Saturday, May 12, 2012

Superfun Rockband church

Barnhardt is out there with another one of these.  Okay, I think I get it, but what is this term "Superfun Rockband church" all about?  I went on google to find out, but can't find anything.  She's accusing churches of lacking a fear of God, and a good deal more than that.  Yes, I think I get the part about fear of God, but this term needs a bit more explication.

When the U.S. really did try austerity, it worked!

When the U.S. really did try austerity, it worked!

Romney is a bully! Shriek!

But Obama is just taking the country to the dogs.

It's kinda long video, so I found some especially good parts to it

the otherness of Barack Obama
Obama registered as a muslim
Both his parents despised traditional America

This was all related to the dog story, but this latest is just another one of the left's distractions.  They can't run on the economy, so they have to run on Romney's alleged bullying.  Never mind the left's attempt to cow this country into becoming a leftist state.  If the government is anything, it is an agent of coercion.  Perfect place for a bully to find a home.

The point?  Projection again.  If bullying is so bad, why are they so vitally interested in practicing it themselves?

Biden to Students: You'll See 'Solar Energy as Cheap as Gas--Uh, Coal, Excuse Me, as Coal'


Factually incorrect.  It can never be as cheap as fossil.  Never.  What Biden may be attempting to claim is that it may be possible to make it produce on a cost basis about the same as fossil fuels.  But what is overlooked is its availability.  The wind does not always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.  In order to accomplish what Biden is claiming, the price for these must be considerably less than fossil fuels, because you need more installations to make up for the times the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.

Biden addressed young people.  Unfortunately for young people, as I was once myself, is that the lack of experience makes one a bit more susceptible to manipulation, especially political manipulation.  Once you've been around the block a few times, these things don't work as well as they once did.  That's why Democrats need young people.  Easier to fool.

Six Months to Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the General Election Begins

brookings institute  via Memeorandum

quote ( and pdf link):

Galston asks this important question: What kind of election will 2012 be? The answer, according to Galston, is that this election is shaping up to a referendum on President Obama and his record and policy accomplishments, and that 2012 will be more like 2004, a “classic mobilization election,” rather than one involving heavy persuasion to swing voters and independents.


I'm reading the pdf now. It is over 25 pages, so it will take a little while. I'll update if there's anything new I want to say about it.


Finished the pdf.  It is basically a welcome read for Democrats, not so much for Republicans.  I looked for evidence of bias, as I don't recall the Brookings Institute as having a conservative reputation.

But, I won't look at it that way because it seems to be bad news.  It seems incredible, but true, that people may reelect somebody who puts in a bad performance.  This may well be the case this year.  In such cases as that, something else is in play besides economics.

One thing you can get from this is that from a demographic viewpoint, the Republicans have a significant problem.  The Democrats have managed to slice off significant populations and these populations are fairly loyal to the party.

As for the Republicans, I never felt that they made the same kind of appeal.  That appeal is known as identity politics.  Although Republicans are accused of being racist, sexist, and bigoted, this is greatly exaggerated, if not totally false.  If anything, it is the other way around.  That will draw a lot of fire, most likely, but I think of it as projection.  The Democrats reject those attributes in others, but fail to see it in themselves.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Very eeenterestink! But schtupid!

That, by the way, is an allusion to the Artie Johnson skit on the US TV comedy program, Laugh In.  It was intended to poke fun of the Nazis, in case you aren't familiar.

I came across something here that support my ideas about ideology making you stupid from none other than old Adolph himself.   There's a few on the Youtube who claim that Hitler was a genius.  But he lost the war.  The winners get to write the history.  Anyway, the link above points to a passage in which Hitler refers to ideology.

Nuff said.


I've been perusing some videos on Youtube since last night.  It started out with some clips from old TV shows, and now has morphed into cultural stuff in general.

Perhaps anyone reading this may wonder, don't you do anything but stay on the internet?  Not much of anything else.  It is probably not the best thing for me, but that is what I do.  Anyway, the idea is to find stuff to put here up on this here blog.

But there's nothing there that looks like it is what I'd like to put up.  It would be like going off some type of tangent or something.  But maybe not.  On the one hand, I'm looking for something different, yet on the other, I say it is too different and doesn't go with what this blog is about.

But what is this blog about?  Anything like this should be about communication.  So, that brings me up to the current point, which I'm watching a video about British slang.  The funny thing about it is that it is not too different from American slang.  The thing that is most different to me is the pronunciation.   This girl has to say the word more than once before I understand what she is saying.  When I finally understand the word, then there's nothing unusual about the word, just the way that it is pronounced.

But maybe that's me.  She's just a little hard for me to understand, but it isn't the vocabulary.

