freerepublic
Comment:
Rush has been targeted.
I wonder how many people remember or have read Rush's books? The one way to target a radio program is to get the sponsors to stop advertising on the show. Now, with this latest contraception business, that's exactly what's happening.
This is happening at the highest levels- which means the so called president himself. When are people going to wake up to what's happening here?
This is scary stuff. Rush treats it with humor, but it is scary stuff. We may be seeing the beginning of a dictatorship.
Am I over reacting?
This all starts with Obama trampling over the 1st amendment rights of Catholics. Now he wants to silence Limbaugh. What's next?
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, March 3, 2012
Super Tuesday: Which Republicans Will Show Strength in South?
Better watch out for this:
BARACK OBAMA: You know that we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices.
As long as I'm president, I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy, because our future depends on it.(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
In Delegate Race, Romney's Victories Amount To Less Than Meets The Eye
by S.V. Dáte
excerpts
It ain't over yet.
excerpts
- As improbable as it might seem, the combination of Michigan's delegate allocation rule and Arizona's rule-violating winner-take-all contest could mean that Romney's twin victories provide him little ultimate benefit — and highlight again the dual-track GOP primary campaign season. [emphasis mine]
- And then there is Arizona. That state advertised a winner-take-all primary and awarded its 29 delegates to Romney. But that format violates the Republican National Committee prohibition against such events prior to April 1.
- So Arizona is in the same boat as Florida, which also awarded its 50 delegates winner take all (also to Romney) on Jan. 31.
- both states' delegates could be reallocated by the Committee on Contests
It ain't over yet.
Romney's Upper Hand
Kudlow
quote
I don't think I'd put too much faith on marginal tax rates right now. I agree in principle, but Obama's energy starvation mode is what should be priority. It is dangerous on many levels. Particularly in national security. We must have enough energy to run the economy. Without it, it won't matter what the tax rate is.
To be fair, I should include this quote as well:
He ends by talking about proper emphasis. My worry is that by spending time on tax rates, the energy side of the economic mess is going to get short shrift. That would be a mistake.
quote
...when Romney delivered his tax-policy speech at the Detroit Economic Club a week ago, he talked about after-tax incentives on the next dollar earned. And he correctly noted the incentive effect of allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn after-tax. This addressed a key question among conservatives: Does Romney get the incentive model of growth? The answer is yes. Romney's 20 percent tax cut brings him back to the Reagan supply side.Comment:
I don't think I'd put too much faith on marginal tax rates right now. I agree in principle, but Obama's energy starvation mode is what should be priority. It is dangerous on many levels. Particularly in national security. We must have enough energy to run the economy. Without it, it won't matter what the tax rate is.
To be fair, I should include this quote as well:
Both are talking about unleashing American technology for the energy revolution.
He ends by talking about proper emphasis. My worry is that by spending time on tax rates, the energy side of the economic mess is going to get short shrift. That would be a mistake.
How long until Obama says Georgetown is acting “stupidly”?
legalinsurrection
I'm not knocking the professor here. One is obligated to pay attention to the buzz. But the buzz is dumb.
This story is all over the place. While Rome burns, these people are fiddling with this nonsense. Once again, it isn't about contraception, it is about religious freedom.
I'm not knocking the professor here. One is obligated to pay attention to the buzz. But the buzz is dumb.
This story is all over the place. While Rome burns, these people are fiddling with this nonsense. Once again, it isn't about contraception, it is about religious freedom.
BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate
RedState
Comment:
So Romney can't help on ObamaCare. He advocated it.
Update:
He was for it before he was against it
In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to use an individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.
Comment:
So Romney can't help on ObamaCare. He advocated it.
Update:
He was for it before he was against it
Obama's Algae Biofuels
March 1, 2012 By Stephen Lacey
I don't agree with the thesis that biofuels could do this, but that's is not my point. My point is that the Republicans don't have a good enough answer for these concerns, regardless of whether or not that you agree that it is a concern.
For instance, you can reduce the use of carbon dioxide and achieve lower prices at the same time. The biofuel argument fails on that economic score, but it may succeed on another score if the environmentalists are successful in promoting their flawed idea of finite resources.
