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, January 21, 2012
Kardashevian Aspirations: E-Cat Weekly January 19
Kardashevian Aspirations: E-Cat Weekly January 19: pesn.com This story caught my eye: Oz skeptic offers prize if Rossi’s E-cat works excerpts: Australian entrepreneur, philanthropist, s...
South Carolina Primary — Open and Updates
legalinsurrection.com
quote:
If one is looking for a barometer, there's no need to go any further than this. She really hates Gingrich, but with respect to Romney, he is just her idea of sport. If people really hate Newt, as she seems to think, it is probably a pretty bad sign for the country. The reason being that people would prefer to vote for personalities than to vote for issues. A campaign designed with that in mind in such an environment could be successful. But if the people want some answers for the problems the country faces, then a campaign about personalities could backfire.
quote:
As far as the early contests go, South Carolina is far and away the most important. A win in Iowa is good, but it serves mostly to add media attention to your campaign. A win in New Hampshire is equally impressive, but its not exactly a microcosm of the Republican electorate. I am a firm believer, insofar as the Republican party goes, that South Carolina picks Presidents.Comment:
If one is looking for a barometer, there's no need to go any further than this. She really hates Gingrich, but with respect to Romney, he is just her idea of sport. If people really hate Newt, as she seems to think, it is probably a pretty bad sign for the country. The reason being that people would prefer to vote for personalities than to vote for issues. A campaign designed with that in mind in such an environment could be successful. But if the people want some answers for the problems the country faces, then a campaign about personalities could backfire.
Kardashevian Aspirations: LOXLEO, Part VI
Kardashevian Aspirations: LOXLEO, Part VI: Need I say a speculative post? I reviewed the source document for all of this speculation on this subject. Please do not judge it by what...
Friday, January 20, 2012
Pundit Press: Chuck Norris Endorses Newt Gingrich
Pundit Press: Chuck Norris Endorses Newt Gingrich: Norris explains why : Our republic as America’s founders created it is under assault from extremists outside our country and anti-constitut...
Not a snarky aside is this, just a little humor ( language alert)
Not a snarky aside is this, just a little humor ( language alert)
Kardashevian Aspirations: Burt Rutan interview
Kardashevian Aspirations: Burt Rutan interview: Popular Mechanics H/T Transterrestrial Musings quote: To allow public access to orbit, we would need breakthroughs that would lower the ...
Kardashevian Aspirations: LOXLEO, Part V
Kardashevian Aspirations: LOXLEO, Part V: As usual, this will be a speculative post. The last post explored the possibility of using the nitrogen to make nitric acid. But what if ...
Type III Dyson Sphere of Highly Advanced Civilizations Around a Super Massive Black Hole
Next Big Future
Sorry, but I couldn't get through the entire post without my eyes glazing over. I have had thoughts about raising the level of civilization, Kardeshevian style, but this is so far along the path that I can't relate to it at all.
My thoughts are not that ambitious. If mankind can just get off the planet, it would be a nice start.
Sorry, but I couldn't get through the entire post without my eyes glazing over. I have had thoughts about raising the level of civilization, Kardeshevian style, but this is so far along the path that I can't relate to it at all.
My thoughts are not that ambitious. If mankind can just get off the planet, it would be a nice start.
Charleston SC GOP Debate
The initial impression from reading about it, and watching some of the replays of it, is that they are missing some opportunities here. The only candidate who proposes really doing something to reign in Big Government is Ron Paul, but he is not taken seriously.
Obviously, I missed the debate, so this is a little behind the curve.
Barone thinks Santorum and Romney had good nights, and that Gingrich didn't. This is odd, because Gingrich wanted Romney one on one, but in this debate, he didn't seem to exploit that as well as he might have. So, surprisingly, Romney may have stepped up his game, and Newt may have slipped a little. One may wonder if that will be reflected in the polls, if any more will be taken. If not, will it make a difference in the outcome in the actual vote as tallied?
Really, it is too bad that Paul is taken more seriously. If the next president is to be a Republican, he will have to do something to reign in the size of government, and Paul is the only one left who seems to be determined to do that.
Paul is a bit hard to take on foreign issues to be sure, but to be honest about it, isn't that part of the problem?
Update:
I've watched the replay of the debate from start to finish. In my opinion, there were no clearcut winners in this debate. Sure, Santorum was more aggressive, but I don't think he connected on his attacks, in particular, those against Gingrich.
If style over substance is what matters, and if an aggressive style matters, then he can be said to have won. There were no killer answers and no killer mistakes. My prediction is that nothing happened here that will make any difference.
Obviously, I missed the debate, so this is a little behind the curve.
Barone thinks Santorum and Romney had good nights, and that Gingrich didn't. This is odd, because Gingrich wanted Romney one on one, but in this debate, he didn't seem to exploit that as well as he might have. So, surprisingly, Romney may have stepped up his game, and Newt may have slipped a little. One may wonder if that will be reflected in the polls, if any more will be taken. If not, will it make a difference in the outcome in the actual vote as tallied?
Really, it is too bad that Paul is taken more seriously. If the next president is to be a Republican, he will have to do something to reign in the size of government, and Paul is the only one left who seems to be determined to do that.
Paul is a bit hard to take on foreign issues to be sure, but to be honest about it, isn't that part of the problem?
Update:
I've watched the replay of the debate from start to finish. In my opinion, there were no clearcut winners in this debate. Sure, Santorum was more aggressive, but I don't think he connected on his attacks, in particular, those against Gingrich.
If style over substance is what matters, and if an aggressive style matters, then he can be said to have won. There were no killer answers and no killer mistakes. My prediction is that nothing happened here that will make any difference.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Barone: New poll has Gingrich leading Romney in S.C.
washingtonexaminer.com
This seems to indicate that the debate really helped Newt. Another performance like that, and he's looking like a winner.
The predictable whack-a-mole process against the latest not-Romney candidate has begun.
The poll has Newt Gingrich leading Mitt Romney by two points. It's not a significant lead, but Rasmussen's polling from before Monday's debate showed Romney leading Gingrich, 35 to 21 percent
This seems to indicate that the debate really helped Newt. Another performance like that, and he's looking like a winner.
