Saturday, May 5, 2012

Andrea Rossi: The Science of Cold Fusion & LENR | The Energy Catalyzer (E-CAT)

Published on May 3, 2012 by thewestcoasttruth2 h/t PESN

This is an hour and a half long video.  It could use some breaking down for those who are too busy to listen to all of it.  Click on link to skip up to the discussion indicated as follows

  1. His trials and struggles during his career
  2. His motivation for his work.
  3. Million dollar question the science behind the E-cat
  4. Recharging the E-cat, how much matter?
  5. Science behind LENR?
  6. Fleischman and Pons methodology
  7. How did he replicate of previous work
  8. How to fuse deuterium?
  9. Can E-cat be started in real time?
  10. Is this why it can be produced at low cost?
  11. Does it store energy?
  12. How to propose to turn heat into electricity?
  13. What is your opinion on current state of science?
  14. Do you think cold fusion is being suppressed?
  15.  Concerns for personal safety? Can energy be free?
  16. How to roll out product in responsible way? 
  17. Who is biggest inspiration?
  18. What can it do for me? What kind of product should people expect?
  19. How much can a household save with a first generation E-cat?
  20. Is first generation E-cat patented?
  21. How to deal with fear of nuclear power?

After listening to over 50 minutes of the show, I've not seen too much that is news. This gives the impression of starting back at the beginning. That is not a bad thing if you are new to this, but for those who are familiar, this is old hat.

After 50 minutes, especially after 1 hour, the discussion seems to get towards the E-cat as a product, with the last segment beginning at 1 hour 12 minutes, gets more into the product specifically.

Focus Fusion News, but here's the real scoop

h/t Next Big Future

Note the coil on the left.  The positively charged alpha particles induced current through the coil.  If you look closely, you can see the blue colored alpha particle beam emerge from the bright cloud of light and enter the coil.
Speculation alert:  I'm going off a tangent here because I like this idea so much.

Actually, the alpha particle has mass and is traveling at a high velocity.  This makes it potentially useful as a reaction mass in a rocket.  I've pointed that out before, but as you can see below, the Focus Fusion folks are focusing on commercial applications.  They'll run into incumbents who will fight them for market share.  Barriers to entry will be high.  But nobody has a comparable rocket engine to this.  If that path were to be taken, they'd have no incumbents to compete against.

The small scale is handy for space applications

Seems like this can be funded easily- why not?

Romney's big flaw

While perusing this post on The Hill, I came across the follow items of interest which may prove decisive in the upcoming election
  • The president also vowed to put half the savings generated by ending the war in Afghanistan to reducing the national debt. The other half, he said, should ould be funneled toward infrastructure programs across the country. "The nation we need to build is our own," Obama said, taking a jab at the previous administration's nation-building strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
  • Romney has hammered the president for setting a withdrawal timeline, arguing that a withdrawal should be determined by the progress of the Afghan government.  [emphasis added]

Afghanistan allows Obama to keep blaming Bush for his troubles and Romney needs to avoid that trap.  Romney doesn't have to defend nation building and he should point out that the spending on Afghanistan is insignificant compared to what's being spent domestically.  But Romney doesn't have to defend Bush, nor should he allow Obama to try to portray him as Bush.  Otherwise, he will let Obama get away from diverting attention away from his own failure to produce a recovery.  Romney has to set himself apart from Bush, while keeping the focus on Obama's failures.

Come to think of it, the "new media" isn't responsible for Romney's campaign.  He has to handle that himself.

Is the new media blowing it when it comes to reporting on Obama?



Rubin has a few ideas that I like, for example:
  • The gap between Obama's rhetoric and his performance.
  • The president is confronted on his misleading language on energy policy and we see comprehensive reporting on the claims by energy producers that this administration is making it more difficult than ever to develop domestic oil supplies. The Post’s Glenn Kessler can serve as a guide:
  • We see in print and on air coverage a side-by-side comparison of Obama’s high-minded 2008 rhetoric and his 2012 language.
  • If 2008 was the election in which we saw journalistic sins of commission (blatant cheerleading for the president), 2012 is proving to be the election of omission in which the press turn a blind eye toward the president’s many failings.
The blogosphere is supposed to "fact check you ass".  If the blogs can do that much, it can be a big help.  But uncovering the biggest stories is a big challenge when the big media can squash it and ignore it.

I think our problems run a bit deeper.  However, the current system is the only one we have and the current way is to bash the opponent as opposed to actually solving problems.  On that score, Obama has fallen far short of his highminded rhetoric.  As for Romney's campaign, it knocked out Gingrich's with negativity, and we still don't know what he is really all about.  This blog is about solutions that are out there, if only we would just insist upon them, and get these politicians to actually do something about them.

Im Shipping Up To Boston - Dropkick Murphys Lyrics

ploaded by acdcrockstar911 on Mar 6, 2008


I'm a sailor peg
And I've lost my leg
Climbing up the top sails
I lost my leg!

I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping find my wooden leg

I'm a sailor peg
And I've lost my leg
Climbing up the top sails
I lost my leg!

I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping up to Boston whoa
I'm shipping find my wooden leg


I first heard this watching the movie Departed.  The movie sort of fits with this music.  But a lot more than legs got lost.

Extreme snowboarding: "the art of flight"( video)

Uploaded by kepasilda on Nov 5, 2011  h/t Behind the Black

Watch this "skier" stay just ahead of a small avalanche.  Again, here.  If you like danger, there it is.

Here's the full video from the beginning:


It took awhile, but I finally found the Jeb Corliss video that I posted several months ago. The daredevil theme fit with this video, and besides, it has been my intention to keep this blog cross referenced enough so that I can find things.   Took too long though.