The solution here for both scores could be thorium fuel cycle as advocated by Kirk Sorensen. Nuclear energy has become a dirty word, but it is something for the future, and the future would not be far off, and would not entail a large expenditure of cash in order to realize its potential.
The thorium fuel cycle creates much less waste than the uranium fuel cycle and uses far fewer resources than even biofuels. It is virtually inexhaustible, as there are thousands of years worth of supplies. It would leave a small environmental footprint, as it is quite concentrated. Biofuels would take up too much of a truly finite resource--- land. Furthermore, thorium fuel cycle reactors could make electricity even cheaper than fossil fuels, all without carbon dioxide.
It makes so much sense on both scores that, as the they saying goes, it is the main reason it is not being done.
The article does make a legitimate point. Innovation has become a dirty word. But I thank Romney for that. Thanks for his failure to see innovation as a hopeful thing, as opposed to a thing that should be ridiculed, Obama could take the high ground, while leaving us high and dry on energy. Obama's Solyndra economy will fail and we will be left holding the bag.
For those concerned about finite resources and maintaining a liveable planet, innovation means finding entirely new, clean sources of energy.
I don't agree with the thesis that biofuels could do this, but that's is not my point. My point is that the Republicans don't have a good enough answer for these concerns, regardless of whether or not that you agree that it is a concern.
For instance, you can reduce the use of carbon dioxide and achieve lower prices at the same time. The biofuel argument fails on that economic score, but it may succeed on another score if the environmentalists are successful in promoting their flawed idea of finite resources.
The solution here for both scores could be thorium fuel cycle as advocated by Kirk Sorensen. Nuclear energy has become a dirty word, but it is something for the future, and the future would not be far off, and would not entail a large expenditure of cash in order to realize its potential.
The thorium fuel cycle creates much less waste than the uranium fuel cycle and uses far fewer resources than even biofuels. It is virtually inexhaustible, as there are thousands of years worth of supplies. It would leave a small environmental footprint, as it is quite concentrated. Biofuels would take up too much of a truly finite resource--- land. Furthermore, thorium fuel cycle reactors could make electricity even cheaper than fossil fuels, all without carbon dioxide.
It makes so much sense on both scores that, as the they saying goes, it is the main reason it is not being done.
The article does make a legitimate point. Innovation has become a dirty word. But I thank Romney for that. Thanks for his failure to see innovation as a hopeful thing, as opposed to a thing that should be ridiculed, Obama could take the high ground, while leaving us high and dry on energy. Obama's Solyndra economy will fail and we will be left holding the bag.
Why conservatives (and Republicans) should be against Romney
This may be like preaching to the choir, but here goes...
- Although Romney may be facile in debates and avoiding his weaknesses, this will not be enough to defeat Obama. Obama will have hundreds of millions, if not a billion dollar war chest. Obama will overwhelm Romney.
- Does Romney have weaknesses? Yes. It was evident in his failure to understand a question and he misspoke. He admitted that. But this is not an isolated incident. Even establishment Republicans worry about his gaffes. His narrow victory in his home state of Michigan was not entirely inspiring.
- About the inspiration aspect... He doesn't get out the vote. He would need every vote he can get against the Obama machine, but he routinely fails to deliver it.
- He has some ties to the Bush camp... Papa Bush endorsed him. Obama could say that he's just another Bush. The Bushes hold a grudge against Gingrich for his lack of support for the Bush tax hike of 1990. George W Bush didn't invite Gingrich to speak at the 2000 Republican Convention. It was a snub. If Gingrich was right about his help being needed to defeat Dukakis in 1988, the grudge may have helped Clinton defeat Papa Bush in 1992. That grudge should not allowed to help Obama win in 2012.
- Romney has not run an issues based campaign. Instead, he attacks other Republicans who manage to get to front runner status. A negative campaign against Obama will backfire. Instead, the nominee should run an issues based campaign which Gingrich is advocating. The nominee will not have Obama's war chest at his disposal. Romney's won't be big enough. What worked against underfunded Republican opponents won't work against Obama. But Romney seems to be incapable of running an issues based campaign.