The predictable whack-a-mole process against the latest not-Romney candidate has begun.
Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits ( Windfall profits tax? We've been down this road before)
The Hill's Floor Action
Jimmy Carter did this and we got gas lines in the 70's. So, how does this help us now? It doesn't. It just gives Democrats a way to pretend to be helping people with the high gasoline prices that their policies are causing.
Excerpts:
Reagan showed the way to beating these fools, so why can't the Republicans figure it out?
Jimmy Carter did this and we got gas lines in the 70's. So, how does this help us now? It doesn't. It just gives Democrats a way to pretend to be helping people with the high gasoline prices that their policies are causing.
Excerpts:
- The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation.
- The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members "shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board. [ comment: Anti business attitude. I suppose Kucinich and his crew can figure out a way to bring more energy to the consumer?]
- "Gas prices continue to rise, creating a hardship for the American people," he said. "At the same time, oil companies are making record profits gouging their customers. This bill would tax only the excess profits and create forward-thinking transportation alternatives." [ Comment: Obama has blocked the Keystone pipeline, and these idiots complain about higher energy prices. Prices will come down if they stopped blocking production. This is not industry's fault, it is big government policies that are causing this problem.]
Reagan showed the way to beating these fools, so why can't the Republicans figure it out?
Kardashevian Aspirations: LOXLEO, Part IV
Kardashevian Aspirations: LOXLEO, Part IV: Speculation alert, as usual on this topic. Part of the concept involves the collection of nitrogen, which is a vital element for life supp...
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Newt is finally Newt again
Dick Morris, TheHill.com
The best defense of Romney on the Bain Capital Issue that I've seen. Yes, and if Romney would do it, it would be a big help to him. But the problem is not Bain Capital, it is Big Government.
The best defense of Romney on the Bain Capital Issue that I've seen. Yes, and if Romney would do it, it would be a big help to him. But the problem is not Bain Capital, it is Big Government.
WHO WOULDN'T ENJOY FIRING THESE PEOPLE?
My favorite Kool Aid Hostess
Ann Coulter is the name referred to above, by the way. Actually, I like Ann Coulter. But she's serving up some Romney flavored Kool Aid here.
She seems to be trying to convince everybody that Romney is going to go tooth and nail after Big Government. If he did, that would be most welcome. Something tells me, though, that he wouldn't.
She tells a lot of horror stories all of which illustrate the problem with government employees and the fact that they can't be fired. Yes, and if Romney is elected, they probably still won't be. One wonders if Ann is projecting upon Romney in the same way as the Obama groupies projected upon the One back in 2008.
The trouble with the Romney "church" is that nobody can see inside it, so nobody knows what it is all about.
Ann Coulter is the name referred to above, by the way. Actually, I like Ann Coulter. But she's serving up some Romney flavored Kool Aid here.
She seems to be trying to convince everybody that Romney is going to go tooth and nail after Big Government. If he did, that would be most welcome. Something tells me, though, that he wouldn't.
She tells a lot of horror stories all of which illustrate the problem with government employees and the fact that they can't be fired. Yes, and if Romney is elected, they probably still won't be. One wonders if Ann is projecting upon Romney in the same way as the Obama groupies projected upon the One back in 2008.
The trouble with the Romney "church" is that nobody can see inside it, so nobody knows what it is all about.
Ron Paul, The true believer
HUMAN EVENTS: By Pat Buchanan
Comment:
Looks like a church. Gimme some of that ol' time religion!
And here we come to the reason Paul ran a strong third in Iowa and a clear second in New Hampshire. He is a conviction politician and, like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, the candidate of a cause.
Comment:
Looks like a church. Gimme some of that ol' time religion!
Rigged game
Politics must be a rigged game. How else do you explain the reaction to Ron Paul with respect to bin Laden?
Paul said in the most recent debate something to the effect that bin Laden should have been captured. So, what's wrong with that? Instead, the Washington Post has now said that Paul had
I suspect that the bin Laden operation was done as much for Obama's political benefit as for anything else. Why not point that out? The administration said they didn't want to "spike the football", but that's about all that they've been doing on the subject.
Update:
What about the opportunity to catch bin Laden during the Clinton administration? According to this FactCheck.org post, the offer wasn't credible. FactCheck cites the 911 report as its evidence and says it has to be considered the last word.
Even if it is considered to be the "last word", I am still suspicious. The reason is that to put bin Laden on trial would be a nightmare scenario that the government would just as soon avoid. That would have been true all along, even before 911.
There were those who considered bin Laden responsible for the first 911 attacks. How much trouble would it have been to conduct a military tribunal in Guantanamo? This might have taken place before 911 and possibly averted the attacks. But that would be considered "Whig" history according to Factcheck post. But I am still suspicious.
It might have occurred after 911, but the government let bin Laden get away.
Did the Bush administration avoid killing bin Laden because they thought him more useful alive than dead?
Did the Obama think just the opposite?
Paul said in the most recent debate something to the effect that bin Laden should have been captured. So, what's wrong with that? Instead, the Washington Post has now said that Paul had
... convoluted answers on defense spending and the killing of Osama bin Laden that no doubt put him at odds with a majority of South Carolina Republicans.Why should South Carolina Republicans support the way bin Laden was killed? Are they going to rubber stamp the way Obama handled the situation? Do they really want to be seen rubber stamping decisions of someone who they claim to be so dedicated to defeating? This notion given here by the Post is either wrong, and the Republicans don't really support Obama's decision, or something is rotten in Denmark.
I suspect that the bin Laden operation was done as much for Obama's political benefit as for anything else. Why not point that out? The administration said they didn't want to "spike the football", but that's about all that they've been doing on the subject.
Update:
What about the opportunity to catch bin Laden during the Clinton administration? According to this FactCheck.org post, the offer wasn't credible. FactCheck cites the 911 report as its evidence and says it has to be considered the last word.
Even if it is considered to be the "last word", I am still suspicious. The reason is that to put bin Laden on trial would be a nightmare scenario that the government would just as soon avoid. That would have been true all along, even before 911.
