Saturday, February 4, 2012

Abbot & Costello - It's Payday!

Uploaded by anewexplanation on Nov 28, 2008

You have to love the math calculations.

Animal mother

meets the Joker.

You talk the talk, do you walk the walk?  I wonder if this movie is where that phrase originated.

Uncommitted Voters to Obama: You suck

h/t Freerepublic, Hot Air

Too many Faustian bargains.  The Democrats made theirs with Obama.  The Republicans are flirting with Romney.  Not too late to change course!

Waste of breath

The latest talk is about the employment situation, so I had a look at the pdf

This type of argument just bores me silly, so I won't argue.  It looks like jobs have been created, as you would expect in a recovery.  Here's a chart that I've extracted which illustrates some job growth over the past year:

the circled numbers indicate close to two million new jobs in the last year
Whatever the argument you choose to make, the fact is that these are real jobs, not made up numbers, as best as I can tell.  This shows an improvement.

I don't like to waste time over statistics.  It is what it is.  Jobs are being created.

One stat out there that can't be denied is the huge deficit.  But that may not be a biggie for the majority.  It wasn't during the Reagan years.

Kardashevian Aspirations: Thorium Energy Alliance

Kardashevian Aspirations: Thorium Energy Alliance: A short update on that post recently, which has some actionable material in it, just in case you wanted to, you know, DO SOMETHING. Well, ...

Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'?

Uploaded by NewSimpleadams on Jan 11, 2012

Supporting Romney is like making a Faustian bargain. You would have to sell your soul in exchange for a victory over Obama.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Punxsutawney Phil sees shadow, 6 more weeks of winter

Reminds me of the movie.  The same thing happens over and over again like you're stuck in a time warp.

Experts say Gingrich moon base dreams not lunacy  h/t Instapundit

Much of the criticism of his space plans, especially in the media, have been unfair, said Alan Stern, NASA's space sciences chief during George W. Bush's administration. He said Gingrich is just thinking big, like a pioneer.

"That's how 'Star Trek' begins," said Stern, vice president of the Southwest Research Institute and director of the Florida Space Institute. "But when a government guy or politician talks that way, they just get clobbered about being unrealistic and that's unfortunate."


This article didn't say enough.  Of course it is feasible from a technical point of view.  After all, we went there 40 years ago.  The big issue is the cost.

What the article doesn't mention is that there are efforts under way that could reduce the costs significantly.  If these efforts are successful, the idea of a moonbase will not only be feasible, as it already is, but also economically affordable.  When that happens, it will become politically feasible.

What was really unfortunate is that this wasn't pointed out during the debate.  Romney says it will cost a trillion dollars and that is totally absurd.  It was evidence of his ignorance on the subject, so the ridicule could have been redirected at Romney himself.  It was cheap and tawdry, and demeans the issue which is not in the best interest of the country.  Romney gained while the rest of the nation lost.  Sort of reminds you of what he did for Bain Capital.

Romney's victory in Florida could turn out to be a successful hostile takeover of the Republican Party.  After he finishes with the party, it will be bankrupted morally, ethically, and spiritually.  Instead of defending small government, which is what he pretends to do, he will continue fostering the notion that it can only be done by big government, so it will never get done at all.  The potential for entire new industries will have to wait until some other country with a enough vision and courage will do the job.  Evidently that quality is no longer in our own possession.  The "dark side" of the force has won.

All right, you can stop laughing now.  After all, you are only laughing at your own misfortune, which has been self inflicted.  That's what happens when you listen to a liar like Romney.


Byron York:  Why Romney won -- Why Gingrich lost
In Florida, Romney's answer was a second, even bigger, wave of attacks. And Gingrich reacted in the same complaining, self-defeating way he did the first time, only more so. Perhaps his angriest moment of the Florida campaign came last Thursday at a morning rally in Mount Dora, in the central part of the state. The event was held in a beautiful lakeside setting, on a beautiful day, before a big, enthusiastic Tea Party crowd -- the perfect backdrop for a positive, forward-looking campaign speech. Instead, Gingrich stepped into the sunlight and delivered an angry prologue to his stump speech, denouncing Romney's "gall," saying Romney "thinks we're stupid," railing at the negative ads, calling Romney's tactics "the desperate last stand of the old order, throwing the kitchen sink, hoping something sticks." The media narrative of that day was Gingrich's anger -- an entirely accurate summary.

The "angry Newt" meme.  I think Newt needs to get some slack on this.  After all, Romney was on the attack.  What was he supposed to do, just sit back and take it?