Lofty goal: 1,000 private spaceflights a year
MSNBC h/t Next Big Future
quote:
Comment:
A bit of snark here from yours truly: If Romney is elected, he'd make sure to fire Nield. His ideas sound too much like Gingrich's, and there's no use for zaniness in his administration.
quote:
George Nield... thinks it's possible to double the number of permit-holding private launches every year for the rest of the decade. That exponential increase would lead to 1,280 liftoffs in 2019 — an average of 3 1/2 per day.
Comment:
A bit of snark here from yours truly: If Romney is elected, he'd make sure to fire Nield. His ideas sound too much like Gingrich's, and there's no use for zaniness in his administration.
Don’t Let Obama Dictate Our Candidate
Dick Morris
quote:
quote:
it is worth noting that Obama’s people believe – passionately – that Romney would be the toughest one to beatFunny, he warns against the liberals voting for Santorum in Michigan, but cites this as a reason to be for Romney. Isn't this a wee bit inconsistent?
Republicans Fall For Manufactured Story
Posted by Dana Loesch Mar 2nd 2012 at 5:36 pm
Yep. This may be how they get called the "Stupid Party". This is the party that might nominate an apparent stupid candidate, Romney, who said he didn't understand a question, and misspoke.
Yep. This may be how they get called the "Stupid Party". This is the party that might nominate an apparent stupid candidate, Romney, who said he didn't understand a question, and misspoke.
Energy Will Be Obama's Waterloo ( wishful thinking?)
By William Tucker on 3.2.12 @ 6:09AM
excerpts:
Sure, if a skillful campaign focuses on these very points, the Republican nominee may have a winning issue in November. The point is that as long as Romney keeps running a vapid, issueless campaign based upon negative attacks on the opponent, as opposed to a campaign based upon issues and offering clear inspirational choices, none of this will matter.
excerpts:
- When President Obama suggested last week that we might eventually be replacing oil with algae, Mark Whittington of Yahoo suggested that the President had reached his "lunar base moment."[ comment: It isn't even clear what the author means by "lunar base moment", except that Obama is spending money on oil from algae research. Does he mean that it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to develop this technology, as Romney said in a debate? "Cocking its head" isn't the same as proof, you know. The proof follows successful demonstrations. If the public is willing to believe Obama's claims, the attempt at a proof may be allowed!]
- This will be the first issue in four years where President Obama won't be able to cast reflexive blame on George Bush.[ comment: Not so fast! See above. They've gotten this far, haven't they? How do you explain Obama's presence in the White House?]
- Last year when temperatures rose to 110 degrees in Texas, that state's 7 percent "wind capacity" proved absolutely useless in the heat-induced doldrums. [ comment: To be fair, the author then makes a series of very good points about the impracticality of Obama's green initiatives. But the point is this: can Obama fool people long enough in order to get elected? The full brunt of the price increases may not be felt by election day.]
- With extraordinary chutzpah, Obama has claimed credit for the increase in oil and gas production through fracking technology. [ comment: As Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool some of the people most of the time, most of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time". You don't have to fool all the people, just most of the people long enough in order to win an election.]
- The good news for Republicans is that the battle lines are drawn. After a summer of $5 gas plus power shortages in industrial regions, the results of four years of Obama energy policies will be hard to avoid. And there won't be any George Bushes around to take the blame.
Sure, if a skillful campaign focuses on these very points, the Republican nominee may have a winning issue in November. The point is that as long as Romney keeps running a vapid, issueless campaign based upon negative attacks on the opponent, as opposed to a campaign based upon issues and offering clear inspirational choices, none of this will matter.
Friday, March 2, 2012
THE MONKEES - Clive James Talks Back interview (ITV), 4th March 1997
This video is the first time I had seen them since they were young. Even this video is over 15 years old. Anyway, Davy Jones has passed to the hereafter. It happened this past week.
Gingrich: Secretary Chu should be fired
www.foxnews.com
Update:
Comment:
This interview with Greta van Susteren was more than about the Obama Administration. There was something there about the Georgia primary, and how Romney is running ads that claim Gingrich was against Reagan.
If that is true, it is a bit of a sick joke for Romney to do that. Coming from him, it is ridiculous. Romney disavowed Reagan in his own campaign for Senator, when he ran against Kennedy. Now to come back and say that Gingrich did it? What a joke.
