I first heard this on PBS when Suze Orman said it. It is the same thing that Marcus Aurelius said.
People fill their minds with junk, then junk will come out.
People fill their minds with hate, and hate will come out.
People start acting constructively, and good things can happen.
So what will it be?
Update:
You should listen to Suze Orman. Good stuff.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Left-Wing Hate Speech -- Michelle Malkin -- Jason Mattera -- Sean Hannity -- 3-14-12
Published on Mar 14, 2012 by RightSightings
Comment:
I'm putting up this video because of the comments to the video, not so much the video itself. This and the New York Times piece's comments really do show the mindset of the left. It is sick, sick, sick. The psychological projection is clinical stuff. These people are living, breathing examples of sociological decay.
Evidently, they believe their hatred will cow all of us into submission. Well, we'll see about that.
Comment:
I'm putting up this video because of the comments to the video, not so much the video itself. This and the New York Times piece's comments really do show the mindset of the left. It is sick, sick, sick. The psychological projection is clinical stuff. These people are living, breathing examples of sociological decay.
Evidently, they believe their hatred will cow all of us into submission. Well, we'll see about that.
"Dead Sexy"
The magic word is "sex". That's how you get attention. Did I get your attention? Here's a video that discusses how to get people to watch a youtube video, but she doesn't seem to have a clue. I think she really does, but she's not giving away her secrets. ( but I will, snicker snicker)
Why is Lady Gaga so popular? It's all about sex. People must be a bunch of perverts. That's all they seem to think about.
My most popular videos have a sex component to them. No, they aren't very popular at all. It is relatively popular that I'm referring to- not Lady Gaga type of popularity.
By the way "Dead Sexy" is a phrase stolen from the "Fat Bastard" character in the Austin Powers movies. Fat Bastard actually thought he was sexy. Maybe you don't have to be sexy, just think you are and maybe you are. I wouldn't know about that though. I don't think of myself that way.
No, you can't buy popularity. I had one of my videos advertised, and it still didn't get views. It is also super smart stuff, but that gets no respect. If JP Aerospace can get an airship to orbit, it will be a really big deal. It may solve a few of the world's problems. But nobody's interested in that at all.
It's all about sex, baby. That's what does it.
Why is Lady Gaga so popular? It's all about sex. People must be a bunch of perverts. That's all they seem to think about.
My most popular videos have a sex component to them. No, they aren't very popular at all. It is relatively popular that I'm referring to- not Lady Gaga type of popularity.
By the way "Dead Sexy" is a phrase stolen from the "Fat Bastard" character in the Austin Powers movies. Fat Bastard actually thought he was sexy. Maybe you don't have to be sexy, just think you are and maybe you are. I wouldn't know about that though. I don't think of myself that way.
No, you can't buy popularity. I had one of my videos advertised, and it still didn't get views. It is also super smart stuff, but that gets no respect. If JP Aerospace can get an airship to orbit, it will be a really big deal. It may solve a few of the world's problems. But nobody's interested in that at all.
It's all about sex, baby. That's what does it.
Tech : Leap Motion fine tuning commerical MO-CAP for the masses. (video fromCNET.)
Published on May 21, 2012 by ageekrecommends
I feel like the line in the Austin Powers movie. "How did I miss those, baby."
I feel like the line in the Austin Powers movie. "How did I miss those, baby."
SSTO Lunar Lander speculation
Speculation alert: This is a huge guess since I'm not a rocket scientist nor engineer
SSTO ( Single Stage to Orbit) is something of a dream for Earthbound space travelers, but it has already been achieved from the moon. If it hadn't, the Apollo missions could not have been a success.
But a problem still remained in that you still needed a descent stage combined with an ascent stage. There were no facilities for refueling on the moon, which required that all fuel for both descent and ascent had to be carried in one package. This had some significant disadvantages. One of them is the mass penalty. The more mass you have to carry, the more penalty you have to pay in additional mass for propellant. This can be quite expensive, since it is so costly to get that stuff to the moon in the first place.