April’s jobs: Americans aren’t working

Reuters: By Felix Salmon May 4, 2012


  • There’s a lot going on in this month’s jobs report. The headline number of jobs created — 115,000 — is miserable: it’s basically just enough to keep up with population growth.
  • the two charts which matter. First you have the number of people not in the labor force, which has been climbing steadily through the recession and the recovery, and is now approaching 90 million. The only time it fell was during the first quarter of 2010 — the census-hiring boom.
  • Then there’s the even scarier one, which is the labor force participation rate — now down to 63.6%.
  • as Dan Alpert noted, in a country of 314 million people, there are only 115 million full-time workers and 27 million part-time workers. It’s really hard to get a robust recovery when the number of people earning money is so anemic.
  • The CBO saw a rate of 64.6% in 2012 — a full percentage point higher than we’re at right now. The participation rate wasn’t expected to fall to today’s level of 63.6% until 2017. [emphasis included]
  • Until the labor force participation rate stops falling and starts rising, the so-called recovery will remain a theoretical economic entity and not a real-world reality for hundreds of millions of Americans. 

The recovery is lagging and so is hiring.  Why not look at something obvious and go for that, like energy?  The US spends hundreds of billions on imported oil, why not turn that around and make it an export industry instead?  Not so much oil, as energy products, like energy technology.  Not windmills and solar though, because these do not make enough power that is needed.

A thought about the politics of equality

There are people out there who think that inequality is the root of all evil.  If only everybody were equal, everything would be kumbaya.  Inequality causes depressions and recessions.  Inequality causes unhappiness and despair and suffering.  Or so we are to believe.

But first, let's examine the term "equality" in connection with politics.  Isn't it true, that in politics, equality has a lot to do with money?  For example, there's a progressive income tax that attempts to "spread the wealth around".  There's equal opportunity statutes which attempt to level the playing field for jobs.  There's a constant battle for who gets what, with the ostensible purpose of making sure somebody is treated fairly according to some standard.  Somebody has to decide what's fair or not and have the power to do something about it.  Politics and money are closely related, it would seem.

No doubt that most folks want more money.  To paraphrase, money may not buy you happiness, but it calms the nerves.  Perhaps it just makes a lot of things in this life easier.

Now, let's turn the thought around.  Let's say that we are talking about a lack of something besides money.  Let's say you lost a limb in an accident.  Imagine being this person.  Now, is it appropriate to go to politicians and demand you be given a new arm?  No, but, in doing so, it will come back to money.  But that's not what's missing.  It is pointless to discuss getting a new arm, but compensation for its loss in exchange for money is quite common.  Then, what is the point?  It wasn't the lack of money that got consideration, but something that had nothing to do with money.  Money is being substituted for what is missing.

Now, if money gets substituted for what's missing, then spreading it around doesn't necessarily remove what's missing.  It is a form of compensation for the loss, or for the lack of the thing that's missing.  It hasn't anything to do with justice, because the thing that is missing may have nothing to do with money.  You won't be any more equal if you've got more money than what you were before.  The possession of money may have been equalized, but the cause for the lack of equal possession of money has not.  It will not confer equal ability to make money upon the person if that person is granted a lot of money.

The point is that money can't buy happiness, it can't buy ability either.  It won't make anyone more equal except in terms of money.  And that is only temporary.  If someone doesn't have money, giving it to them risks it being lost.  After all, if money making was their strength, they'd already have the money.  Making people equal that way doesn't do anything more than to make people temporarily equal in terms of money possession and nothing more.   Eventually, the money will flow back to the ones most ability to get it and keep it.

Better make hay while the sun shines and do something to make yourself better able to handle your money, if you get some.  Getting  money that way may afford that opportunity, but will it be taken, or will it be squandered?  Odds are, a certain percentage of people will squander new found money.  Those people will be back to square one, without money.  The agitation for spreading the wealth around will begin anew.  But the problem of what is really missing remains.

The obvious thing, therefore, would be to concentrate on what's missing, not on the money.  Even though it may be obvious, it is also obvious that the money will get the first look, not what's missing.  The thing that is missing and sought for is equality, but the money will not provide equality.  It will only provide a compensation for a lack, which may or may not be addressed with the new money.

Another consideration is the equality itself.  Would having equal amounts of money make people happy?  If so, only as long as it stays equal, but the likelihood is that it won't stay that way for long.  Perhaps with all their new money, those who feel envious can discover what makes them that way and is there anything that can be done about it.  It isn't the lack of anything that makes them envious.  It is how the lack is perceived.  Having money alone will not change that perception if that perception has nothing to do with the money itself.  It won't grow a new arm.  But not having an arm won't cause you to be unhappy unless you allow it to.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Romney isn't aggressive enough

The latest exchange is about the jobs report, which came in somewhat weak.  The impression to me is that Romney is conceding too much to Obama.  He's letting Obama get away with using the relatively short crisis period in the recession as an excuse for his poor performance in getting the economy going.

I've outlined in prior posts that Obama's efforts have been insufficient, and he has exaggerated his claims about what he inherited and what he has accomplished.  Reagan inherited a bad economy and turned it around in less than 4 years.  Obama has had enough time.  He's trying to use the short crisis of less than a year as an excuse for a longer period failure of the last three years.  Romney hasn't emphasized that enough.  He needs to be more aggressive about Obama's excuse-making about his lackluster results.

Announcement: Medical issues

I've been dealing with a medical problem for the last few days that has kept me from my job.  It now appears that it may do more than that.  I thought it was manageable, but evidently it is not.  There is a likelihood of a lot of tests to determine what the problem is, and depending upon that, a possible hospital stay of an uncertain duration.

So this is a bit of a notification that there will be light posting until the situation plays out.

With respect to all my writing about political matters, and Obamacare, no matter what happens, I am content with my decisions.  I never expected a handout from anyone and have always did my best to give value for value.  I have lived my life in accordance with that.  I would have liked to have done better, but that may not have been in the cards.