If you are going to lie such a Big Lie, you'd better be better than this. By the way, if he does this against Obama, he will get his dumb ass obliterated. He will truly bring a knife to a gunfight.
What a joke Romney is.
Update:
Comment:
This interview with Greta van Susteren was more than about the Obama Administration. There was something there about the Georgia primary, and how Romney is running ads that claim Gingrich was against Reagan.
If that is true, it is a bit of a sick joke for Romney to do that. Coming from him, it is ridiculous. Romney disavowed Reagan in his own campaign for Senator, when he ran against Kennedy. Now to come back and say that Gingrich did it? What a joke.
If you are going to lie such a Big Lie, you'd better be better than this. By the way, if he does this against Obama, he will get his dumb ass obliterated. He will truly bring a knife to a gunfight.
What a joke Romney is.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Puzzling Cheers for Higher Taxes
Barone
Higher tax rates on high earners, even if they produce less revenue, are an attempt to centralize power in government and to limit the autonomy and countervailing power of individuals in the voluntary sector.Amen, brother.
Why I don't like Romney
No, it isn't personal. It isn't because he insulted Gingrich, or even if he ran negative ads against him. No, in order to explain my dislike of Romney, I have to discuss something that I haven't discussed before.
You see, even though I am not rich myself, I wanted to be. So, I always have been looking for that one thing that might put me over the top. No, I didn't find it. But along the way, I think I may have picked up a few things. One of those things was in a self-improvement book. I won't cite the book specifically, just something in it of significance. It was a quote of Marcus Aurelius, the last good emperor of the Roman Empire. It went something like this: "Our lives are what our thoughts make it." So, if you think failure, you will get failure. If you think success, you will get success. Everything in life results from the way you think. You are what you think. If you haven't heard of Marcus Aurelius, you probably heard that one before- you are what you think.
Now, what does this have to do with politics? Well, Romney put down the space program. Not only that, he made it out to be something that can't be done. Even worse than that, he made it out to be something that is worthy of scorn. In other words, we can't do it, and we shouldn't even try. So, if Romney becomes President of this here country, his mindset comes in the bargain. If he really doesn't believe we can do it, well we certainly aren't going to be doing it. "Our lives will be what our thoughts make it."
Ok, so what's the big deal? Space isn't that important. Maybe not. But consider this: if a presidential candidate said in 1912 that we should go to the moon, he would have been laughed at. Sort of like today with Gingrich. But in 1962, it was national policy. It was expected that we would do it, and so we did. Our lives were what are thoughts made it. The physical equivalent of those thoughts of achievement in space became reality and we did it. I lived through those years of Apollo. Getting to space was a given. It was part of the culture. It was expected that we would do this. There may have been doubters, as there always is, but the aspiration certainly wasn't treated with scorn.
So, with this ridicule of the very concept of getting to the moon again puts us right back where we were 100 years ago! If we are what we think, and we really can't do this anymore, where does that leaves us in the future? Would you rather see the progress from 1912 to 1962- or would you rather go back to the horse and buggy era? Where will we be in the next 50 years if Romney's mindset takes hold?
To me, what Romney did was unforgivable because he set the thoughts in motion that will result in decline. It doesn't have to be that way. We should go back to the moon because we can do it. We should do it because it will bring enormous benefits to us all. It will make our domain infinitely larger and richer. Yes, and I think it will make us safer. Rich countries do not attack each other. Happy people do not hate each other and want to kill each other. If this becomes our way of thinking, we will go back to a past that hasn't been so good to us. Who should want that?
You see, even though I am not rich myself, I wanted to be. So, I always have been looking for that one thing that might put me over the top. No, I didn't find it. But along the way, I think I may have picked up a few things. One of those things was in a self-improvement book. I won't cite the book specifically, just something in it of significance. It was a quote of Marcus Aurelius, the last good emperor of the Roman Empire. It went something like this: "Our lives are what our thoughts make it." So, if you think failure, you will get failure. If you think success, you will get success. Everything in life results from the way you think. You are what you think. If you haven't heard of Marcus Aurelius, you probably heard that one before- you are what you think.