It was a mistake perhaps to go all out ballistic.  A more precision type response could have been offered, as indicated above.  Newt can tie in all of what has been said before about Romney.  It could be delivered in more telling moment, in a debate, which could crystallize symbolically what has been happening to this party and compare it to what has been happening to this country.  The loser wing of the party, which blew the Reagan revolution, which blew the Contract with America, which is now blowing off the Tea Party movement, is symbolized by Romney.  It is the same modus operandi as before- take out the conservative wing and coopt it.  Gingrich needs to point it out again and again, and not let himself be intimidated by this "angry-Newt" meme that the loser wing has thought up in order to take over the Republican Party.


A bit of history could illustrate a point sometimes.  If history is forgotten, or important parts are overlooked, you may be missing something important.  History can literally turn on seemingly insignficant details.  I'm not a historian, per se, but I do know a bit about Texas' history.  Most people probably know about the Battle of San Jacinto, where Sam Houston's Army defeated Santa Ana's Army, and won Texas' independence from Mexico.  But what most people overlook, if modern day monuments are any indication, is that the battle was not won yet at San Jacinto.  Santa Ana escaped.  He was captured here, which is marked by only an insignificant marker about 10 miles from the battlefield.
Santa Ana capture site, near Houston Texas

The main battlefield is ostentatious compared to this little marker.  But the little marker is more significant than the big monument 10 miles down the road.  For if Santa Ana had gotten away, the war could have continued, and the victory won at San Jacinto may only be a footnote in history.  The Texan Army was still badly outnumbered and their own leader was wounded.  Just a small change in outcome, and the history of the United States could have been radically different today, because the entire Southwest portion of the country would still be a part of Mexico.  This would have been a different nation.

People ought to think about that before they cheer a guy like Romney, who makes light of the space program.  The history of a nation could be riding on that moment just as it did 10 miles away from the San Jacinto Battleground nearly 176 years ago.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

On Romney's victory in Florida

It looks like an anti Newt vote. If Newt were to drop out now, and endorse Santorum, there still may be a chance to stop Romney. But not a good one. The unfortunate thing about this is the large margin of victory. It should be clear though that Newt has been rejected. He can't continue with any credibility. If it was close, he might have, but after this, forget about it.

That's number one. As for Romney himself, my opinion does not change. As far as I'm concerned, this was the worst possible outcome. It reminds me of my reaction to Obama. That one bugged me so much that I still can't believe the guy got elected. Same thing with Romney.

In another sense, it doesn't surprise me. I don't get people. Never have, and perhaps never will. It could explains a lot of things, like why this blog isn't popular. From my point of view, this blog ought to be very popular. But it isn't. Kinda like Newt. I'm used to it though, but I don't know how Newt will take it.


This speech sounds like Gingrich won the primary. He is not going to quit.
His supporters are not deterred. After getting beat this badly, Romneybots must have stared at this speech with disbelief.

This must have been what it seemed like when Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich and promised peace, but actually had delivered war. Winston Churchill did not fall into line with the majority, who tragiclly believed Chamberlain. The point is that he may be able to bounce back. But something has to happen in the meantime.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Lost and found

There's not much time, so I have to make this quick.  The primary in Florida gave an opportunity, and at least one of the candidates took it.  Gingrich spoke about space, Romney just gestured about it.  In the meantime, the proposition was ridiculed.  The ridicule took place of a serious and sober discussion of the topic of space.  Instead, it became a clash of egos.  For this, Romney takes the blame, because he obviously hasn't spent any time studying the issue.  He had to come up with something to mask his ignorance, or otherwise, he looks as shallow as his empty rhetoric.  He brought down the level of discussion, which is not in keeping with what most people seem to want.  Or what most people claim to want.

But at least the topic was discussed.  It is unfortunate how it got discussed, but at least it got discussed.  If Newt can make this close, Romney's spitball contest could be repudiated.  If anything, it could raise the level of discussion for this campaign.  On the other hand, if Romney gets a blowout victory, the opportunity may not arise again.  Instead, Romney's cotton candy campaign will be rewarded.  The likelihood of anything substantive coming out of his campaign will be lost as well.  The campaign needs to go on.  If Romney is to be the nominee, he needs to get a lot better.  If he can't nor won't, somebody else needs to be nominated.


There's a bit more time, so I'll add some more.  Forbes' Richard Miniter brought up a relevant point.  If he wins the nomination, Romney will have to unify the party.  This scorched earth campaign of his demonstrates a basic weakness which should not be ignored.
Meanwhile, Romney’s heavily negative advertising only drives Tea Party activists and other conservatives from one non-Romney candidate to another. Divide and conquer is a storied strategy; it may well work in Florida. But it doesn’t build votes for Romney.