There are no doubt much to be learned from those overseas, but looking at some of these videos, there's a bit of anti American sentiment out there. I am bit curious about that. Particularly amongst the Europeans. Some of them really do think they are better than we are. As for the American side of this, I feel as though I am a patriot. But that patriotism doesn't give me the need to denigrate anybody from another culture. If you like your culture, why not just say so? You don't have to put down somebody else.


If anyone is interested, the movie My Fair Lady has one of the better motivational speeches that you'd ever want to hear. Professor Higgins has been working hard to impart his expert knowledge of the English language to a poor flower girl. She seems not to be responding, but this speech seems to turn everything around.

Norris Column: Soros and Obama vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio

In the end, with civil rights as their front, the greatest tragedy of the Obama-Soros tag-team is that they not only further extend the tentacles of the federal government and a European style of socialism but also dismantle and strip the power from America's county sheriffs. Like states' 10th Amendment rights, every aspect of local law enforcement is being usurped by the federal government.

The federal government is out of control.   It is time to bring it back under control.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Next Big Future: IEC Bussard Fusion Project gets two more years of ...

Next Big Future: IEC Bussard Fusion Project gets two more years of ...: The Navy is funding EMC2 an additional $5.3 million over next 2 years to work on the problem of pumping electrons into the Polywell. Big ne...


The last update was back in November.

In case anybody is wondering, the Bussard Fusion Project is a fusion energy experiment funded by the Navy.  It proposes to fuse hydrogen and boron in order to make energy without waste nor harmful radiation ( or much).

Anyway, the concept may be a little tricky to grasp for a non scientist such as myself.  It is different from any other concept that I am familiar with in that it doesn't require the fusion materials to be in plasma form.  The method used depends upon the concentration of electrons, which create a "well", which attracts and accelerates the ions until they have enough kinetic energy so that they can fuse.  ( this may not be technically correct, but it is my understanding)

It looks like they have experienced a bit of a delay, but the Navy seems to like it enough in order to continue funding experiments.

Breaking News | Dream Chaser test plan outlined by Sierra Nevada

Spaceflight Now   h/t  Behind the Black


Sierra Nevada Corp., one of the firms vying to build a commercial space taxi for NASA, plans a series of automated and piloted atmospheric flight tests of its lifting body Dream Chaser spacecraft beginning this summer, ultimately leading to an orbital demonstration mission in 2016, according to company managers.


In another 4 years?  That seems a long way off.

The Dream Chaser is based on the HL-20 lifting body concept studied by NASA's Langley Research Center from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Launching into orbit on top of a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket, the spaceship will dock with the International Space Station and can stay there for more than six months. At the end of its mission, the craft will enter the atmosphere and make a piloted touchdown at the Shuttle Landing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.


I wonder if one of these could be attached to the Birdzilla?

Romney Should Win in a Landslide

Real Clear Politics, Dick Morris

  1. They poll only registered voters, not likely voters. 
  2. Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96 all failed to pick up a single undecided vote.
  3. And his approval has dropped in almost every single state. Even in California, it has fallen from 55 percent in 2010 to 50.5 percent in 2011
  4. I also found that Obama’s personal favorability, which has usually run about 10 to 20 points higher than his job approval, is now equal to his job rating.
  5. Obama cannot summon the commitment he got in 2008 by negatives or partisanship. It was precisely to change the “toxic” atmosphere in Washington that he was elected. To fan it now is not the way to regain the affection of those who have turned on him.
  6. The journalists in the mainstream media, who are not politicians and have never run campaigns, do not realize what is happening. 
Like Glenn Reynolds of Instpundit likes to say, "don't get cocky".

How I Learned Not to Deny Climate Change

realclearpolitics h/t behind the black

  • The term "climate change denier" is obviously objectionable because of the word "denier." That word is carried over from the phrase "Holocaust denial" and is meant to smear global warming skeptics
  • We understand that the climate is changing and that it has always been changing.
  • The alarmists who warn about recent man-made global warming are the ones who deny the reality of climate change. They are, in fact, advocates of climate stasis.
  • Henrik Svensmark has once again driven straight through this gap in their theory.

    Svensmark's theory of climate change, you may recall, began by targeting a glaring gap in the global warming theory: the inability to account for cloud-formation and its effect on climate.
  • A key element of this theory, the effect of cosmic rays in creating aerosols in the atmosphere, was recently demonstrated
  • Supernovas create a massive flux of cosmic rays.
  • So over geological time, the Earth is exposed to widely varying levels of cosmic radiation.
  • the measure of a good scientific theory, particularly on a topic this complex, is its ability to integrate knowledge from many other fields. Svensmark has made an impressive effort to do so. In the process, he has already broken the claim of the man-made global warming "consensus" to be the only scientific explanation of the climate.