Now, what does this have to do with politics? Well, Romney put down the space program. Not only that, he made it out to be something that can't be done. Even worse than that, he made it out to be something that is worthy of scorn. In other words, we can't do it, and we shouldn't even try. So, if Romney becomes President of this here country, his mindset comes in the bargain. If he really doesn't believe we can do it, well we certainly aren't going to be doing it. "Our lives will be what our thoughts make it."
Ok, so what's the big deal? Space isn't that important. Maybe not. But consider this: if a presidential candidate said in 1912 that we should go to the moon, he would have been laughed at. Sort of like today with Gingrich. But in 1962, it was national policy. It was expected that we would do it, and so we did. Our lives were what are thoughts made it. The physical equivalent of those thoughts of achievement in space became reality and we did it. I lived through those years of Apollo. Getting to space was a given. It was part of the culture. It was expected that we would do this. There may have been doubters, as there always is, but the aspiration certainly wasn't treated with scorn.
So, with this ridicule of the very concept of getting to the moon again puts us right back where we were 100 years ago! If we are what we think, and we really can't do this anymore, where does that leaves us in the future? Would you rather see the progress from 1912 to 1962- or would you rather go back to the horse and buggy era? Where will we be in the next 50 years if Romney's mindset takes hold?
To me, what Romney did was unforgivable because he set the thoughts in motion that will result in decline. It doesn't have to be that way. We should go back to the moon because we can do it. We should do it because it will bring enormous benefits to us all. It will make our domain infinitely larger and richer. Yes, and I think it will make us safer. Rich countries do not attack each other. Happy people do not hate each other and want to kill each other. If this becomes our way of thinking, we will go back to a past that hasn't been so good to us. Who should want that?
Barone: Romney appeal in affluent suburbs could change map
campaign2012.washingtonexaminer
quote:
Could it be that the Occupy ideas are backfiring on Democrats? Does this mean that it isn't so bad to be part of the 1%?
quote:
Comment:
I have noticed the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. Democrats talk class warfare, but their voters are among the rich and the super rich.
On the other hand, this could be a lot of wishful thinking by Barone. Republican candidates have done well amongst upper middle class over this same time period. What if that changes too? Then the advantage of getting back the rich folks won't matter so much.
Isn't it ironic though, if Barone is right? Once you get a real leftist in the White House, the phony baloney stuff stops.
But that doesn't make me favor Romney. In a way, it just demonstrates my point. He isn't any different than the Democrats. Any Republican should be able to defeat Obama if Barone is right.
Update:
Furthermore, Romney has an enthusiasm gap. Despite all the gains he may be getting from upscale voters, he is losing because he fails to inspire people to turn out for him.
He'd better close that gap, or he won't win in the general election. He's going to need all of the votes he can get.
quote:
The returns at this writing show that almost all of Romney’s statewide margin came from Oakland County, the relatively affluent suburban county just northwest of Detroit, which is the state’s second largest county and the one that cast the most votes in the Republican primary.Comment:
Could it be that the Occupy ideas are backfiring on Democrats? Does this mean that it isn't so bad to be part of the 1%?
quote:
Romney has shown in Michigan as elsewhere a capacity to win votes in affluent areas—which is exactly where (at least in the North) Republicans have been weak in presidential general elections over the last 20 years
Comment:
I have noticed the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. Democrats talk class warfare, but their voters are among the rich and the super rich.
On the other hand, this could be a lot of wishful thinking by Barone. Republican candidates have done well amongst upper middle class over this same time period. What if that changes too? Then the advantage of getting back the rich folks won't matter so much.
Isn't it ironic though, if Barone is right? Once you get a real leftist in the White House, the phony baloney stuff stops.
But that doesn't make me favor Romney. In a way, it just demonstrates my point. He isn't any different than the Democrats. Any Republican should be able to defeat Obama if Barone is right.
Update:
Furthermore, Romney has an enthusiasm gap. Despite all the gains he may be getting from upscale voters, he is losing because he fails to inspire people to turn out for him.
He'd better close that gap, or he won't win in the general election. He's going to need all of the votes he can get.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Article: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say
 |
| Looks like an Obama ad! Is this a subliminal message? |
no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is
Comment:
The juxtaposition of such an article with a graphic that looks like an Obama bumper sticker was just too good to pass up!
 |
| From one idiot to another, four more years! |
A little further reading uncovers that these people aren't as smart as they think they are either. Ha, ha, ha!