There were those who considered bin Laden responsible for the first 911 attacks. How much trouble would it have been to conduct a military tribunal in Guantanamo? This might have taken place before 911 and possibly averted the attacks. But that would be considered "Whig" history according to Factcheck post. But I am still suspicious.
It might have occurred after 911, but the government let bin Laden get away.
Did the Bush administration avoid killing bin Laden because they thought him more useful alive than dead?
Did the Obama think just the opposite?
Tower of Babel
For the last few days, the first post in the morning has been somewhat loosely about religion. It is loosely about religion because I am not exactly a religious person. But I do like to think about things and to write about them, and this thought about the Tower of Babel came to mind. Given the fact that I'm not so religious, the knowledge of this was not firmly in my mind, so I went to the Wikipedia and looked it up, as mentioned in the previous post.
I wrote that post and left the computer for awhile to do something else and came back just now to the original idea, and found this. What I found struck me, so I'll quote it again below:
This is an odd thought to me.
Should people construe this to mean that there should be no civilization at all and nothing should be built because it will ultimately be an affront to God? I don't see building a tower can lead people away from God, nor lead people to God. It is only a building.
Someone may say, "you are missing the point". Perhaps, but I am only speculating here as to the way people actually take this. It could explain some resistance to the idea of space settlement, because it could interpreted as a "stairway to heaven", which would do the same thing as the Tower did.
My interpretation is that the Tower serves as a metaphor for a complexity which cannot be sustained. The current state of the world could be like that Tower and that is the thought that I wanted to relate. To put it succinctly, things are getting too complicated. The world, or God if you will, will find a way to simplify things, and when that happens, it may not be pretty. It just might get pretty messy.
I don't think space settlement would be like the Tower. It would just mean starting over in a new land, like starting over in the New World after its discovery. When the Old World gets to be too much, it may be handy to have a new place to go to.
The USA served for that purpose for most of our history, but I see this country changing into something more like the Old World, which is not such a good thing for the cause of freedom- religious or otherwise.
I wrote that post and left the computer for awhile to do something else and came back just now to the original idea, and found this. What I found struck me, so I'll quote it again below:
God came to see their city and the tower they were building. He perceived their intentions, and in His infinite wisdom, He knew this "stairway to heaven" would only lead the people away from God.
This is an odd thought to me.
Should people construe this to mean that there should be no civilization at all and nothing should be built because it will ultimately be an affront to God? I don't see building a tower can lead people away from God, nor lead people to God. It is only a building.
Someone may say, "you are missing the point". Perhaps, but I am only speculating here as to the way people actually take this. It could explain some resistance to the idea of space settlement, because it could interpreted as a "stairway to heaven", which would do the same thing as the Tower did.
My interpretation is that the Tower serves as a metaphor for a complexity which cannot be sustained. The current state of the world could be like that Tower and that is the thought that I wanted to relate. To put it succinctly, things are getting too complicated. The world, or God if you will, will find a way to simplify things, and when that happens, it may not be pretty. It just might get pretty messy.
I don't think space settlement would be like the Tower. It would just mean starting over in a new land, like starting over in the New World after its discovery. When the Old World gets to be too much, it may be handy to have a new place to go to.
The USA served for that purpose for most of our history, but I see this country changing into something more like the Old World, which is not such a good thing for the cause of freedom- religious or otherwise.
Wikipedia blackout
Just looked something up on Wikipedia, which showed it for a moment, then blacked out. Wikikpedia is blacking out itself in protest to the SOPA legislation being considered by Congress.
It was my understanding that SOPA has been effectively stalled, so the necessity of this appears questionable. It is inconvenient, but I'll soldier on without Wikipedia for the duration of this protest.
If SOPA is enacted, it may have unpredictable consequences. I am against SOPA. I think I've already contacted my representative. But I won't black out this blog today.
In a related matter, Romney said that he supported the recent defense authorization act, which enables the government to hold US citizens without due process. It just seems that this government is moving increasingly towards totalitarianism. If Romney is the nominee, that guarantees that this law will continue. This will happen regardless of the outcome of the election despite the fact that most people seem to be against it, if the booing of Romney during the most recent debate was any indication.
It is odd how unpopular laws continue to be enacted against the will of the public, as elections don't seem to matter anymore. The politicians seem to be circling the wagons around themselves, and the public be damned.
It was my understanding that SOPA has been effectively stalled, so the necessity of this appears questionable. It is inconvenient, but I'll soldier on without Wikipedia for the duration of this protest.
If SOPA is enacted, it may have unpredictable consequences. I am against SOPA. I think I've already contacted my representative. But I won't black out this blog today.
In a related matter, Romney said that he supported the recent defense authorization act, which enables the government to hold US citizens without due process. It just seems that this government is moving increasingly towards totalitarianism. If Romney is the nominee, that guarantees that this law will continue. This will happen regardless of the outcome of the election despite the fact that most people seem to be against it, if the booing of Romney during the most recent debate was any indication.
It is odd how unpopular laws continue to be enacted against the will of the public, as elections don't seem to matter anymore. The politicians seem to be circling the wagons around themselves, and the public be damned.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Project to pour water into volcano to make power
Fuel Fix
Comment
All of this in order to avoid putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is what I mean when I say that it is a religious belief or church. Even if the world is getting hotter because of carbon dioxide, so what? The Earth's climate has changed throughout geologic time. It will change again regardless of what we do or don't do. If the climate got hotter, people would have to adjust. If a new ice age occurred, people would have to adjust. The presumption is that if we behave a certain way, nothing will change. This defies evidence. Things will change one way or the other.
Geothermal energy developers plan to pump 24 million gallons of water into the side of a dormant volcano in Central Oregon this summer to demonstrate new technology they hope will give a boost to a green energy sector that has yet to live up to its promise.