That blasts to bits my idea that to argue about climate change was a waste of time.  Could it be that this fellow has found a killer argument that explains climate change over geologic time, and therefore, explains our climate today?

Anyhow, the title reminds me of the movie, although that is a bit pointless.  What the heck?

    Why the Right Really Hates Obama

    In These Times

    The title really says it all.  It is all about hate, it says.  I can't speak for anyone else, but here's what I said on the subject of hate in this blog.  The second part is this business about "right" v "left".  Again, I refer to what I wrote previously on the subject, which I paraphrase here--- it's not about right or left, but about freedom or tyranny.  In other words, it's not about ideology.

    I wrote about ideology too, that it can make you stupid.  What's even more shocking and stupid is that those who are conservative claim to be on the right.  This is playing right into the hands of the left.  It is playing on their turf and it is always the loser.  Therefore, just speaking for myself, I am not on the right.  I am on the side of freedom.  If you are conservative, you stop letting the left box you into their ideology.

    By the way, calling them left is appropriate because it is their ideology and evidently they believe in it fervently.

    Finally, I remember getting into an argument with some guy on Amazon about conservatism.  I would say that this guy may be someone "on the right" as opposed to being someone who favors freedom.  If his idea is the prevailing notion of conservatism in this country, then I am not a conservative.  But what I think is closer to Reagan than some of what I hear from those who claim to admire Reagan.

    I think I understand his success better than some of them do.  If these people ever got a clue, Obama wouldn't stand a chance.

    Let's See How Long Obama's 'Soldiers ... Fighting On My Behalf' Comment Hangs Around



    "when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."[emphasis added]

    FDR, for all his ego, would never have said that soldiers in World War II were fighting on his behalf. Neither would Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or even Carter and Clinton (although Clinton might have thought it).


    May be a Freudian slip.  What significance could be for him to have said that?  As the link shows, it is very important to keep in mind that soldiers don't fight for the president.  Everyone who takes office in this country, including anyone in the military, and all through the ranks of government on each level, must take an oath to support the constitution.  So, a slip up like this is not to be taken lightly.  Unfortunately, it just may go over the head of many, and others won't care even if they understand the concept.  However, if a Republican president ever said that, they'd go nuts.  Partisan politics is a way towards this corruption, so it isn't to be taken lightly, ever, even if by a member of your own party.

    Gay for Pay

    freebeacon h/t Ed Driscoll, Instapundit

    President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president’s position on gay rights.

    Reminds me of his Keystone decision.


    More here.

    Romney stands by his opposition to gay marriage

    ap via Drudge

    Mitt Romney on Wednesday reaffirmed his view that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman, highlighting a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama.

    This is one of those issues in which I think the country is moving down the wrong road.  I agree with the statement attributed to Romney on this one.   As for Obama, he is taking the political way as far as North Carolina is concerned.

    Actually, this reminds me of a post by Briggs on the subject.  He has some of the arguments pro and con.  Also, this from that piece:
    I only wish to make one point, a very small one, and only to those who were in the 39% or their supporters, to those people who say the vote “got it wrong.” If you say the vote is wrong you are admitting that there is some principle higher than democracy which decides what is right and wrong. You are saying that a true moral matter can, even must, be discerned in ways which are not appeals to the “People.” You are saying Rousseau and Mill were wrong.

    He mentioned universals, too.  Okay, I won't go there with this post.  I might mention that I think that the majority doesn't decide morality and shouldn't.  Also, the people of North Carolina should be respected as to their beliefs on the matter.  It wouldn't surprise me if Obama or one of his appointees decided to strike down this law.  Thus, the question is this: what is the limit of government?  Obama won't respect the limits, I think he has shown that beyond any doubt.

    Buzzfeed: Romney Silent As Woman Says Obama Should Be Tried For Treason

    Zeke Miller, Buzzfeed staff

    A woman in the audience expressed dismay that Obama was "operating outside the Constitution," then said Obama should be tried for treason for violating separation of powers.

    "I do believe he should be tried for treason," she said to applause from the audience.

    also, here's a quote of a quote:
    “Today we saw Mitt Romney’s version of leadership: standing by silently as his chief surrogate attacked the President’s family at the event and another supporter alleged that the President should be tried for treason. Time after time in this campaign, Mitt Romney has had the opportunity to show that he has the fortitude to stand up to hateful and over-the-line rhetoric and time after time, he has failed to do so. If this is the ‘leadership’ he has shown on the campaign trail, what can the American people expect of him as commander-in-chief?”


    I'll post more on this as I have found that Obama too has failed to speak against "over the line rhetoric":
    New Black Panthers Advocate Violence, Obama Silent  Yesterday, in a conference call, the New Black Panther Party, the militant arm of Obama’s socialism, called openly for violence
     This could be but one more example of projection that seems to be commonplace in this administration.