Gingrich: Romney Would Fire Christopher Columbus
politics.blogs.foxnews.com
quote:
Good one. Some good ones in this post.
quote:
Gingrich portrayed rival Mitt Romney as a candidate with a small vision. "I was describing the other week some ideas, and Romney said, ‘You know, boy, if somebody came to him with ideas like that he would have fired him," he recounted. "Someone in Chattanooga said to me this morning, he said you know, Romney was the kind of guy who would fire Christopher Columbus," Gingrich said to widespread laughter in the audience.
Good one. Some good ones in this post.
Business Insider: The Shocking Statistic About Psychopaths On Wall Street
bi.com h/t Ace of Spades
quote:
Comment:
This follows a line of thinking I once had. Maybe I was on the right track. Anybody in a leadership position may be more inclined to be psycopathic or sociopathic. My understanding of these conditions are that they don't feel that deeply, so they need something more than the average person in order to relieve their immense boredom. Getting into activities which would drive normal people insane only stimulates them. In short, they can handle situations that normal people cannot. They are, in turn, driven towards it.
Now this may sound like an endorsement of psychopathy or sociopathy-- but it isn't. I see it as a warning not to trust these people too much.
quote:
A shocking statistic jumped out at us. From the article:
Studies conducted by Canadian forensic psychologist Robert Hare indicate that about 1 percent of the general population can be categorized as psychopathic, but the prevalence rate in the financial services industry is 10 percent. And Christopher Bayer believes, based on his experience, that the rate is higher.
Comment:
This follows a line of thinking I once had. Maybe I was on the right track. Anybody in a leadership position may be more inclined to be psycopathic or sociopathic. My understanding of these conditions are that they don't feel that deeply, so they need something more than the average person in order to relieve their immense boredom. Getting into activities which would drive normal people insane only stimulates them. In short, they can handle situations that normal people cannot. They are, in turn, driven towards it.
Now this may sound like an endorsement of psychopathy or sociopathy-- but it isn't. I see it as a warning not to trust these people too much.
Turnout 'pretty light' in state's GOP primary
www.detroitnews.com
So Romney wins Michigan and the turnout is low. It follows a pattern with this guy. No enthusiasm. When are people going to wake up? One gets the feeling that they aren't.
So Romney wins Michigan and the turnout is low. It follows a pattern with this guy. No enthusiasm. When are people going to wake up? One gets the feeling that they aren't.
Anti matter for propulsion
Pardon this deviancy from procedure, this post should go on the Kardashevian Aspirations blog. But I am pressed for time after a very busy day yesterday. Somehow I have to work in posting here and doing my job, which is very hectic sometimes.
As I get a mp3 files from the Space show site, I'll send a short blurb over my phone, and then edit it later. The show I listened to yesterday was about anti matter. The subject is very speculative at this point in time, would take a "theory about everything" type finding that may make it less so.
If you had a billion dollars in your science budget ( in government), what would your highest priority be right now? To me, it wouldn't be in researching this. The country needs to implement something useful in the shortest time possible. If I had the choice in the matter, I'd say develop Thorium based nuclear reactor technology and bring it into commercialization as soon as possible.
Also nuclear thermal rockets.
These two techonologies are near readiness levels and have been for decades, but our government, in all its wisdom decided not to fully develop them. There they have languished all this time while the need remained.
This little bit of technology development alone could make a big difference. It would be a good use for the taxpayer's money. So much is squandered, and the technology itself has been squandered for all these years.
As I get a mp3 files from the Space show site, I'll send a short blurb over my phone, and then edit it later. The show I listened to yesterday was about anti matter. The subject is very speculative at this point in time, would take a "theory about everything" type finding that may make it less so.
If you had a billion dollars in your science budget ( in government), what would your highest priority be right now? To me, it wouldn't be in researching this. The country needs to implement something useful in the shortest time possible. If I had the choice in the matter, I'd say develop Thorium based nuclear reactor technology and bring it into commercialization as soon as possible.
Also nuclear thermal rockets.
These two techonologies are near readiness levels and have been for decades, but our government, in all its wisdom decided not to fully develop them. There they have languished all this time while the need remained.