Comment
All of this in order to avoid putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is what I mean when I say that it is a religious belief or church. Even if the world is getting hotter because of carbon dioxide, so what? The Earth's climate has changed throughout geologic time. It will change again regardless of what we do or don't do. If the climate got hotter, people would have to adjust. If a new ice age occurred, people would have to adjust. The presumption is that if we behave a certain way, nothing will change. This defies evidence. Things will change one way or the other.
Natural Gas Goes Down in Flames
oilprice.com
Sigh. We are getting dragged into wars because of oil and here is this stuff and the government won't let us use it.
- Natural gas has been your worst nightmare of a commodity since its peak at $14 in 2008, then riding on crude’s coattails in its infamous run to $149/barrel. Since then, natural gas has cratered 80%, and is down 37% from its 2011 top.
- Gas prices are now 15% of the cost of oil on an equivalent BTU basis.
- So why aren’t we all driving natural gas powered cars by now? You can blame the heavy hand of government regulation. Energy is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. To use even a fraction of the gas we are producing, massive deregulation of the transportation, distribution, and sale of natural gas is required.
Sigh. We are getting dragged into wars because of oil and here is this stuff and the government won't let us use it.
Burger King tries home delivery
USATODAY.com
I feel that there is a way to do this, but you need to know what you are doing. It is like everything else. If you don't know what you are doing, you will screw it up.
The limit is 10 minutes away. Ten minutes is not that much time in an urban environment. At 30 miles per hour, 10 minutes is 5 miles. Even 5 miles is a long way because anything that slows you down will slow down that average speed. If you reduce that to 20 mph average speed, the distance will be a little over 3 miles. In my neck of the woods, 3 miles covers a lot of territory.
I haven't delivered pizza before, but I've delivered just about everything else. If they expect to do 10 minute deliveries, that would be expecting a lot because it will be hard. It all depends upon the territory.
I feel that there is a way to do this, but you need to know what you are doing. It is like everything else. If you don't know what you are doing, you will screw it up.
The limit is 10 minutes away. Ten minutes is not that much time in an urban environment. At 30 miles per hour, 10 minutes is 5 miles. Even 5 miles is a long way because anything that slows you down will slow down that average speed. If you reduce that to 20 mph average speed, the distance will be a little over 3 miles. In my neck of the woods, 3 miles covers a lot of territory.
I haven't delivered pizza before, but I've delivered just about everything else. If they expect to do 10 minute deliveries, that would be expecting a lot because it will be hard. It all depends upon the territory.
Kardashevian Aspirations: 20120114 Live interview with Andrea Rossi
Kardashevian Aspirations: 20120114 Live interview with Andrea Rossi: h/t Next Big Future Highlights The Smart Scarecrow Show hosts the interview Sterling Allan of pesn.com does the honors Introduction ...
Last night's GOP Presidential debate
Rather than go play by play on the entire debate let me briefly discuss my impressions
Update:
Limbaugh seems to like the debate. He said it was the best debate yet. He liked Newt's performance.
Update:
Scoring the debate. I don't agree with everything here, and have some definite issues with some of it. In general, the idea that Romney has it sewed up. In particular:
- Except for Ron Paul, the tone with respect to foreign policy seemed bellicose. This may work in South Carolina, but will it work in a national campaign?
- Obama caught some serious flak for economic and domestic policy. This could be an advantage for GOP.
- Generally speaking, Romney held up pretty well on the Bain questions, yet the attacks did not get refuted nor discredited. There was something of an explanation from Romney, but it is hard to say if this will be enough in the general election.
- As of this sentence, I am into the debate for over an hour. Nobody has slipped badly, made no major gaffes, nor anything that seems very controversial.
- Romney got booed on the question about signing a recent bill empowering the detention of terrorists on US soil. It is controversial, obviously. He explained that a president with the appropriate character won't abuse that power. That seems a little too weak a reed to lean on, in my opinion. Santorum got the same question and he answered it quite differently. Paul got a shot too, and got some cheers.
- Ron Paul made a distinction between military spending and defense. He hoped to show that he wasn't weak on national defense. It remains to be seen if that will work.
- I liked Gingrich's ideas on Social Security as opposed to Romney's.
- I preferred Santorum's ideas on international trade as opposed to Romney's.
- Gingrich hammered Romney on his super PAC ads. It was quite effective, in my opinion.
- Romney says super PACs should be abolished.
Update:
Limbaugh seems to like the debate. He said it was the best debate yet. He liked Newt's performance.
Update:
Scoring the debate. I don't agree with everything here, and have some definite issues with some of it. In general, the idea that Romney has it sewed up. In particular:
This exchange was Paul’s second run at full spectrum incoherence in tonight’s debate.Actually, I think a more accurate assessment of Ron Paul is he's not in the same mold as the others, which may not be a bad thing. Limbaugh says that is what the Twitter responses indicated, but Limbaugh attributes this to some type of Paulbot operation.
On churches and truth, Part II
As mentioned yesterday, it seems as though success in blogging tends to be related to a concept of falling into a "trap of belief". Not that this was actually asserted directly, but that it could be asserted directly.
So, let's explore that notion, shall we? First of all, the web is totally self-directed in terms of traffic. Those who surf the web only go to those sites that please them. Not to say that there's anything wrong with that, but it is different from traditional media. With traditional media, the number of choices is much more limited. On the web, there are unlimited number of potential "churches" someone can attend. Come to think of it, the number exceeds the actual physical number of "brick and mortar" churches, as well as the usual choices that the traditional media offers.
It would seem therefore, that those who can attract traffic tend to do so by setting up their own "church". Their church will attract the viewership needed for a viable business model. But, as with any business model, the church needs enough of an audience in order to sustain itself. Come to think of it, any church is like that. The major media is like a church too.
Those of you reading this may object to the term "church". The term is used rather loosely to be sure. But it does seem to be like a church, because it is all driven by some type of belief, or belief system. A belief system is in the plural. It means, in this context, a number of beliefs that are attached to each other that would enable it to become viable as a community. Well, you know, community is not a unknown word on the web. However, the use of the word "church" has not been commonly used to describe it. But if you were to think it over, what drives the traffic to any site is the common and shared beliefs in a particular community.