    Update ( a short while later):

    It looks like I may have made some moral equivalence between Romney and Obama.  Actually, what Obama has failed to do is far, far more serious than anything alleged of Romney.  There is actually violence being advocated, and actually violence done, and Obama has yet to condemn those who are inciting it.  Yet, they are criticizing the Romney campaign for failing to admonish an audience member for advocating a legal proceeding, which falls far, far short of advocating for violence.

    “Collateral damage.” How the DEA defines your business, your freedom, and your life.

    classicalvalues  h/t Instapundit


    In a story that would be touching in the ordinary context, an 88 year old man and his 85 year old girlfriend built a portable water purification business from a dream to a reality. Nothing wrong there; such things are supposed to be part of the American Dream.

    But now, their business is being ruined by one of the most unaccountable and tyrannical bureaucracies in the history of government, the DEA


    Just another example of a government that is out of control.  This is what the Tea Party is about.

    Given that too many people now like their big government, it could be hard to change this though.

    A personal story here, not significant, but a little to that point.  About 20 years ago, I had jury duty, and the case involved the intent to distribute cocaine.  In voire dire, it was asked if anyone had a problem with some aspect of the case and I said something like the following:  "I understand that this is a free country and if you want to use drugs that should be your own business and not the government's".  This drew a collective gasp from everyone in the courtroom.  At the end of the day,  a jury could not be selected and we were all dismissed.  It seems to me now that there's not enough people who understand where this is taking us, and that includes more than the war on drugs, but it is across the board.  The government is just plain out of control.


    I've been looking at some wikipedia posts about a constitutional convention.  Otherwise known as an Article V convention, this is a possible way to reign in the increasingly tyrannical federal government.  Congress couldn't do a damn thing about it.

    Wednesday, May 9, 2012

    What Is Biochar?

    How to Turn Waste Into Energy

    Published on May 3, 2012 by AttackOfTheShow

    Here are a couple other videos that are very similar

    Converting Trash into Electricity - Eliminating the Unwanted, While Creating the Needed

    How a waste-to-energy plant works

    There are plenty of others. You can spend a lot of time watching these.

    Why Republicans Deny Science—And Reality: Request For Help

    William M. Briggs

    Brigg's blog is now in my favorites list.  Not because of this post, but because Barone said it was an excellent blog.  So, I am perusing some of his posts, and it does look like good stuff.

    This particular piece reminds me of something I sometimes see in this here blog, which I won't name, you'll just have to go there and see for yourself.  I mentioned this blogger before, by the way.

    Basically, it comes down to some liberals thinking that they are better people than conservatives.  Well, with those preliminaries aside, I come down to the piece I'm linking to by Mr. Briggs.  That's because it fits in with this observation.
    Regular readers will be long familiar with the parade of faulty papers which claim that Republicans, conservatives, and Christians are stupid, unthinking, easily led, uncompassionate, and set off on their sad road by delusional beliefs in God or because they once attended a Fourth of July parade (yes, really)
    Yes, we are all knuckle dragging Neaderthals.  They are brilliant and tolerant and all that is good and nicey, nice, nice.  I see them planting their halos on their heads and pinning devil's horns on the conservatives.  It just seems juvenile at times.  It's like watching kids sticking their tongues out at each other.

    Next Big Future: Nuclear power is only solution to climate change, ...

    Next Big Future: Nuclear power is only solution to climate change, ...: Guardian UK - Combating climate change will require an expansion of nuclear power, respected economist Jeffrey Sachs said on Thursday, in re...


    So, develop the LFTR.  China is.  By the way, China has decided to make more, not live with less.  A lesson there in case anyone is paying attention.

    Preaching to the Choir

    Roger L. Simon h/t Ed Driscoll, Instapundit

    The tragedy of democracy in our times is that this may no longer be possible. People do not want to be disturbed by opposing views. They don’t even want to think about them. Too much — life, careers, family, friends — is at stake. Why upend it for anything so mundane as the future of our country?

    Yeah, I wondered in a previous post about how to reach people who don't understand, or in some cases, don't even want to.

    Lying is bad.  Being inaccurate isn't necessarily lying though.  Truth can be a slippery thing.  Someone can make an honest mistake, or just be wrong about something.  But in politics, it is just about impossible for people to be honest, especially about their mistakes.

    You can do your best to be sincere.  That sincerity may get through.  That may be the only thing that gets through.   But it can't hurt.  (crossing my fingers)

    Mitt Romney: A New Course for America ( video)

    Published on May 8, 2012 by RomneyComms

    Michigan remarks, transcript here

    Given that Romney is the likely nominee, it may well be time to take a look at what kind of president he may be.  This speech gives some clues.  I thought I'd break it down into the parts that I found interesting.  Actually, on the whole, it is a good speech.  I could find no fault with it.  In fact, there were parts which I found quite good.  But there's this feeling down deep that he is doing this for effect, not out of a deeply held belief.  Romney's biggest question is what does he really believe.  Can you trust him?  This video may give clues to answers to that question.

