, but what is done with the thing.
You need money to make this system work, but that isn't enough. You need a moral system so that the money can be handled properly. It is the breakdown in that moral system which is what's creating a problem. Money isn't being handled properly and the system is going to fail because of that. The cause isn't the money itself, it is the lack of morality that makes the money system workable. When the money system fails, the whole system must fail with it. That's because money is the lifeblood of the economic system. Money makes this world go around and if it is sick, we are all going to be sick along with it.
In the frontier days here in the USA, most people would farm their own land. If the money system failed, there was still a way to grow your own food. With a roof over your head, you could make out OK. During the Great Depression, which my mother lived through, she, like most people at that time, lived on a farm. She told me she didn't know that there was a depression. They had everything they needed on the farm. But we have gotten away from that. What happens when the wheels of commerce fall off because of the money problem? People can't get food, then you've got a big problem. A stable society is now destabilized. People do desperate things when they are desperate. With no food nor no prospect of food, people will start getting desperate.
I watched some of the Republican debate last night. I turned it off when the topic seemed to be switching towards Gingrich's marital problems over the years. This discussion reminded me of something I read about Abraham Lincoln. The story went something like this: some objections were being made about General Grant and his drinking. Lincoln said he couldn't spare this man, and besides, he understood that Grant no longer had that problem. But if that were not the case, Lincoln said that he would find out what Grant was drinking and give a barrel of it to all his generals.
I think that serves as a good example of what is what's missing when the discussion gets to Gingrich's moral failings. It doesn't have anything to do with the problem we are facing. It is analogous to the Lincoln story. Gingrich's marital history is irrelevant. But people are treating it as if it were.
Who do you pay attention to? I think you should deal with relevant issues, like how to solve the money problem. Gingrich's marital history hasn't got much to do with the money problem we are facing. Yes, it is a moral problem, but not much to do with how to handle money. That's the point.
Martial problems are longer range problems. The near term is going to be more urgent. The money problems are relevant now. How to solve them and who is the best one to solve them should be the focal point of the discussion.
Wouldn't it be tragic that too many people disqualified Newt Gingrich because of his marital history, but he was the only one who could lead us out of this mess? It would have been tragic for the USA if Lincoln replaced Grant with another general because of Grant's history with regard to his drinking. Lincoln was wise to keep Grant. Is it wise to disqualify Gingrich because of his moral failings? As if everybody else was morally fit enough to sit in judgment of him.
I didn't know Gingrich was interested in mining the moon. He was, and yet it seemed to be treated as if it were a joke. Why is mining the moon not being taken seriously? The resources of Earth are limited, but not the resources of the solar system and beyond. Isn't scarce resources given as the reason why we must conserve? But what if resources were not limited, but were unlimited? Then the capacity for growth would know no limits. I would rather have that choice than the choice for limitations, which could lead to a diminished standard of living for all of us.
If we didn't need to mine the Earth anymore because we could get everything we needed from space, wouldn't that be a good thing for the Earth?
You could start with energy. There's more energy in space than we could possibly use on Earth. But if we conquered space, we could make that energy available to us all. If you had enough energy, you can do just about anything. You could grow your own food, desalinate seawater, clean up pollution, and so on and so on. Lots of energy is required for a high standard of living. It would make much more sense to get more of it than to act as if it were limited and impose limits upon the use of it.
It's too expensive to do this in space now. But why should that be an obstacle. Plenty of things were expensive in the past, but not expensive now. If it is a good thing to have, then ingenuity will find a way to make it available at a reasonable cost. That's what creates wealth and that can help us solve our money problems. But we won't get there if we insist on being blinded by our own misconceptions and refuse to see what is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)