If the term "church" is too bothersome, then think of it as a community. The community, however, will have to have some shared values and beliefs. Otherwise, why go there? There are so many other places to go, what should anyone come to your site if it is all about nothing. It has to be about something, even if it is only meant to be entertaining. If Seinfeld is your thing, there's bound to be one out there to service that preference.
What kind of community have we got here? Not much of one, judging by the audience numbers. This is what needs to change or this church will have to shut down.
So what is this blog all about then? Judging by the posts in the labeled categories, which can be observed in a cloud type arrangement, this blog is about 3 major topics and a few dozen minor ones, to wit:
Movies can illustrate by means of the arts some message that needs to be expressed. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a movie could be worth a million.
Politics is the means by which decisions get made. You can't do much without a community. If you have a community, that makes it a political force. With a political force at your disposal, things can get accomplished.
Space is a way to solve the problems that face us all. It is at the core of this belief system. So, in a nutshell, that could be the entire problem. Somehow, you've got to get people to believe that space will solve our problems. If you can't do that, you can't get a community. If you can't get a community, you can't do anything politically. Which in the end means you can't do much of anything at all.
I've purposefully avoided using the first person singular. That ends with this paragraph. Since I write the blog, all this responsibility belongs to me. Frankly, I don't know that I can do all of this. Or much of it. I'm not a politician, nor do I want to be. I'm not a pastor, nor do I want to be. I am willing to write about it as best I can, but how far can that take you? Maybe not too far. My style is not to be a leader, nor am I a very good follower sometimes. Maybe more often than sometimes. I am a rather imperfect instrument for this and I know it. But do it somehow, I must if I am to succeed.
So, let's explore that notion, shall we? First of all, the web is totally self-directed in terms of traffic. Those who surf the web only go to those sites that please them. Not to say that there's anything wrong with that, but it is different from traditional media. With traditional media, the number of choices is much more limited. On the web, there are unlimited number of potential "churches" someone can attend. Come to think of it, the number exceeds the actual physical number of "brick and mortar" churches, as well as the usual choices that the traditional media offers.
It would seem therefore, that those who can attract traffic tend to do so by setting up their own "church". Their church will attract the viewership needed for a viable business model. But, as with any business model, the church needs enough of an audience in order to sustain itself. Come to think of it, any church is like that. The major media is like a church too.
Those of you reading this may object to the term "church". The term is used rather loosely to be sure. But it does seem to be like a church, because it is all driven by some type of belief, or belief system. A belief system is in the plural. It means, in this context, a number of beliefs that are attached to each other that would enable it to become viable as a community. Well, you know, community is not a unknown word on the web. However, the use of the word "church" has not been commonly used to describe it. But if you were to think it over, what drives the traffic to any site is the common and shared beliefs in a particular community.
If the term "church" is too bothersome, then think of it as a community. The community, however, will have to have some shared values and beliefs. Otherwise, why go there? There are so many other places to go, what should anyone come to your site if it is all about nothing. It has to be about something, even if it is only meant to be entertaining. If Seinfeld is your thing, there's bound to be one out there to service that preference.
What kind of community have we got here? Not much of one, judging by the audience numbers. This is what needs to change or this church will have to shut down.
So what is this blog all about then? Judging by the posts in the labeled categories, which can be observed in a cloud type arrangement, this blog is about 3 major topics and a few dozen minor ones, to wit:
- Videos and movies
- Politics
- Space
Movies can illustrate by means of the arts some message that needs to be expressed. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a movie could be worth a million.
Politics is the means by which decisions get made. You can't do much without a community. If you have a community, that makes it a political force. With a political force at your disposal, things can get accomplished.
Space is a way to solve the problems that face us all. It is at the core of this belief system. So, in a nutshell, that could be the entire problem. Somehow, you've got to get people to believe that space will solve our problems. If you can't do that, you can't get a community. If you can't get a community, you can't do anything politically. Which in the end means you can't do much of anything at all.
I've purposefully avoided using the first person singular. That ends with this paragraph. Since I write the blog, all this responsibility belongs to me. Frankly, I don't know that I can do all of this. Or much of it. I'm not a politician, nor do I want to be. I'm not a pastor, nor do I want to be. I am willing to write about it as best I can, but how far can that take you? Maybe not too far. My style is not to be a leader, nor am I a very good follower sometimes. Maybe more often than sometimes. I am a rather imperfect instrument for this and I know it. But do it somehow, I must if I am to succeed.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Kardashevian Aspirations: Joe Bonometti - LFTR Development Lessons Learned @...
Kardashevian Aspirations: Joe Bonometti - LFTR Development Lessons Learned @...: Dr. Joe Bonometti at TEAC3 quote: Joe also did one of the very first “Tech-Talks” at Google on the subject of LFTR technology. Comment: ...
It's Official: Ballot Challenge To Mitt Romney's Eligibility To Be President Filed In Illinois
freerepublic.com
quote:
I don't know about the dual citizen part. I think the natural born citizen means that both of Mitt's parents have to be US citizens, which probably can be argued for and against in the case of Romney. Just enough to confuse people. That's why the Obama wants Mitt, regardless of what some may be saying about it.
quote:
For some that do not know, according to Mexican law at the time when Mitts dad George was born in Chihuahua, he became a Mexican citizen. That citizenship was passed to Mitt at his birth in 1947 despite the fact he was born in Michigan. That means Mitt was born a dual citizen and a born dual citizen is not a Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen eligible for the presidency as our founders intended.Comment:
I don't know about the dual citizen part. I think the natural born citizen means that both of Mitt's parents have to be US citizens, which probably can be argued for and against in the case of Romney. Just enough to confuse people. That's why the Obama wants Mitt, regardless of what some may be saying about it.
Robert Zubrin: How to reduce oil prices
nationalreview.com
Zubrin's ideas make a lot of sense, but he was saying this in 2008. What happened? Obama happened, so this is pretty much where it was 4 years ago.
Question: Who is the candidate who is most likely to do this? I would say Gingrich because he pushed the Drill Here, Drill Now, Save Money campaign.
Question: Would Romney do it? Maybe, but I am not so sure. He did seem to be in favor of cap and trade at one time.