This little bit of technology development alone could make a big difference. It would be a good use for the taxpayer's money. So much is squandered, and the technology itself has been squandered for all these years.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Pettiness and Mud
A Voice of Sanity - RobertRinger.com
The one constant in all of the mudslinging is Romney. That's why he should be dumped as soon as possible.
The one constant in all of the mudslinging is Romney. That's why he should be dumped as soon as possible.
Barack ‘All of the Above’ Obama
A Voice of Sanity - RobertRinger.com
Kudlow is just too nice to this lying scumbag. He should have said this: You can sum up the Democrat's energy policy in three parts
Kudlow is just too nice to this lying scumbag. He should have said this: You can sum up the Democrat's energy policy in three parts
- Tax
- Litigate
- Regulate
Supply, Demand, Currency, and Futures – The Truth About Gas Prices
A Voice of Sanity - RobertRinger.com
Excellent post. Unfortunately a good many people don't seem to think the truth is important anymore.
Excellent post. Unfortunately a good many people don't seem to think the truth is important anymore.
It is a weird, weird, weird, weird, world
A few weird things come to mind at the moment:
- Rush Limbaugh says get out of Afghanistan. This is the guy who pushed for democracy in Iraq when Bush was in office. Although Afghanistan isn't Iraq, it is the same democratization policy as Iraq. It is pretty weird now that he has gone 100% back in the opposite direction.
- Obama and the Democrats are taking credit for increased fossil fuel production even though they are enemies of the same.
- Some Nordic countries may be next in the property bubble bust. That wasn't supposed to happen, now was it?
- Conservative sites say Obama is in trouble, but other polls say not so. Both can't be right. Somebody is fooling themselves and fooling a lot of others in the process. There's going to be a nasty surprise for somebody down the road.
- Back to Limbaugh: He seems to be okay with Romney's negative ads against Gingrich, but when a Democrat does it to the Koch Brothers, he cries foul. A bit of inconsistency from a guy who claims to be all about truth.
- There is an economic forecasting outfit that claims we will have a recession this year, but the word is out in the mainstream press that things are getting better. Once again, both reports can't be right, and a lot of people are being fooled.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Romney is a nothing who will run against a zero
That's what Romney is -- he's so far this way and that-- he might as well be for nothing and he is nothing for it. As for Democrats, they have their "zero", who has given them zero, and they are happy with it. Another four years of zero, and they may just get their wish, for there will be nothing left. But what can you expect from the Seinfeld party?
No, if you want something, you have to be for something. Romney is not something, he is nothing. He only says what he thinks will fool enough people who will vote for him. He will betray, as he cannot be everything to everybody. In order to be something, you have to be somebody. In order to get something, you have to want something. Anybody who votes for Romney might as well join the Democrats, who are for nothing. If you vote for Romney, you will get nothing, just like the case would be for Obama. You can't emulate the Democrats and be something, instead, you will end up being nothing.
If you want something, you have do something. If you vote for Romney, you may as well be for nothing. And that is what you will get.
Anybody but Romney! At least if you lose, it will be because you are for something. If the majority wants nothing, then let them have it! They will certainly get it. But at least you offered something. And when the nothing falls apart, those who were fooled may decide they want something after all. Then you will achieve the final victory. For nature hates a vacuum. Something will replace the nothing. Nothing cannot stand.
No, if you want something, you have to be for something. Romney is not something, he is nothing. He only says what he thinks will fool enough people who will vote for him. He will betray, as he cannot be everything to everybody. In order to be something, you have to be somebody. In order to get something, you have to want something. Anybody who votes for Romney might as well join the Democrats, who are for nothing. If you vote for Romney, you will get nothing, just like the case would be for Obama. You can't emulate the Democrats and be something, instead, you will end up being nothing.
If you want something, you have do something. If you vote for Romney, you may as well be for nothing. And that is what you will get.
Anybody but Romney! At least if you lose, it will be because you are for something. If the majority wants nothing, then let them have it! They will certainly get it. But at least you offered something. And when the nothing falls apart, those who were fooled may decide they want something after all. Then you will achieve the final victory. For nature hates a vacuum. Something will replace the nothing. Nothing cannot stand.