You have to think ahead.  Even if he wins, what has he won?  If he gains a Pyrrhic victory, what will he have left to go against Obama?


The fruits of scorched earth politics.  National Review's cover of Gingrich as Marvin the Martian has given Bill Maher some ammo to use against Gingrich.  Did Newt deserve this?


One more thing. I want to tie in Bain Capital with this because it is symbolic. Romney was attacked for his role at Bain, but you don't have to look at that alone to judge if that attack was fair. Just look at the way he treated Newt. He claimed that Newt resigned the Speakership in disgrace, but is that accurate? Is it as accurate as his claims about space and about his own record with regard to job creation and as governor? How does he treat people? If the way Romney treated Newt in Florida is any indication, the attacks of his association with Bain are not to be lightly dismissed. It isn't just about making money at Bain, it isn't about just winning the nomination at all costs. There has to be an afterward. You can't afford to make too many enemies. You have to be able to patch things up later. Some wounds may not heal.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Mike Dudgeon - Republican for State House

Repeal 17th Amendment

Why You Really Don't Want To Vote for U.S. Senate Anymore
Here is the bottom line. No law passes today without the approval of the popularly elected members of the House. Changing the Senate would not take that away. You would still have your voice in Washington. However, restoring the Senate to its original and correct form would restore the balance of power, put a throttle on the federal government, and let your state do whats is right for its people. The Federal Government is barreling off the cliff, and it is time for the states to put on the brakes.

Amen to that.

The truth is hard

What makes it so hard?  Is it because nobody wants to see it, or is it because nobody can see it?

Romney is not a truthful man.  Sorry if that offends anybody.  Truth is truth.  This guy lies.  But there are going to be millions who vote for this guy.  It is sickening to watch it.  But there it is.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  A movie could be worth a million.  Who does Romney remind me of, as in a character in a movie?  Take the movie,  The Departed,  as an example.  There's a guy, played by Matt Damon, who is a mole within the state police.  He looks like an all American type.  Clean record.  Goes to church, is an altar boy when he was young.  Looks perfectly legit.  But he is a creep.  A real A-number-one top of the line creep.  A mobster recruits him as a spy within the police in order to facilitate his criminal activity.  He's a perfect mole because he looks trustworthy.  He fools almost everybody in the end, even his crime boss.

The moral of that story?  Looks are deceiving.  Romney looks the part, but behind all the good looks and apparent pedigree is a scoundrel of the top rank.  I wouldn't trust Romney one inch, but millions will trust this guy with their future.  Sickening.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Interpreting the significance of Romney's victory

As of this writing, it is more than 24 hours before the primary is set to begin.  At the moment, it appears that Romney has the thing locked up.  Unless there is a big surprise, he will win it.  In addition, it is believed by many that this will make his nomination inevitable.  With victory at the doorstep for Romney, what can be made of it?

An example of Gingrich's problem can be seen with the comparison that could be made between Gingrich and Romney on the basis of morality.  Not that this was a good idea for Gingrich to do this, but evidently, he allowed himself to be goaded into it.  Gingrich has been complaining about Romney's lying, but this doesn't help him much when his own infidelity is out there in the news.  No matter how much Romney lies, and gets called on it by Gingrich, he can always point out that he has been married to just one woman all these years and it's game, set, and match.

Gingrich may be glib, but he isn't clever.  If he wanted to run a positive campaign, he has failed.  Romney got him off that game and now Gingrich is into the kind of campaign that he criticized Bush for in 2004.  It has become a election of personalities as opposed to an election of issues.

Another thing: Gingrich seems more comfortable going after the media than in going after other Republicans.  He got labeled as angry Newt, but that's not how it really looks.  Dole looks mad at Gingrich for losing in 1996.  A small cabal of renegades got mad at Newt and threatened to elect Pelosi as Speaker in 1998, so Gingrich left.  In this campaign, Gingrich let too much of Romney's fibbing to go by him during the last debate.  Romney attacks, but Gingrich holds back in the debate.  Why not mix it up?  On the other hand, Gingrich was more than willing to go after the media.  This helped him in South Carolina, but it didn't help him so far in Florida.