    The overall speech is at the bottom, with the breakdown to various points in the speech preceeding it as follows:

    "The President's plea that we simply ignore the last four years is his latest effort to escape responsibility for the failures. His earlier effort was to attempt to blame others – his predecessor, the Congress, the One Percent, oil companies, and ATMs."

    "Old-school liberals envisioned government guiding and providing every need of every citizen. Government would be at the center, the most important player in our lives"

    "President Obama is looking in the wrong direction. Looking backward won't solve the problems of today nor will it take advantage of the opportunities of tomorrow. His are the policies of the past."

    "This is a time for new ideas, new answers and a new direction. That is the only way that our future can be better than the past."

    "America is at a crossroads, one with the greatest economic divergence of the last hundred years. One path is that which President Obama has chosen. It ends with us becoming like much of Europe with chronic high unemployment, stagnant wages, and perilous levels of debt."

    "We do not have to live with less. We can create more"


    This is a non ideological speech which is aimed directly at an ideology that has failed us.  This is a way towards victory if he can close the deal.

    As for the question of trust, I think you can trust him not to be a right wing ideologue.  This may discomfit those who would prefer that he would, and reassure others who fear that he might.  He is not Barry Goldwater, but he may be echoing a bit of Reagan, who did not trust ideology.

    Tuesday, May 8, 2012

    Richard Cohen Yearns for Obama to Be Like LBJ



    Okay, back to Cohen whining about Obama's lack of political skills which was ignored by the liberal media four years ago:  [emphasis added]

    But Obama cannot or will not indulge in the sort of face-to-face politicking that Johnson so favored. He has not stroked important contributors — one bundler told me he never hears from Obama. As the New York Times put it recently in an article about his fundraising on Wall Street, Obama himself has “a reputation for being cold at small gatherings.” “I just don’t think he likes us,” one fundraiser is quoted as saying.

    The best that can be said for Obama is that he treats everyone with about the same degree of distance. One important Democrat used the term “cuckoo-clock events” to refer to White House receptions where Obama robotically appears, says a minimal amount of words and then disappears. He does not mingle — or, if he does, it is as little as possible. Bill Clinton, in contrast, was the host from hell. The party never ended.


    They were just happy to have the first black president.  Now they wished he was what they dreamed he was back then.  Just a bad case of being stuck on stupid.

    Dinosaur gases 'warmed the Earth'

    bbc h/t Free Republic

    Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.


    Wasn't it only western civilization in the human era of the earth that could produce global warming?  I'm disillusioned.

    I'm in the can and broken hearted.  

    Articles: Obama's Second Term Transformation Plans



    The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.

    This is why people think of Obama as a traitor.  He is not conforming to the oath of office, but is violating it intentionally and with reckless disregard.  Perhaps some would like not to think of it as treason, but once you think it through, treason is not an unreasonable way of looking at it.


    Some thoughts from Thomas Sowell on the subject of Moral Infrastructure.

    Is Obama a real American? Biography coming out soon.

    Byron York, Washington Examiner h/t Ed Driscoll, Instapundit

    Still, an excerpt of the Maraniss book published last week in Vanity Fair reveals a portrait of Obama that might have enriched the voters' understanding of him in the 2008 campaign, when many Americans were eager to learn about this new, fresh face in politics.

    The excerpt focuses on Obama's brief time in New York after his graduation from Columbia University. The son of a Kenyan father and an American expatriate mother, Obama emerges as a man questioning whether he viewed himself, or wanted to be viewed by others, as an American. Not in a citizenship sense -- Obama was born in the United States and that was that -- but in the sense of how he saw the world and wanted to be seen by it.


    Why give a phony birth certificate in response to Trump last year?  Who is this guy?  Does anybody care?

    Just as I said before, real Americans don't eat dog.  If anyone does, it is kept quiet.  Nobody brags about that and is a real American.

    No, as far as caring is concerned, people seem to be more interested in the government supplied goodies.


    There's been a back and forth with an anonymous commenter in the comments section.  I guess there's one more thing here that I won't put into the comment section, but, rather as an overall statement thusly: that anyone can play the "expert game".  Anybody can trot out their own expert.  Ultimately, if you're interested in the truth, you have to think the thing through for yourself.  Being in the political game doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the truth.  If you're fortunate, you'll get to the truth.  Ultimately, the outcome comes down to who can play the game better, with the truth often being the casualty.  It isn't so much about truth as it is about the game.