Vast Wasteland
Is there anything out there worth writing about this morning?
The political news is appalling. The economic news is appalling. The international scene is appalling.
There's one bit of good news: The Science of LFTR project will be funded, as it met its goal of 20,000 dollars from its backers. The downside of this could be that nobody in the larger scene will give a damn.
The larger scene is not where the good news will come. It will come from those working mostly behind the scenes. If all the pieces fall apart, maybe this can stay together and that will form the foundation of a new beginning. Let us hope so.
The political news is appalling. The economic news is appalling. The international scene is appalling.
There's one bit of good news: The Science of LFTR project will be funded, as it met its goal of 20,000 dollars from its backers. The downside of this could be that nobody in the larger scene will give a damn.
The larger scene is not where the good news will come. It will come from those working mostly behind the scenes. If all the pieces fall apart, maybe this can stay together and that will form the foundation of a new beginning. Let us hope so.
Obama’s Foreign Policy Summed Up: Let the Wookie Win
Verum Serum
quote:
Yeah, this was quote from the Corner, which is National Review. The same guys who put a caricature of Gingrich on the cover- Marvin the Martian. Too bad they did that. Stuff like this may have had more force if they did. Nevertheless, it is a good point.
quote:
So the president refuses to apologize for forcing Catholics to violate their religious beliefs or pay a tax penalty.Comment:
But he immediately apologizes because a few of our soldiers inadvertently violated Muslims religious beliefs by trying to dispose of already-desecrated Korans.
Yeah, this was quote from the Corner, which is National Review. The same guys who put a caricature of Gingrich on the cover- Marvin the Martian. Too bad they did that. Stuff like this may have had more force if they did. Nevertheless, it is a good point.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Barack in Sarah clothing
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/52071
quote:
No thanks to Obama for this. He and his fellow leftists are intent upon wrecking any semblance of energy independence.
quote:
That’s why under my Administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. In 2010, our dependence on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in more than a decade.
No thanks to Obama for this. He and his fellow leftists are intent upon wrecking any semblance of energy independence.
The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn't This Happen (and why is now the right time?)
Uploaded by GoogleTechTalks on Dec 22, 2011
Kirk Sorensen explains what went wrong with the nuclear power industry and what needs to be done to set it right again. That is to say, let's move forward with LFTRs ( Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors).
The first part of the video is fairly technical. But the thing that goes wrong is the politics during the Nixon Administration. It continued through the subsequent administrations until the technology was forgotten. A key challenge is to reeducate the public on the advantages of the technology, which has already been proven in the laboratory. It only needs to pick up where it left off so that it can be commercialized. The world needs this.
If you are impatient with highly technical discussions, just skip over the first part of the video. Skip to about 8:35 minutes into the video, where the discussion about funding of various approaches to nuclear energy. I recommend watching all of the video, but if the first part is too technical, start about at the 8:35 mark and watch from there.
At about 12:00 into the video, President Nixon audio and video is played. He wanted to go into the direction of fast breeder as opposed to molten salt ( slow breeder) reactors.
In short, it was a political development, not a technical problem with molten salt reactors. The country took the fast breeder direction and the molten salt reactor technology was forgotten.
Kirk Sorensen explains what went wrong with the nuclear power industry and what needs to be done to set it right again. That is to say, let's move forward with LFTRs ( Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors).
The first part of the video is fairly technical. But the thing that goes wrong is the politics during the Nixon Administration. It continued through the subsequent administrations until the technology was forgotten. A key challenge is to reeducate the public on the advantages of the technology, which has already been proven in the laboratory. It only needs to pick up where it left off so that it can be commercialized. The world needs this.
If you are impatient with highly technical discussions, just skip over the first part of the video. Skip to about 8:35 minutes into the video, where the discussion about funding of various approaches to nuclear energy. I recommend watching all of the video, but if the first part is too technical, start about at the 8:35 mark and watch from there.
At about 12:00 into the video, President Nixon audio and video is played. He wanted to go into the direction of fast breeder as opposed to molten salt ( slow breeder) reactors.
In short, it was a political development, not a technical problem with molten salt reactors. The country took the fast breeder direction and the molten salt reactor technology was forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)