What about the general election matchup?  Although Gingrich didn't want to go after Romney more aggressively, the same Romney won't go after Democrats the way Gingrich might have.  Or would Gingrich have done that?  Would he prefer to make his attacks outside of a mano y mano confrontation, as he did with Romney, while focusing on speeches to friendly audiences?  Is there something a bit soft about Gingrich?  Would Gingrich have really gone after Obama, or would he have just tried to debate on the basis of facts?  On the other hand, if Romney acts the same toward Obama as he did against Gingrich, how will that be taken?  Can Romney afford to do that?  How can Romney run on issues against Obama, after refusing to run on issues against Newt?  If he did run on issues, what issues will he run on?

What we could end up with is an aggressive Romney against Newt, but a passive Romney against Obama.

If Newt ran against Obama, he may be passive, but this could work to his advantage.  If Obama played his hand too aggressively, it may come across as unseemly.  But an aggressive Obama against Romney may not play badly at all.  A passive Romney will not generate sympathy.  A Romney Obama matchup doesn't look good if it plays out this way.  Neither a passive nor an aggressive mode would work for Romney.

Romney had the money advantage against Newt, but that disappears against Obama.

A lackluster economy doesn't help Obama, but as long as peace holds up, and there's no big crisis to have to deal with, he may skate on that.

The big fallacy here is to presume that just any winner in a Republican field will match up well against Obama.  Republicans may play rough with each other, but that may not work well against Obama.  On the other hand, a softer approach like Newt's approach, which means debating on the issues, could possibly work in the general election.  An avoidance of the issues by Obama doesn't help his prospects.  A poor showing in an election based upon issues works to Newt's advantage.  Obama would be forced to go negative on Newt just as Romney did.  One may judge that to be a successful approach to Newt, but maybe not.  After all Romney is not defending his record.  If all Obama can do is attack Newt, while not defending his record, such an approach may backfire on him.  Newt could win in that scenario.

The significance of a Romney victory could well mean another four years for Obama.  Romney doesn't match up well with Romney.  You can't count on a crisis to bail out a poor election prospect either.

(After Democrat victory supposedly) Limbaugh greets Democrats as liberators

Limbaugh greets Democrats as liberators, so says Media Matters

This link was supplied to someone on Free Republic asking for help from others on that site who could help in finding it.

I thought it was given the day after the Nov. 2008 election...
I don't know if the quote above is in reference to that election or the one in 2006.

The title of the Media Matters post doesn't exactly capture the sentiments of Limbaugh accurately.  What else is new?  You kinda expect the left to do stuff like this, but not those who you have trusted in the past.  I'm referring to National Review, amongst others.

Kardashevian Aspirations: What went wrong?

Kardashevian Aspirations: What went wrong?: It may be too early to do this post, as the primary has not been held yet. Conventional wisdom has it that Romney will win in Florida. Doi...

Articles: It's Not About Newt

Romney lost big in South Carolina against split opposition support.

Romney did what he does best.  When he lost S. Carolina, he went to a "scorched earth" campaign.  The dude really was a corporate raider after all.  All he seems to know is seek and destroy.  He doesn't build anything.

I agree with a number of points here, but about the -not being against Romney "personally"- part, I disagree.  I don't think I've seen a candidate from the Republican side that was this bad in all the years that I've observed politics.

He is good at fooling people.  Evidently, that is what it takes nowadays in order to win.

Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war

That the attack on Newt’s Reagan bona fides came from someone who openly ran against Reaganism and against the conservative agenda in 1994 was an irony lost only on the pro-Romney Republican establishment and media. [ emphasis mine]


This goes beyond irony.  If they lose the unity of the party, they have no hope of victory.  Gingrich stepped aside in 1998 for the sake of party unity.  He may do it again, but his support and from his supporters will be lukewarm at best.  Some stuff is not forgotten, nor forgiven easily.  There was no need for this.  It was, as this quote indicates, more Romney than Newt:

The schism need not have occurred. It entirely is an outgrowth of the way in which the Romney campaign and Republican political and media establishments have conducted themselves.

Newt rose in the polls in the fall on a positive message of not attacking fellow Republicans.

I could swear that the intention is not to win in the fall, but to ratify by default another four years of Obama.

Kardashevian Aspirations: What are the near and long term advantages of a Pe...

Kardashevian Aspirations: What are the near and long term advantages of a Pe...: quote: It is a new beachhead for the initiation of space industrialization. Comment: Judging from the comments to th...


With respect to the politics of the issue, it seems to me that Romney is trying to marginalize Gingrich.  By making it appear "zany", impractical, expensive, and therefore foolish, Romney can easily win.  Unless Gingrich can come back with something, he will lose on an issue with which he should be able to win.

Too bad it had to come to this.