But so was Gingrich. But Gingrich actually did something that counted. What has Romney ever done?
Zubrin's ideas make a lot of sense, but he was saying this in 2008. What happened? Obama happened, so this is pretty much where it was 4 years ago.
Question: Who is the candidate who is most likely to do this? I would say Gingrich because he pushed the Drill Here, Drill Now, Save Money campaign.
Question: Would Romney do it? Maybe, but I am not so sure. He did seem to be in favor of cap and trade at one time.
But so was Gingrich. But Gingrich actually did something that counted. What has Romney ever done?
On churches and truth
The failure of this blog to get traction is a problem that has been vexing me since I begun writing it. But I think I may be getting some insight into the nature of the problem. Briefly stated: why is this blog failing? Because the truth is a slippery thing. Is that the reason? No, not exactly. More precision is required.
Let me try this: not only is the truth a slippery thing, but most people appear to think otherwise. When that happens, they fall into what I will call "the trap of belief". It is human nature to want to believe in things, but it is this very thing that causes you to fall into this trap. When that happens, you join a "church", and start believing in something in which is said to be "the truth". Those who join this church manage to convince each other, who are members of this church, that they are all in possession of this truth. Those who don't believe are also believed to be misguided, or even evil.
I have tended to avoid belonging to any church. Yet, I have believed things very strongly. I am no different from anybody else.
If I am correct about this theory, the statement that I don't belong to a church will be interpreted to mean that I don't believe in anything at all. Yet, I have believed in things and I have seen in personal experience how a belief in something can lead you to the wrong conclusions. Just because you believe in something strongly, doesn't make it any more or less true. Truth is independent from whatever you believe. Your feelings about it are irrelevant to whatever the truth may be. Yet, the majority of people, maybe even the vast majority of people, think just exactly the opposite. The thought is that if you believe in something hard enough, it will be even more likely to be true.
A quote, which may illuminate the point:
It's painful to be in the middle because you manage to offend everybody and please nobody. As for my own beliefs, well, I believe that solutions can be found. But you have to be willing to look for them. If you already think that you have all the answers, then why look any further? But what happens when you stop looking? All too often, people seem to think that they don't need to look beyond their own noses because everything that needs to be known is already present between their own ears. So, they aren't much willing to listen to anything that disturbs the peace of the smug self confidence that their beliefs give to them.
Let me try this: not only is the truth a slippery thing, but most people appear to think otherwise. When that happens, they fall into what I will call "the trap of belief". It is human nature to want to believe in things, but it is this very thing that causes you to fall into this trap. When that happens, you join a "church", and start believing in something in which is said to be "the truth". Those who join this church manage to convince each other, who are members of this church, that they are all in possession of this truth. Those who don't believe are also believed to be misguided, or even evil.
I have tended to avoid belonging to any church. Yet, I have believed things very strongly. I am no different from anybody else.
If I am correct about this theory, the statement that I don't belong to a church will be interpreted to mean that I don't believe in anything at all. Yet, I have believed in things and I have seen in personal experience how a belief in something can lead you to the wrong conclusions. Just because you believe in something strongly, doesn't make it any more or less true. Truth is independent from whatever you believe. Your feelings about it are irrelevant to whatever the truth may be. Yet, the majority of people, maybe even the vast majority of people, think just exactly the opposite. The thought is that if you believe in something hard enough, it will be even more likely to be true.
A quote, which may illuminate the point:
Faith is one of the forces by which men live, and the total absence of it means collapse.A few examples of the "churches", aside from the long established churches, such as the Catholic Church
~ William James
- Modern day liberalism, which is most often said to be practiced by the Democrat Party. This has also been described as "secular humanism". Democrats claim to practice this, but I doubt it. They are said to practice it by others, but I doubt the accuracy of that source as well.
- There appears to be a church distinct from this church, which has now managed to get a large number of adherents in the Republican Party: It is related to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It is reflected in the movement associated with the Libertarians. They are somewhat in tune with the Republican party on the subject of limited government, but also somewhat in tune with the Democrats in terms of personal freedom and non-interventionism in foreign policy.
- Various cults and beliefs associated loosely with the currents and eddies of modern life-- I will add amongst this list the believers in the Rossi- Focardi E-cat. I strongly suspect belief in the E-cat has trumped logic, reason, and evidence. Those people have joined this church apparently believe those who question their beliefs are evil- or as Rossi says "snakes". I will also include their detractors, who are also following an irrational course by labeling those who believe in the E-cat to be followers of "pathological science". They may be both right, or both wrong. Or one of them may be right, but both cannot be right.
It's painful to be in the middle because you manage to offend everybody and please nobody. As for my own beliefs, well, I believe that solutions can be found. But you have to be willing to look for them. If you already think that you have all the answers, then why look any further? But what happens when you stop looking? All too often, people seem to think that they don't need to look beyond their own noses because everything that needs to be known is already present between their own ears. So, they aren't much willing to listen to anything that disturbs the peace of the smug self confidence that their beliefs give to them.
The Nutty Newt Saga Continues
NOTE: I am including this essay here as a counterpoint to the one that I have just made. No, I am not attacking capitalism nor defending it. But only stating that there are more ways to look at something than just one. This is what can happen when you join a "church". Ringer belongs to a church, as he can't see any other way to look at Gingrich.
by Robert Ringer - Monday, January 16, 2012
Every time you think the media is about to run out of ideas for transforming a nonstory into a spectacular news event, they manage to come up with yet another gem. That said, forgive me for adding my two cents worth to the Bain Capital brouhaha.
Those who know Newt Gingrich best have long predicated he would implode, even after he shot to the top of the polls, which he managed to do by cleverly playing the role of the calm, intellectual, peacemaking elderly statesman who was above the fray. So Gingrich’s angry obsession with taking down MittMan, even if it means destroying his own chances of winning the Republican nomination, is not surprising.
After observing his words and actions — from his climate-changing love-fest with Nancy Pelosi on the couch to his infamous “right-wing social engineering” comment about Paul Ryan’s budget plan — and then his scorched-earth attacks on free-market capitalism — I’ve come to the conclusion that Newt is not just a nasty, egomaniacal, self-destructive, undisciplined flip-flopper.