I don't want to sound morbid here, but my condition may be serious.  If I am fortunate and it is not all that serious, I will be back soon.

One further thing.  I feel my latest work has been my best.  The bit about Seinfeld really does describe what is happening and it has a medical ( psychological) side to it, in Dr. Sanity's opinion ( and obviously I agree).  Frankly, I think the entire country and world is sick in spirit.  There needs to be a renewal.  But like my own situation, until one recognizes a problem, one can't begin to deal with it.  Hopefully a problem will be recognized and dealt with in time before it becomes too late to deal with it.

Breitbart died and some people seem to find satisfaction in it.  That is what I mean by a spiritual sickness.  By the way, I don't compare myself to Breitbart, but I have something in common with him.  Hopefully, I haven't made the same mistake he did.


I went to the doctor and at the moment, things do not appear to be as bad as I may have feared.  It appears though that the situation has still not completely resolved, as to cause and so forth, so more visits are likely in the near future.  I thought I might be in a hospital tonight, you see.

Blogging should resume on a light schedule over the weekend.

RedState: Off To The Races

How Did Who We Each Are Become A Game To The Modern Left?


To put it plainly, and vulgarly, no one really believes any of that “diversity” (expletive) anymore. No one believes much of anything anymore, in fact. We have entered an age of “anti-ideologies,” a time in which the most anger, energy, and focus seems driven in an exclusively negative direction, dedicated and determined less to prove anything than to disprove everything.

The iniquitous and anti-humanist Leftist views diversity and racial equality the same way Vladamir Lenin viewed art. It’s a weapon. Thus, Barack Obama could coldly and viciously screw a white woman, but love and marriage were out of the question. Elizabeth Warren could manipulate the tragic history of a people who’s culture was displaced by the settlement of North America to gain tenure at a law school and then remark that her Granddad had high cheekbones. 


"Repair man Jack" also mentions post modernism in this post. Dr Sanity had a lot to say on that subject. Post modernism is just a fancy way of saying that everything is about nothing!

A GOP ‘assault’ on women’s health?

washington post's factchecker glenn kessler


Pelosi could have raised concerns about perceived cuts in preventive health. She could have also noted that women benefit greatly from such efforts. But she — and fellow Democrats — went too far to label this “an assault on women’s health.”   Two Pinocchios


Actually, it ought to be much worse than two.  It doesn't solve problems but just emphasizes political gamesmanship.  Now is not the time for that.

Giant Black Hole Shreds and Swallows Helpless Star


Ironically, only in death could astronomers study the star's life: It was so distant that had it not been destroyed, no telescope could have seen it.


Obama's campaign about nothing

politico!  h/t Free Republic

Could it be that I started something?  Or is it just a coincidence?  Doesn't matter.  Besides, it has been said that great minds think alike.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Problems

Using the technique that I used in a previous post, I will break down this long video into bite sized parts.

Hargraves suggests to Aim High and lists several goals beginning here.  Note:  some of the captions can send you directly to the part of the video indicated by the picture.  Clickable captions are underlined.

The Thorium fuel cycle is the new energy source, which is plentiful and cheap

The LFTR is the "new" technology to be employed to make liquid fuels

Develop the LFTR

There's a lot of work to do yet, but basic concepts proven in lab.

Aim high for these benefits

These objectives meet requirements of Haber+Sabatier+Bosch+LFTRs+ Oil shale = Clean energy independence post

cheaper than coal

Alternative to shale: Make motor fuel from water using thorium power


This is a comprehensive system.  His presentation includes a way to make hydrogen that may be better than from oil shale, as I indicated previously.  The difference is that it hasn't been demonstrated yet.

Ammonia powered car

Uploaded by sgrannel on Sep 24, 2007


I put this up because I remembered this story that I probably wrote about before, but can't find it on the blog. Anyway, a normal internal combustion engine can be modified to run on ammonia. It would be compatible with making ammonia out of oil shale.

Haber+Sabatier+Bosch+LFTRs+ Oil shale = Clean energy independence

Speculation alert: This is by no means a complete analysis, but perhaps could be a starting point for one.

This discussion picks up where I left off from the posts titled The Mistake of 1937  and Limbaugh debate with guy in Philadephia.  What I add to this mix on this post is the mining of oil from shale by using LFTRs.

Why LFTR's?  Presumably, synthesizing hydrogen from electrolyzing water isn't quite as economical as a solution as it would be by getting the hydrogen from hydrocarbons.  But that leaves you with carbon dioxide.  That's where the Bosch reaction can deal with the carbon dioxide while making water
The overall reaction is as follows:

CO2(g) + 2 H2(g) → C(s) + 2 H2O(g)
But we need a source of hydrogen and that's where the oil shale comes in.  Oil shale is abundant in America, but there are objections about the additional carbon dioxide.  The Bosch reaction will use the hydrogen obtained from the oil from shale and eliminate the carbon dioxide and replace it with elemental graphite.  But first, you would use the LFTRs to heat the kerogen in oil shale and that's how you get the oil.  Once you've got the oil, you then have to get the hydrogen out of it.  You can use the reformation process of the oil so you can get the hydrogen.   This will give you the carbon dioxide and hydrogen mentioned above.

It may also be useful to use the Sabatier reaction in order to convert carbon dioxide into methane.  Methane can be reformed into hydrogen and you've got hydrogen and carbon dioxide again.  Eventually, all of the hydrogen will have been removed leaving you will excess hydrogen, plus water, plus graphite.  There should be no carbon dixode as waste.

The presumption here is that there will be an excess of hydrogen which will be combined with atmospheric nitrogen in order to make ammonia.  This is the goal- to eliminate carbon and to replace it with nitrogen.