    Obama trying to punk Romney again


    Right off the bat, that's my take.  The Redstate piece only says Obama is flip flopping.  But, I think it's time to "man up" and stand up to the guy who wants to be king.  Nobody elected Obama king.  If he doesn't like the equivalent of being called an asshole, then don't act like an asshole, asshole.

    Apparently the White House is very upset that Romney didn’t immediately punch this woman in the face and arrest her for sedition.
    So there you have it. There is absolutely nothing worse than a man of Governor Romney’s stature staying quiet while awful things are said about his opponent. This is something that Obama would never find himself on the wrong end of. Unless of course when he was exactly on the other end of it just last year.


    So there it is.  It's like the wolf and the lamb.  The wolf accuses the lamb of spoiling the water, which he isn't.  The lamb argues his case flawlessly, but it doesn't matter.  The wolf is bigger and badder and will get his way.  That is, unless the lamb isn't really a lamb, but a sheepdog, and proceed to kick the wolf's ass when he gets out of line.

    The above is metaphorical, of course.  Not suggesting violence, but just stop being intimidated by these guys, for heaven's sake.  Obama is out of line, not Romney.  It is up to Romney to say forcefully that everyone in this country, including this president, is subject to the rule of law.  Then be prepared to make that stick.  When or if Romney ever starts doing that, then all of the words he says will start to mean something.  Otherwise, the words are just empty.


    I recall that Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book about putting Bush on trial for murder.  It seems to me that Obama said something supportive about putting people in the previous administration on trial, but I don't remember him saying anything about Bush.  The point is that he hasn't lived up to the standards that he wants others to live up to.  It is not a good idea to criminalize political disagreements, but that is hardly unique to today's Republicans, and Romney said nothing about putting anyone in the current administration on trial that I can recall.

    Monday, May 7, 2012

    Political power, it's a mind blowing thing

    What does Pink Floyd's Money have to do with politics? Money is power and power is political.

    Now, let's look at the previous post and notice that the people living off the land don't have money, but the people trying to drive them off, do have money.

    But, let's look at it on the other side. Allen Parkway Village was a long time controversy in Houston until the Democrats lost Congress in 1994. Shortly afterward, it was redeveloped. The place was a dump and should have been torn down, but politicians were holding that up.

    People reading this may not get the point. I think the point is that if you want to accomplish anything of value, you need some political power. In addition, in order to have political power, you just may need money. I hope the point was not too hard for me to make and it can be seen for what I think it is.

    Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with justice. It is about power.

    Is living off the Grid now a crime?


    Counties across the country are actually jailing people for living the way they want to live.


    So what happened to the "nega watt" concept?   Seems to me that in the "greenest" state in the union that to live off your land would be a "greener" thing.  After all, they're not the ones contributing to pollution.  What's the deal?

    EPA $1m to Colleges for off-grid research
    The projects were selected from more than 300 college innovators showcasing sustainable projects, almost all designed to facilitate off-grid living and use natural resources more efficiently. Following an initial peer review process, the EPA selected 45 teams for two days of judging by a panel of national experts convened to provide recommendations to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Just a million bucks and it has produced more value than it probably consumed.  You don't need to spend big money to get big results.


    EGO OUT: THE CONCEPT OF “MISCOVERY” AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR ...: New words are necessary in a world of ever increasing diversity, complexity and hostility; however it is quite difficult to generate them. ...

    For creating a commercial LENR system- using the Piantelli know-how plus increased energy density- he has applied first Rule No. 5: “NOT what we know, but what we don’t know, is more important for solving the problem.” This means Rossi was aware that the solution is not hidden somewhere in the already published many LENR papers, patents and reports; it is also not in the brain of some great authority from the field. Instead, he has made many probably hundreds, of experiments (here I believe him!) Edisonian style and step-by-step and/or luck-by-luck has found something of value. In the realm of the unknown.


    A lengthy post worthy of reading if you have the time.

    LENR and the Paradigm of Abundance

    coldfusionnow h/t pesn

    In particular, there is a new clean, very very cheap, and super abundant energy technology emerging called “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” (LENR for short). It uses hydrogen and nickel to produce heat. No nuclear materials are used for fuel, and none are produced.


    There's a lot here for me to agree with.  However, I'm an "all of the above" type on energy.  That means I also favor LFTRs, which may not be in tune with certain folks who don't like fission of any sort.  The trouble is, these cold fusion technologies are not moving with the speed necessary, and LFTRs are already been proven in the lab.  LFTR tech only requires commercialization.  LFTRs are a 300 fold improvement on waste and can be as economical as coal.

    I'm all for LENR.  I just think its time may not have come yet.  I'd be very happy to be wrong about that.