I hate to make excuses for him, but I truly believe the man is illegally insane — a classic example of a mad genius. So even though I condemn Nutty Newt for his attacks against the free market, I feel compelled to declare him not guilty by reason of insanity.
That said, I believe that Mitt Romney exemplifies everything that’s wrong with politics in this country, so my condemnation of Gingrich for his anti-capitalism remarks is not a defense of MittMan. It’s a defense of capitalism.
Where pundits and conservative politicians are off target in this whole time-wasting affair is that they all seem to agree that Romney should “come clean” and explain his modus operandi while at Bain Capital. Nutty Newt, in a back-pedaling mode, said, “I think he [Romney] owes the country a much more detailed answer about what his career was like.”
That’s a real head scratcher, even coming from Newt. Was Romney ever convicted of a crime — or even indicted? Did he ever lose a lawsuit claiming fraud against him or Bain Capital? If not, what’s to explain?
Gingrich, using the language of the class-warfare crowd, accused Romney of being a “predatory capitalist.” We’re talking serious sticks and stones here. Can you imagine how crummy you’d feel if someone accused you of being — Gasp! — a predatory capitalist? Neither can I, because there is no such thing.
The Einstein of the field, Rick Perry, even went so far as to call the Mitt a “vulture capitalist.” If both Gingrich and Perry are right, that makes Romney the worst of all creatures — a predatory vulture capitalist. Bring out the guillotine!
The fact is that Bain Capital, under Romney’s leadership, helped to launch or rebuild hundreds of companies, including such well-known brand names as Staples, The Sports Authority, and Domino’s Pizza, which resulted in tens of thousands of jobs. But how many jobs Romney created or “destroyed” or how much money he made or lost while he was with Bain Capital misses the point of what capitalism is all about.
Capitalism is a system whereby consenting adults are free to deal with one another on any terms that are mutually agreeable to them, without government interference. You cannot understand capitalism unless you begin with a correct premise. And the premise that even many adherents of capitalism ignore is that the primary — some would argue the sole — purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible for its owner(s).
Of course, it’s true that, in the process of making profits, a business creates jobs, but creating jobs is not — repeat, not — its chief objective. Creating jobs is a byproduct of operating a successful business.
As to charges of “raiding” and “looting” companies, how does a person raid or loot a company he owns? What does raiding or looting a company even mean? If you enter into a free-market transaction to buy controlling interest in a company, you have a right to do whatever you want with that company.
If Bain invested in a company, then decided to sell off its assets and close it down, making a profit in the process, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Businesses are not charities; they are vehicles for making money.
If Romney wants to shed his well-earned image of being a big-government progressive, this is a good time for him to stand up and be bold in defending capitalism. Not by arguing that he was not a predatory capitalist, but by explaining that his objective at Bain was to make money by turning around failing companies and helping small companies to become larger and more profitable — for Bain!
It’s time to end all the silly talk about raiding, looting, and predatory capitalism. And, while we’re at it, it would be nice if we could also stop all the babbling about creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The issue we should be talking about is freedom. Where freedom exists, the economy takes care of itself and jobs automatically follow.
Unemployment is a symptom of a bad economy, and a bad economy is a symptom of a lack of freedom. You cannot have prosperity under a government whose chief goal is to eliminate freedom and equalize income through the use of force.
But instead of focusing on our loss of freedom, presidential debate moderators would rather ask questions like, “What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay?” We’re $15 trillion in debt and the most important question he can think of is how Rick Santorum would react if he found out his son was gay?
Our loss of freedom didn’t begin with Barack Obama, but it will surely end with him if he is reelected. Wake up, Republicans! Stop the nonsense and start focusing on the issue of freedom.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 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.
by Robert Ringer - Monday, January 16, 2012
Every time you think the media is about to run out of ideas for transforming a nonstory into a spectacular news event, they manage to come up with yet another gem. That said, forgive me for adding my two cents worth to the Bain Capital brouhaha.
Those who know Newt Gingrich best have long predicated he would implode, even after he shot to the top of the polls, which he managed to do by cleverly playing the role of the calm, intellectual, peacemaking elderly statesman who was above the fray. So Gingrich’s angry obsession with taking down MittMan, even if it means destroying his own chances of winning the Republican nomination, is not surprising.
After observing his words and actions — from his climate-changing love-fest with Nancy Pelosi on the couch to his infamous “right-wing social engineering” comment about Paul Ryan’s budget plan — and then his scorched-earth attacks on free-market capitalism — I’ve come to the conclusion that Newt is not just a nasty, egomaniacal, self-destructive, undisciplined flip-flopper.
I hate to make excuses for him, but I truly believe the man is illegally insane — a classic example of a mad genius. So even though I condemn Nutty Newt for his attacks against the free market, I feel compelled to declare him not guilty by reason of insanity.
That said, I believe that Mitt Romney exemplifies everything that’s wrong with politics in this country, so my condemnation of Gingrich for his anti-capitalism remarks is not a defense of MittMan. It’s a defense of capitalism.
Where pundits and conservative politicians are off target in this whole time-wasting affair is that they all seem to agree that Romney should “come clean” and explain his modus operandi while at Bain Capital. Nutty Newt, in a back-pedaling mode, said, “I think he [Romney] owes the country a much more detailed answer about what his career was like.”
That’s a real head scratcher, even coming from Newt. Was Romney ever convicted of a crime — or even indicted? Did he ever lose a lawsuit claiming fraud against him or Bain Capital? If not, what’s to explain?
Gingrich, using the language of the class-warfare crowd, accused Romney of being a “predatory capitalist.” We’re talking serious sticks and stones here. Can you imagine how crummy you’d feel if someone accused you of being — Gasp! — a predatory capitalist? Neither can I, because there is no such thing.
The Einstein of the field, Rick Perry, even went so far as to call the Mitt a “vulture capitalist.” If both Gingrich and Perry are right, that makes Romney the worst of all creatures — a predatory vulture capitalist. Bring out the guillotine!