Ammonia can be then be shipped as opposed to shipping hydrogen gas.  Ammonia can be manufactured using the Haber process.  Ammonia's advantage besides being easier to ship is that it is also easier to get the hydrogen back out of it at the point of sale.  This eliminates the need for extensive new infrastructure in order to ship hydrogen.  Also, the nitrogen can go back into the atmosphere, which makes it a closed loop.

The advantage to using LFTRs is that the energy will be cheaper and cleaner than conventional nuclear power.  It is also more compact, meaning that it can be moved around to where the energy is needed.  The presumption here is that the cheaper energy will make the entire process cost competitive with conventional oil.

The downside is that the Bosch process will require excess energy, meaning energy losses.  However, since LFTR's are claimed to be price competitive with coal and the use of fuel cells is much more energy efficient, the speculation is that the costs can be recouped.

The ultimate benefit would be energy independence that will be relatively clean and abundant.  No carbon dioxide and the nuclear waste is minimized by a factor of 300 so that it can be managed relatively easily and because it will decay in 300 years.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

JIM ROGERS: The Next Economic Slowdown Is Coming And It's Going To Be Much Worse

bi h/t freerepublic

Each growth period lasts between 4 to 6 years he said. We could be from 1 to 3 years away from the next slowdown by that reckoning. That's because the last recession ended just about 3 years ago, according to NBER. Not all of these are that short, as the one that began during the first Bush presidency lasted a decade.

No one really knows when a recession will occur, but the disquieting thing about this recovery is that it is so weak.

Big Solar threatens existence of rare desert tortoise


The battle between environmental groups and the fledgling green energy industry has prompted a lawsuit against the government to block the multi-billion dollar Calico Solar Power project, which would cover 4,000 acres of the turtle’s vital habitat.


There are no perfect solutions for energy, even so called green energy.  The main weakness for solar is that it requires a lot of land.  In this case 2.5 square miles for a solar plant.  At best, it will only supply energy for a few hours a day as the sun shines.  But a 1 gigawatt LFTR would take up about a football field's worth of land.

How much land is a football field?  I calculate 1.36 acres.  Let's see: 4000 acres compared to 1.36 acres. Almost a 3000 to 1 ratio of land required for the solar plant which produces far less energy and is available for a lot less of the time.  Such a large requirement of land shows two very grave disadvantages of solar.

Not to mention that green groups are fighting the installation even though it is supposed to be green energy.

What is "cool" about Obama?

To answer that question, you have to get a good definition.  I'm a bit of a stickler about semantics sometimes, so off I go in search of what is cool.  Which reminds me of something:  if you have to look for it, you must not have it yourself.  Okay, I'm not cool.  See if I care.

My first stop is Wikipedia, as is my usual habit.  Something of interest came up as I perused the entry, so I'll quote it below:
According to this theory, cool is a zero sum game, in which cool exists only in comparison with things considered less cool; for example, in the book The Rebel Sell, cool is created out of a need for status and distinction.  [emphasis added]

One thing I have noticed about Obama is that everything is zero sum with this guy.  It is the rich versus the poor, or big oil v green energy, or men v women, or white people v colored peoples, or America v the world, and so on and so forth.  Everything it seems has to come down with somebody gaining something at someone else's expense.  Being "cool" in that sense, means you in the in group as opposed to the out group.  This makes your status higher than the out group.  Being of higher status makes you a better person somehow.  That makes you "cool".

Obama is black, so that is better than white.  He is for the poor, as opposed to being for the rich, so he is better.  Go on through the list and you can see how Obama is perceived as "cool", and how that can be especially useful in politics, which is a great big game.

Which segues into the next theory of cool in the Wikipedia article:  Cool as a marketing device.
According to this theory, cool can be exploited as a manufactured and empty idea imposed on the culture at large through a top-down process by the "Merchants of Cool".  [emphasis added]

Now, who would be the Merchants of Cool in our culture?  The media, perhaps?

Finally, there's the last theory which can fit Obama to a tee:
"Hey, whatever I select", suggesting that cool is primarily an attitude of self-assurance.

If there's any quality that Obama has in abundance it is self assurance.  But is that justified?  That's the question that should be answered before one decides for oneself whether or not Obama is really cool or not.


More thoughts on cool from Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.  He must accept the premise of "cool", which I don't.

Subsidies for "green" power

I found this tidbit on the Al Fin Energy blogpost titled Peak Oil, Meet Hard Facts: An Energy Primer

Total federal subsidies in fiscal year 2007 were $24.34 per megawatt hour for solar-generated electricity and $23.37 per megawatt hour for wind, compared with $1.59 for nuclear, $0.67 for hydroelectric power, $0.44 for conventional coal, and $0.25 for natural gas and petroleum liquids. 14 In fiscal year 2010, the subsidies were even higher. For solar power, they were $775.64 per megawatt hour, for wind $56.29, for nuclear $3.14, for hydroelectric power $0.82, for coal $0.64 and for natural gas and petroleum liquids $0.64.

From this source, it puts the lie to Obama's claim that oil is being subsidized.  No, that's not what's being subsidized- instead it is so called green energy.  The only "green" thing about it is that is using up a lot of greenbacks to pay for it.

Obama was called out on his big fibs on the Washington Post's factchecker.  But the above quote puts the lie in better perspective.  Not only was Obama's claims a lie, but quite a big one even though it only rated one pinnochio out of four.

Paul Krugman: We're In A Depression

Ace, Hot Air (Captain Ed)

Ace and Capt Ed deconstruct Krugman.  I'll just join on in and pile on - hah, hah, hah.

The part that is unfortunate is that a guy like Krugman will take in a lot of people.  The problem with the indiscriminate approach to spending is that it doesn't get results, unless the result sought is a bigger government.