    Top 30 VP Picks

    via Right Wing News h/t Instapundit, Althouse

    2) Chris Christie (Governor, New Jersey)
    Strengths: He has been a ferocious Mitt backer, is charismatic, generally well liked by conservatives, fiscally conservative, and he’s also a ferocious attacker, which is a useful trait for a VP. If he could help deliver New Jersey, it would make him a considerably more attractive candidate, but that may be a tall order.
    Weaknesses: This is Christie’s first term as Governor, so he’s inexperienced. This would also put two moderate, northeastern Republicans on the ticket. That could dispirit conservatives and could make it even more difficult to hold southern states like North Carolina and Virginia.

    I think Christie might fit Romney's style a bit better.  Being liked by the conservatives, this could help him indirectly in North Carolina and Virginia.  It may be better to go on offense than to play defense, so an attacker could be better than a low charisma type like Portman.  New Jersey may be a tall order, but Pennsylvania isn't, and Wisconsin may not be.  He needs to pick up some votes where a Southern conservative can't find them, forcing Obama to defend his own turf.  If he had any impact on Pennsylvania at all, it could be a difference maker.  From my own point of view, Christie would be acceptable, although it doesn't help me like Romney that much.  A VP won't win it for him anyway.  The key is to keep it from losing it for him.

    Beyond Blue Part Two: Recasting The Dream

    via meadia walter russell mead

    And just as the perceived necessity for centralization gradually influenced the Supreme Court to take an expansive view of federal authority in the progressive era, the perceived advantages of decentralization (combined with a revival of “originalist” jurisprudence) are pulling the pendulum in the other direction today.

    Nice correlation with ace's post with respect to changing the state's relationship to the individual.  Could it be the key to this election?

    What could happen here is that more and more people will drop off the grid and become like the farmers of yesteryear.  They will be able to provide for themselves with increasing tendency towards independence and less towards interconnectedness and dependency.  After all, if machines are doing everything, what will people do with themselves?  They can take care of themselves for the most part.  The machines will take the place of jobs, so more and more people will need a way to feed themselves and provide for themselves.

    What Sarkozy Loss Really Means for America



    to call Sarkozy's policies "austerity" is to insult both austerity and socialism. The French government--like other European governments--sought to close its budget gap primarily by raising taxes, not by cutting the size and cost of government. 


    Doesn't surprise me.  If you rely upon the media hacks like Krugman to tell you anything, you are hopeless.  That's why I don't watch media and what I've read of Krugman is a bad joke.   Krugman is advocating currency debasement and accelerating debt.  It's like taking a sledgehammer to kill a tiny, bothersome insect.

    What is needed is a growth driver, like the world wide web was in the nineties.  But the government isn't good at picking these, so let the market do it.  What the government can do is to help out with some significant, but small investments.  Such was the case with the world wide web.  Such can be the case against with new energy technologies.  But not solar nor wind.  These are too limited, and they are getting too many subsidies already.  Spending like a drunken sailor only gets a hangover in the morning.

    Engineers, lawmakers prepare for driverless cars

    palmbeachpost h/t.  Free Republic


    It may be years before you can take your hands off the wheel and have your car go where you tell it. But driverless cars are on their way and Florida is already embracing the vehicles, whose technology promises to save lives, create jobs and free minds from the grind of the road.


    One more things that machines are doing for us.  What does this mean for the future?  What will people do with themselves if computers do all the work?

    Gender Gap Is Smaller

    dick morris

    It's going to be a close election.  Obama's core voters he needed for his win in 2008 are not with him quite so much this time.  Barone had something about fewer latinos, saying there may be fewer this election cycle.  Obama also has troubles with Jewish voters.  Young people are still with him, but they've lost their enthusiasm.

    There's an opportunity for Romney to win this thing.  But why do polls say this thing is close?  All this news points to a big win for Romney, yet the polls are close.

    Sunday, May 6, 2012

    "The Life of Julia" And Obama's Orwellian Vision for a Fundamental Change In the Relationship Between Citizen and State


    One of the central points of 1984 is that in true totalitarianism, the State must displace the natural allegiances of love -- romantic, familial, and brotherly (and, though Orwell might not agree -- Love of God, too)-- with a love of State.

    Harsanyi is right. Obama is setting forward a vision contrary to the American tradition of self-sufficiency--a welfare state that runs from cradle to grave. And it's a dishonest vision, because it presents all of these benefits as "free," never acknowledging that they are paid for through coercive taxation.


    After winning the cold war, we are set to lose everything that was once won in favor of what we defeated.  Yet, nobody seems amazed by that.  How can this be?   How can people so quickly forget history which shows what works and what doesn't?  Why do people embrace what had been proven a failure just 30 years ago?  Is the left wing propaganda and indoctrination so powerful that people are completely incapable of seeing what is and what isn't even when it is right in front of their own eyes?

    I never understood how the guy got elected.  Why he is even in this race is even more amazing.  What the hell happened?