The fact is that Bain Capital, under Romney’s leadership, helped to launch or rebuild hundreds of companies, including such well-known brand names as Staples, The Sports Authority, and Domino’s Pizza, which resulted in tens of thousands of jobs. But how many jobs Romney created or “destroyed” or how much money he made or lost while he was with Bain Capital misses the point of what capitalism is all about.
Capitalism is a system whereby consenting adults are free to deal with one another on any terms that are mutually agreeable to them, without government interference. You cannot understand capitalism unless you begin with a correct premise. And the premise that even many adherents of capitalism ignore is that the primary — some would argue the sole — purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible for its owner(s).
Of course, it’s true that, in the process of making profits, a business creates jobs, but creating jobs is not — repeat, not — its chief objective. Creating jobs is a byproduct of operating a successful business.
As to charges of “raiding” and “looting” companies, how does a person raid or loot a company he owns? What does raiding or looting a company even mean? If you enter into a free-market transaction to buy controlling interest in a company, you have a right to do whatever you want with that company.
If Bain invested in a company, then decided to sell off its assets and close it down, making a profit in the process, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Businesses are not charities; they are vehicles for making money.
If Romney wants to shed his well-earned image of being a big-government progressive, this is a good time for him to stand up and be bold in defending capitalism. Not by arguing that he was not a predatory capitalist, but by explaining that his objective at Bain was to make money by turning around failing companies and helping small companies to become larger and more profitable — for Bain!
It’s time to end all the silly talk about raiding, looting, and predatory capitalism. And, while we’re at it, it would be nice if we could also stop all the babbling about creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The issue we should be talking about is freedom. Where freedom exists, the economy takes care of itself and jobs automatically follow.
Unemployment is a symptom of a bad economy, and a bad economy is a symptom of a lack of freedom. You cannot have prosperity under a government whose chief goal is to eliminate freedom and equalize income through the use of force.
But instead of focusing on our loss of freedom, presidential debate moderators would rather ask questions like, “What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay?” We’re $15 trillion in debt and the most important question he can think of is how Rick Santorum would react if he found out his son was gay?
Our loss of freedom didn’t begin with Barack Obama, but it will surely end with him if he is reelected. Wake up, Republicans! Stop the nonsense and start focusing on the issue of freedom.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 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.
Capitalism on Trial -- Star Parker
townhall.com
quote:
But there are polls that say otherwise, economic growth is still considered to be important.
quote:
comment:
But why play defense when you have most people on your side already? Go on offense.
quote:
Exactly. That is why you go on offense.
quote:
comment:
Here is where she makes her most cogent point, and where Romney's defenders may fall flat on their faces
quote:
The point is, sadly, there is mistrust in America about the very thing that any conservative will tell you is the mother’s milk of our country – freedom and free enterprise.comment:
But there are polls that say otherwise, economic growth is still considered to be important.
quote:
Republicans will have their work cut out to defend business and freedom against this onslaught, particularly in today’s environment of mistrust about these very things.
comment:
But why play defense when you have most people on your side already? Go on offense.
quote:
Government has taken over major parts of American life and to regain our vitality, significant reforms must be made.
Exactly. That is why you go on offense.
quote:
America’s biggest and most powerful businesses are notoriously unreliable defenders of free markets. They have a deserved reputation for being unprincipled.
comment:
Here is where she makes her most cogent point, and where Romney's defenders may fall flat on their faces
- American big businessmen are generally about expediency, not principles.
- He may be saying what sounds good now. But it’s the expedient thing to do.
- More expediency is not going to get us out of it. Only principled leadership that inspires trust in free enterprise and capitalism will.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
GHEI: The class warfare toxin
Washington Times
quote:
Isn't the reason for this shown in the way that Obama speaks? But this doesn't go very deep as most people still believe that economic growth is important.
quote:
Far too much of policy in Washington has focused on redistribution instead of growth.Comment:
Isn't the reason for this shown in the way that Obama speaks? But this doesn't go very deep as most people still believe that economic growth is important.
How to catch bedbugs
A new debugger
quote:
See if you can see what I mean
quote:
- bed-bug trap baited with something the bugs find irresistible—the smell of their own droppings.
See if you can see what I mean
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
h/t Glenn Reynolds
Quote:
"... he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich."
Comment:
Thatcher is referring to the politics of envy. But envy is one of the seven deadly sins. Does that make the socialism a sinful ideology? Perhaps no more sinful than the sins they are pointing out. For example, the sin that they object to most is what they are fond of calling greed. Yes, greed is also one of the seven deadly sins, but are they any less greedy in their own pursuits? The Church of Liberalism has a problem with wealth creation, but not so much when it comes to their own wealth.
I see the Church of Liberalism as a guilt tripping enterprise which attempts to get into your pockets by making you feel guilty about something. Your prosperity is but one thing, there are many other tricks up their sleeves.
The left really isn't looking for more virtue in our society, are they? Or are they? I think they want something, but it probably isn't virtue.
Here's a chart I found on Wikipedia. If you're interested, you can practice these virtues yourself without being lectured about them from a bunch of windbag politicians.
Quote:
"... he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich."
Comment:
Thatcher is referring to the politics of envy. But envy is one of the seven deadly sins. Does that make the socialism a sinful ideology? Perhaps no more sinful than the sins they are pointing out. For example, the sin that they object to most is what they are fond of calling greed. Yes, greed is also one of the seven deadly sins, but are they any less greedy in their own pursuits? The Church of Liberalism has a problem with wealth creation, but not so much when it comes to their own wealth.
I see the Church of Liberalism as a guilt tripping enterprise which attempts to get into your pockets by making you feel guilty about something. Your prosperity is but one thing, there are many other tricks up their sleeves.
The left really isn't looking for more virtue in our society, are they? Or are they? I think they want something, but it probably isn't virtue.
Here's a chart I found on Wikipedia. If you're interested, you can practice these virtues yourself without being lectured about them from a bunch of windbag politicians.
 |
| Seven virtues |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)