Keep in mind base line budgeting.  Once the stimulus got added into the spending, it became the new baseline.  We have actually had multiple stimuli because the budget is at higher levels than it would have been if there had not been any stimulus in the first place.  Yet, all of these trillion dollar deficits haven't yielded a recovery.  Why not?   Because there's nothing intelligent behind it.

All Krugman can offer is a weaker dollar and greater debt.  The results are there to behold- stagnation if not depression.  His own words.

By the way, the Depression didn't end until after World War II.  Hopefully, we won't need a war to get over this depression, but that didn't stop Krugman from advocating one.

Ellis: Romney's Answer To "Forward" Is "Brown Energy"

How can the Republican win the future? Fracking!  Buzzfeed h/t Real Clear Energy

  • President Obama, said Luce, needed to find a “theme” upon which to base his re-election campaign.
  • New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, in a follow-on blog post, seconded the motion.
  • The purpose of “Forward” is to frame the election choice; backward-looking Neanderthals (Republicans) against the modern and magnificent Obama.
  • The next great boom will be powered (in this case quite literally) by the technological revolution that is happening, right now, in America’s energy industry. New extractive technologies — “fracking” being the most discussed — will make us richer than we ever imagined possible. Energy genomics — biology doing for energy what it did for agriculture — will make us richer still.
  • Therein lies Mitt Romney’s opportunity... do everything in its power to accelerate brown power (natural gas, basically)
Note: [emphasis and link added to excerpts above]

Green power v brown power.  More Us v Them.  This is kinda lame, but I like it that somebody may actually try to sell the notion that we need energy that actually works, as opposed to some green pipe dream.

The theme already exists, and Obama tried to co opt it.  It is called "all of the above" energy.  Obama doesn't mean it.  Romney could take it over and make it believable.  No need for an Us v Them theme.

Cheat You Fair: The "Mistake of 1937"

Cheat You Fair: The "Mistake of 1937": Kitco Commentary, Steven Saville Regardless of whether you define deflation and inflation in terms of money supply or prices, there was al...


Yours truly offers up a solution to our economic problems.  Readers of this blog already know what that is.  But I encourage you to read it anyway, because I think it is a well reasoned argument.


My piece basically argues that we need to think outside the box of ideology that we are in.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Can we dispense with the bovine scatology?

Ezra Klein says the Bush economic performance is the worst on record.  He conveniently overlooks Obama's record.  At least there more people working when Bush left office than are working now, after nearly 1 full term for Obama.

Let's look at the BLS numbers for comparison:

135.6 million working as Clinton watch ends, Bush begins

Just before election in 2004, Bush's economy added 4 million jobs

After nearly a year of recession, net job increases under Bush was nearly 8 million, Obama inherits this

But there are few Americans working today than when Obama took office.  At least Bush's economy added jobs after 4 years.

This doesn't even count the trillion dollar deficits and inflation lurking- especially in gasoline prices.  Bush's economy looks a lot better than this.

Digging a bit deeper, Obama's stats are claiming the labor force is basically the same size as when Bush left office.  Snicker, snicker.  There are more people in the country than when Bush left office, about 10 million more, I've seen.

Obama Smirks: Again Suggests Romney Wouldn't Have Killed Bin Laden (Updated: Romney Responds)


Smirk?  Wasn't Bush supposed to be guilty of smirking?  With Bush gone, the White House was to be a smirk free zone.

After watching this video, I thought it more like a sneer.  But on second thought, smirk is probably better.

Also, Bush handled a hostile media better. Just give the thin skinned Obama some heat and he starts to show signs of Nixonian hostility. Nixon couldn't handle the heat and it cost him the presidency. On the other hand, Obama has had a cream puff press and hasn't had to face nearly the heat Nixon or Bush did.

Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights

By Michael B. Mukasey, wsj online

The first anniversary of the SEAL Team 6 operation that killed Osama bin Laden brings the news that President Obama plans during the coming campaign to exploit the bragging rights to the achievement. That plan invites scrutiny that is unlikely to benefit him.


He compares Obama's behavior with Lincoln and Eisenhower.  The comparison doesn't favor Obama.

Obama shielded himself from any possible blame if things went wrong.  Eisenhower wrote a note taking full responsibility for any failure for the invasion on D Day, if it had failed.  Lincoln took responsibility for failures.

Does Obama take responsibility for when things go wrong?  He seems to blame someone else, but look at who he is comparing himself to now- Bush.  Bush is the guy Obama blames for the problems that he is having now.

 And who is narrating the video but the guy who refused an easy opportunity take OBL down himself- Clinton.

You gotta give Obama credit for one thing and that is this: he has chutzpa.

Did Obama just punk Romney?

That's the notion that this post gives from hotair.

But as I first argued back in 2004, national political campaigns are only loosely about ‘issues’ as news obsessives construe them. Contemporary American campaigns are much more meta-battles over power, masculinity and dominance, what I once called “bitch-slap politics.” Not pretty perhaps but you’ll never understand campaigns without understanding things through this prism. And that’s very much what’s happening with the Obama campaign’s latest fusillade against Mitt Romney. This isn’t simply – maybe not even mainly — about the actual decision to risk so much to kill bin Laden. It’s a dance to – let’s not run away from what it really is – unman Romney in his contest with the president.

Back in 2008, I recall Obama saying that he wouldn't be punked.  What does that mean?  I looked it up by googling it and came up with this:
Originally the word "punked" meant that you've been bent over by big hairy men and brutally gang raped in the anus. By this definition, a punk is therefore one who receives. It is old prison slang (at least 50 years old) if not more, however it has come to take on different meanings in popular culture though most of them are rooted in the original defenition.