    Elephant plays harmonica

    Can the elephant join a band?

    GM, a failed investment

    Free Republic

    If you invested more than $100 in a company, would you be happy if your shares were worth only $36? By anyone’s definition that investment would have been a terrible failure.

    But that may win him Michigan.  The people directly affected, meaning the autoworkers, will seen which side their bread is buttered on.  It's the taxpayers who should see how their interests are not being served.  But that is not likely as long as the LSM ( Left Stream Media) is putting out the party line.

    Obama may have destroyed any chance that the company could restructure and become profitable again.  Nice going.  By the way, for those who may want to point out that the company is profitable again, take a look at those comments, and take another look at those numbers.  If GM were really profitable, that market cap would be higher, much higher.

    Climatology: A Textbook Example of Groupthink

    al fin

    Groupthink is toxic to the ability of the human mind to think clearly and independently. It is destructive of creativity and productive imagination. It is destructive of any hopeful or livable future for the majority of humans -- those living outside the inner circles of power.[ link added]


    I first encountered the term "groupthink" when I read Thirteen Days , which was about President Kennedy's response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I could be mistaken about that since it is a long ago memory.  Anyway, groupthink is just what Al Fin says.  Inasmuch as the world wide web may be contributing to that, it could well be toxic to our future if some antidote isn't applied to the increasing insularity of the web.  It would also be tragic, just as groupthink can be tragic, because of all the best and brightest only contribute and reinforce the insularity; as opposed to opening minds to new ways of dealing with problems.

    Krugman: Economic Tribalism

    ny times  via Memeorandum

    People aren’t very receptive to evidence if it doesn’t come from a member of their cultural community. 

    Yeah, that's what I mean.  People prefer the conflict, not the solutions.  It just so happens that I don't agree with Krugman's policy prescriptions.  It is true that he is not in my cultural community, but I do read his stuff from time to time.  If he had anything that made sense, I'd say so.  I'm not drinking the kool aid, despite what anybody on his side may claim.  It is either drink their kool aid or else.  There's no toleration for dissent.

    "Civilized People Don't Buy Gold" h/t Instapundit


    "If you were shipwrecked on a desert island, what would you prefer, a bag of potatoes or a bag of gold?," [replied Moist]
     "Can I assume for a moment that you don't intend to put us on the potato standard?" said Sacharissa sharply.

    I liked the bottom quote.  That's why I'm putting this up.  Actually, you can't eat gold, but it has always been good for trading.  Trade is a sign of civilization.  Otherwise, a thief would just steal your potatoes just as easily as your gold.

    Simberg: Striking A Nerve

    transterrestrial musings

    Well, this certainly has gotten Think Progress’s panties in a twist. They’re squealing like a stuck pig. [emphasis added, it's a link see below]
    The italicized "this" led me to a serious of links which got me to this editorial (, which was intriguing in its own way.  It starts out with something that supposedly is in the web, which I haven't heard of before.  It is called "Poe's Law".  So, what's this "law".  I'll quote it here:
    Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article.  [The law caught on and has since slowly leaked out as an Internet meme. Over time it has been extended to include not just creationist parody but any parody of extreme ideology, whether religious, secular, or totally bonkers.]

    Back to discover article-- It says the following about the law--
    Creating an actual billboard like this would be taking Poe’s Law and aiming right between your own eyes!

    Hmm!  Quite the statement that.  I get the impression here that Heartland was flinging holy water at the devil and the devil is screaming bloody murder.  What is so intriguing is that the "warmists" think they are doing the same thing and that was Heartland's "desperate" response!  What I am postulating here is a type of mutual projection.  They both think of each other as being evil and are trying to bring down the existing order.

    So, what's going on here?  If I may, I think it is a result of "churches" doing their thing.   But these aren't real churches, you say?  No, but the arguments are like ones you might get in a debate between the ayatollah and the Pope about the Trinity.   It has become so deeply an article of faith that it is impossible to have a rational discussion on the issue.   Indeed, deeply held belief in general may just preempt any discussion of a scientific matter.  I take Heartland's side here, sort of, because it is not a religious matter, but a scientific matter.  It is not a matter that should involve deeply held beliefs.  That's what the advocates of human caused climate change have turned this into.

    If carbon dioxide is such a problem, why not come up with something that works that may fix the "problem"?

    Instead of that, what we may end up with is an excuse the grow the influence of the government, which is the real question as far as I'm concerned.  So, what exactly is everyone arguing about?  Bigger government or the environment?

    A better response for Heartland is to advocate for solutions that actually work economically and technologically.  These won't necessitate a larger government and may even make us more prosperous.  This is supposedly the idea of "green jobs", but they haven't delivered.

    Deliver the real jobs and hearts and minds will follow.