Punk rock became big in the late 1970's and the term for this new genre was "punk" - they took it to mean rejected, unwanted, or outcasts from society. In prison, punks were usually ostracized by other inmates except as sources of sexual gratification so this is probably where their vision of the term came from. As the punk movement in the 70's was also sexually ambiguous it could have come as a way of breaking down gender roles and accepting homosexuality. As far as a their having a past participle verb form of the word I am unaware of such.

In rap culture or ghetto slang, the term came to mean one who was a b***h or willing to yield when the pressure was put on. This definition undeniably comes from the prison definition, however, the sexual undertones were somewhat removed in their sense of the word. Thus if you were "punked" by someone from this culture it would mean you were forced to yield by someone who was stronger than you.

Since the advent of Ashton Kutcher's TV show "Punk'd" the term "punked" has probably come to mean simply tricked or bamboozled however this is by no means the original definition of the word and people from previous generations essentially know it's true origin. 

Michelle Malkin is right.  This is not a nice man.  Romney had  better watch it.  This is like a cannon shot over the bow, or worse.  The shot may have hit and he could be taking on water.

Romney on OBL: 'Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order'


Also, since we haven't had much on this page on this topic over the past few days, it's worth noting that George W. Bush's first ad of the 2004 campaign featured footage of a stretcher getting carried out of ground zero with remains, as well as the charred shell of the World Trade Center.


Interesting comment to that story, which I will also quote:
Romney said GET PERMISSION FROM PAKISTAN FIRST, and IT IS NOT WORTH THE MONEY TO KILL JUST ONE MAN when he was asked about getting Bin Laden in 2008, ...

The thing here that is getting overlooked is that relations with Pakistan have suffered because of this.  Maybe Romney has a point about getting permission first.  The risk is that someone in Pakistan would given OBL warning and he would have gotten away.  But that would be the risk you would take.   It isn't necessarily a slam dunk to kill bin Laden.  I've felt that way all along.  Now, it is getting used as political ammo as the Navy Seals have charged.

The first quote was in relation to Bush's use of 911 imagery.  But the difference is that 911 happened on American soil.  The killing of OBL was an international event.  Therefore, it has international repercussions.

As for what Romney said about Carter, yes, that is probably correct.  Carter was quite dovish, but he did order the hostage rescue attempt, which ended in ignominious failure.


Here's what I wrote on the subject last year, titled  "On spiking the football".  Curious that Politco would be justifying Obama's use Bush's tactics for his own when Bush lost so much of his popularity towards the end of his presidency.  If he wants to run against Bush, why act like him?

'The thing about heroes, they don't brag'

McCain on Bin Laden raid - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) continued to hammer the Obama re-election team over its use of the death of Osama bin Laden in a campaign commercial, echoing Mitt Romney's statement that any president - including Jimmy Carter - would have made the same call.


Former general Norman_Schwarzkopf,_Jr. once said:
"It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle."   

Obama should be giving credit to those who executed the orders, not taking the credit for giving it.  "Stormin' Norman" didn't brag about ordering men into combat.  Besides, Obama promised not to spike the football.

Obama’s Falling Personal Popularity

Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!

Obama has become like Nixon, with his enemies list.  He is combative and surly.  Romney's task is to be sunny and optimistic.

Why is James Cameron interested in asteroid mining?

You'd think that if there was a message in his movie, Avatar, that it would be that mining was BAD. But maybe the message was not that, but something else.

So this made me curious when I heard the news that Cameron is one of the investors for this asteroid mining venture.

To tell you the truth, I hated the movie.  This is not generally true with Cameron's movies- I liked the Terminator movies, for example.  I hated the movie because it was too much like the white man's guilt trip over the Indians in North America.  In addition, it was too romantic about nature.  It glorified the "noble savage" over civilization.  It pushed this overly absurd notion that humans must live in total harmony with nature.  As if human existence was in conflict with nature.

By the way, the post I did yesterday had a quote in it by Cameron in which he said that there are too many people on this planet.  This dovetails nicely with this "gem", which I posted recently - the Green Washing of a Young Mind.

But I favor what Cameron is doing here.  I've been for the Mining of the Sky almost since the beginning of this blog.  The book is one of the inspirations for this blog.  It so happens that Lewis, the author of the book, is closely connected to this venture.  Good.  I'm all for what he is doing in this instance.  But why?

The purpose of this post is not to demonize Cameron.  Nor the purpose of this blog is to demonize other people who I disagree with.  The purpose is to communicate the idea that we can solve our problems with each other even if we don't agree.  There are solutions.  I'm very glad to see that Cameron is going to do something constructive to solve a problem which he claims exists- global warming.  How?

Platinum is very useful as a catalyst for hydrogen fuel cells.  But it is very costly.  If the cost came down, one of the barriers for fuel cells will have been overcome.  Should they be adopted, the reliance of fossil fuels can be a thing of the past.  Cameron should be all for this.  For me, it is more important to stop importing so much oil from unfriendly states.  This is a project on which all of us, regardless of political affiliation, could work on and succeed.

Maybe the message of the movie is "don't foul your own nest".  I don't disagree with that at all.

Putting back Most Popular Posts on Sidebar

I took this down after having it for a long while.  I got curious as to what pattern might be found in what more popular and what wasn't.  It may give me some ideas, but I don't know that I will follow them yet.  We'll see.

Here are a few listed here.  Actually, this was a lot of work to put these links here, so the lazy way is to add the gadget which does it automatically and puts it on the sidebar. Saves some time.
  1. Green-Washing a Young Mind 
  2. Obama’s Lavish Lifestyle 
  3. Comparing Obamanomics with Reaganomics 
  4. Google and James Cameron to hunt for natural resources
I took a partial screenshot and got the following list, which differs from the above because it is a more complete scan

Seems to be a pattern there. It may be personalities. But I don't tend to write about that much. I'm interested in ideas. That reminds me- Gingrich said that most politicians are uncomfortable with ideas. Gingrich was trying to set himself apart with the emphasis on ideas, but it doesn't seem to work. What does that say when people don't seem much interested in ideas? Hmmm.

Monday, April 30, 2012

Limbaugh debate with guy in Philadephia

I don't listen much to Limbaugh anymore, but today was rather slow, so I listened.  He got into a debate with this guy in Philly about global warming.  It is an example of the kind of thing that I argue against.  It is largely a useless exercise.  Instead of butting heads, try solving the problem.

What he could have done is ask the guy what would he do about this "problem".  If all he can say is higher prices for carbon, then Limbaugh could have just dismissed him.  Nobody in their right mind wants to pay more for energy.  Besides, it isn't even necessary.

If you really want to do something about carbon, here's two things the government could do:

  1. Accelerate the adoption of LFTRs.  They could be used to manufacture carbon free fuels, like ammonia.  LFTRs don't have to compete directly with established nuclear facilities.  But eventually, they could replace them.  In the meantime, they can replace carbon fuels for cars.
  2. Secondly, accelerate the mining of asteroids for platinum.  The platinum can be used for hydrogen fuel cells.  For instance, the government could guarantee a price for all the platinum that could be mined this way.  
These two initiatives could eventually replace a significant portion of carbon based energy forms.  It wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen eventually.  And you wouldn't need a carbon tax or trade carbon credits in order to accomplish it.

The New Class Warfare

by Joel Kotkin, City Journal Spring 2012  h/t Instapundit

  • California’s superwealthy progressives seem intent on destroying middle-class jobs.
  • Even before the economic downturn, California was moving toward greater class inequality, but the Great Recession exacerbated the trend.
  • Yet while the working and middle classes struggle, California’s most elite entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are thriving as never before.
  • One reason for California’s widening class divide is that, for a decade or longer, the state’s progressives have fostered a tax environment that slows job creation, particularly for the middle and working classes.
  • Still more troubling to California employers is the state’s regulatory environment.
  • The list of companies leaving the state or shifting jobs elsewhere is extensive.
  • Radical environmentalism has been particularly responsible for driving wedges between California’s classes. 
  • California’s legislature in 2006 passed Assembly Bill 32, which, in order to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, imposes heavy fees on using carbon-based energy and severely restricts planning and development.
  • The renewable-fuel regulations are driving even green jobs out of the state.
  • The explanation for the progressives’ hypocritical friendliness to Silicon Valley is simple: money and politics.
  • Hollywood manages to outdo even Silicon Valley in its class hypocrisy.
  • According to the Tax Foundation, California residents already pay the nation’s sixth-highest state tax rates, and they are likely to keep rising.
  • More important still is that a pro-growth strategy could help reverse California’s current feudalization. The same Public Policy Institute of California study shows that during the last broad-based economic boom, between 1993 and 2001, the 10th percentile of earners enjoyed stronger income growth than earners in the higher percentiles did. The lesson, which progressives once understood, is that upward mobility is best served by a growing economy.

If Romney wants to win this fall, he'd better hammer on these points incessantly.  It may not make any difference in California, but the rest of the country could be persuaded that this is not the model to be emulated.

The contrast between California and Texas couldn't be more extreme.  If jobs are important, and the economy is important, it should be clear which model is superior.

    Obama pokes fun at Romney, dog-eating at correspondents dinner ( Gaffe! )

    orlandosentinel  h/t Free Republic


    “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?” Obama asked the audience Saturday night, a reference to the recent brouhaha over his eating of dog meat as a child. “A pit bull is delicious.”


    So, he has eaten both and can make a comparison?  Was that deliberate or just a big goof?  It was supposed to be self deprecating, not to make himself look better in some way.  Yes, this may have a different meaning on a couple levels, if you catch my drift.  I think it was a gaffe.  He was funnier in a different way than he intended, I suspect.  The joke's on him even more than he thought.

    NY Times Editorial: The Economy Downshifts

    Published: April 29, 2012

    The slow start for the economy in 2012 — an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first three months of the year — is evidence that the recovery is too weak to push joblessness much lower than its current 8.2 percent, and too fragile to withstand the kinds of budget cuts Congressional Republicans are proposing.


    Why would I put a NY Times editorial up on my blog, when I don't agree with it?  In order to attack it, of course.

    The key to this editorial is that the economy is "too weak" to cut spending.  Amazing.  After all these years of trillion dollar deficits- which are being admitted here as ineffective to return the economy to health- the answer is not to end it, but to do more of the same.   Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

    Does government spending help or hinder growth?

    In and of itself, the answer must be no.  Indiscriminately throwing money at a problem will never solve it.  You don't need more money,  what you need is to be more intelligent about what you are doing.  More ideological policy prescriptions are only likely to produce the same failures that already plague us.  That's why I say that ideology can make you stupid.  It may also be said to be crazy.

    One less guard on the wall


    I often joke about blogger burnout, but it’s a diagnosed condition for a reason.


    I went through that this past week.  You have to find something to keep you going.  I've started a few blogs and quit them, so that is always a risk that one day I may wake up and do it again.

    The title of the post is a clue to the purpose of your blog- why do you do it?  To be a guard on the wall?  To fight against an enemy that nobody else even sees, much less willing to do anything about?  I even saw that function for this blog myself, as a tribune of sorts.  But that may be asking too much of one's self.  It may be good enough to just put my own thoughts out there as a counter to the excessive conformity of conventional thinking.

    In the end, you have to do it for yourself.  It has to become something that does something for you.  That's what I decided.

    Sunday, April 29, 2012

    Left wing politics needs victims

    That's something I heard, and having observed the early moves in this political season, it appears to have been confirmed.

    The Trayvon Martin shooting has to be twisted into a racist act so that the left can reinforce the feelings of victimization amongst blacks.  Perhaps this is not true, and some evidence may surface that prove racism was a motive, but at the moment, it appears to have been a trumped up accusation.  It was necessary to trump it up so that it could be used for political purposes.  Blacks have to be convinced that whitey wants them dead, so they can vote the right way in November.

    Similarly, the War on Women got trumped up over the Limbaugh's use of the word "slut" in reference to Sandra Fluke.  Fluke was the victim initially, but when that failed, it morphed into something bigger.  The left didn't muzzle Limbaugh, but they got an issue which they are trying to use.  Women are being victimized by a brutish male dominated culture that is so blood thirsty that it wants women to die.  This feeling of victimization is necessary so that the women's vote will remain reliably Democrat.

    Those are but two examples, but taken together, they are enough evidence for me to see for myself that the left really needs victims in order to push their agenda.  They need it so much that they will make up stuff in order to be sure that they have the necessary victims.  What good is a protector when there's nothing to protect against?  Who needs the Democrats to protect them from oppressors that don't oppress?  Victims must be found at all costs.

    Obama Goes Nixonian

    Kevin McCullough Townhall  h/t Free Republic

    For instance, in the Friday edition of the Wall Street Journal, writer Kim Strassel details--with painful precision--a campaign that is underway by the Obama campaign to identify and publicly intimidate high-dollar donors to the Romney campaign. Strassel points out that once Obama's subversives identify you, they then seek to publicly "shame you for 'betting against America'." Strassel also points out that Obama controls the Justice Department, the Securities Exchange Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service which combined can indict, fine, and audit you into oblivion.


    You'd think the country is having a collective "brain freeze", and simply do not understand, or can't understand for some reason.

    Perhaps the country has been prepared for this in some way.  Earlier today, I read Ann Barnhardt's latest, in which she said that the communists infiltrated the Catholic Church.  Well, that's not the only place they infiltrated.   This is part of an overall plan, described by Gramsci, who advocated that a communist revolution could be effected by a long march thorough the institutions.

    The Catholic Church is but one institution.  The media is another.  The educational establishment is yet another.  And so on and so forth.

    So all this talk about Obama just seems to fall like water off a duck.  So what gives?  Have too many people been fully indoctrinated now, and it is too late to turn things around?

    How Brain Freeze Works

    Published on Apr 24, 2012 by rhettandlink2

    I was just thinking about brain freeze and noticed this video.

    Their theory was it was about cold. Does it have anything in common with having a senior moment and just having the brain not work like it should? Could it be related to a brain fart?  It isn't always a senior citizen thing, as I have known younger people having brain farts.

    What caused me to think about brain freezes?  I was reading up on politics, and it seems like every time I do, I get the feeling the whole country is having a brain freeze or a brain fart or whatever.

    But it doesn't have a lot to do with it being cold.   When I met these guys a year ago, I had a brain freeze, but even though it was cold, the weather had nothing to do with it.  At least I'm pretty sure it didn't.

    Sometimes you may not have anything intelligent to say and you know it.

    Wild, Hairy Ass Speculation

    As for the title of this post, I talk that way sometimes. For some reason, I like the sound of it.

    The speculation is about an idea that keeps rattling inside my brain. This idea of capturing asteroids and bringing them back. Well, it so happens that a few of them each year become temporary moons.  The newest twist on that idea could be that you don't have to go millions of miles to go search for an asteroid.  Some of them come close enough to nudge a little and they will go into permanent orbit around the earth.

    After that, you could collect enough of these so that it could amount to a significant mass.  Instead of mining them, just collect them.  Why?  In order to make a moonstalk.  For a moonstalk, you need a lot of mass for an anchor, and them connect that anchor to the surface.  Easy access to the lunar surface.  What a concept!

    Will the Barackness Monster eat Underdog?

    This is an absurd post, but the days are decidedly unserious. Why not?  Besides hear me out, as I lay it out for you below:

    Here's a Fallon quote from the slow jam the news stunt this past week:
    The President didn’t give too many jokes during the sketch but did manage to keep a straight face as Fallon called him the “Preezy of the United Sleezy,” “the Barackness Monster,” and ”the POTUS with the Mostest.”

    Now with all this buzz about Obama eating dog, I came up with the notion that the "Barackness Monster" can eat Underdog.  You see, Obama is abusing his authority with some frequency.  He is taking on some of the characteristics of a bad guy.  You need a good guy for every bad guy in order to balance things out, hence Underdog.  The underdog is like David who slew Goliath.  Goliath is like a monster of sorts.  But the Barackness Monster may audit your tax returns, or he may even kill you ( that's a stretch, but it is the law that he signed and the power he wanted).

    Steve Miller - Space Cowboy

    I can dig this song. Anybody who reads this blog might understand my feelings. Read the lyrics and song meaning here.

    The song may fit the times where all the 1%'ers are screwing up the world for the rest of us.

    But we may have a solution, if you want one.


    By the way, I've been doing some housekeeping this morning on this blog. I changed the header slightly in order to reflect another dimension to the blog and how it better describes me and the blog itself. Space City Cowboy, a twist on Steve Miller's song above. Still just trying hard not to fall out of his saddle, which is also true. That part is always true.

    Plus I've made a few small changes to the About the Blog section on the sidebar. This blog never achieved popularity, but that's okay, because I'm writing as much for my own benefit as to anybody else's. If it never becomes popular, I can still use it for my own purposes.

    I put in a small clarification about my nickname. It is not actually my nickname, but it is something my Dad called me. My real nickname was also given to me by Dad, but that is not useful here, as far as I'm concerned. Besides, I like boot 'n oil better. Not that there's anything wrong with the real nickname, but it isn't a serious name, which I'd like to be the tone for this blog. Sure, I think a sense of humor is important, but the overall tone is serious.