What if that mass penalty can be minimized? That's what in-situ resourcing proposes to address. If you can get your propellant from the moon itself, then you won't have to carry it with you. This can make a big difference in terms of cost and complexity in getting from lunar orbit and back.
The earlier post today describes a technology that could do just that. By harvesting lunar oxygen, it will do away with that mass penalty and by doing so, will create opportunities to do some interesting things on the moon.
Here's some spreadsheet calcs that I've been fooling around with. I took this from some 'what if' calculations that I did last fall- for a type of SSTO which used beamed energy instead of burning the propellant. The ISP numbers and such may not be 100% accurate, since I haven't updated it completely. But the idea is basically the same as what I tried to calculate back then. I was tryijng to figure out how to beat the mass penalty. It appears that this has already been done with ISRU technology mentioned in the previous post.
Well done.
SSTO ( Single Stage to Orbit) is something of a dream for Earthbound space travelers, but it has already been achieved from the moon. If it hadn't, the Apollo missions could not have been a success.
But a problem still remained in that you still needed a descent stage combined with an ascent stage. There were no facilities for refueling on the moon, which required that all fuel for both descent and ascent had to be carried in one package. This had some significant disadvantages. One of them is the mass penalty. The more mass you have to carry, the more penalty you have to pay in additional mass for propellant. This can be quite expensive, since it is so costly to get that stuff to the moon in the first place.
What if that mass penalty can be minimized? That's what in-situ resourcing proposes to address. If you can get your propellant from the moon itself, then you won't have to carry it with you. This can make a big difference in terms of cost and complexity in getting from lunar orbit and back.
The earlier post today describes a technology that could do just that. By harvesting lunar oxygen, it will do away with that mass penalty and by doing so, will create opportunities to do some interesting things on the moon.
Here's some spreadsheet calcs that I've been fooling around with. I took this from some 'what if' calculations that I did last fall- for a type of SSTO which used beamed energy instead of burning the propellant. The ISP numbers and such may not be 100% accurate, since I haven't updated it completely. But the idea is basically the same as what I tried to calculate back then. I was tryijng to figure out how to beat the mass penalty. It appears that this has already been done with ISRU technology mentioned in the previous post.
Well done.
 |
| The circled numbers are the masses needed for liquid hydrogen. Note the additional margin for cargo and crew |
Why Europe Soared In The 50s And Collapsed In The 90s
Dick Morris TV: History Video!
One of the commenters in the New York Times piece declared that Europe was fine. Morris shows how that is wrong.
One of the commenters in the New York Times piece declared that Europe was fine. Morris shows how that is wrong.
Sarah Palin Speaks!
She razzes Obama about eating "Fido". Not only that but snorting cocaine. She didn't mention this, though. Instead of naming it the Choom Gang, maybe he should have called it the original Doobie Brothers.
Data From NASA's Voyager 1 Point to Interstellar Future
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Comment:
Deep space probes like these require plutonium in order to obtain power. This isn't going to be possible going forward unless a new supply is found because NASA is running out. There is a solution-- it is called the LFTR.
To find out about LFTR technology, click on the label below for a list of posts that describe it.
Comment:
Deep space probes like these require plutonium in order to obtain power. This isn't going to be possible going forward unless a new supply is found because NASA is running out. There is a solution-- it is called the LFTR.
To find out about LFTR technology, click on the label below for a list of posts that describe it.
Living The Nightmare Of A Conservative On A College Campus
behindtheblack via IBD
quote:
comment:
South Carolina? Boy, if this kind of stuff can go on there, it is pretty widespread. Where can you go where there's some sanity? Even worse, this is how you lose the young people. If you poison their minds like this, where does it lead? Not to a good place I would think.
quote:
The campus atmosphere, professors and many students are just as liberal, tree-hugging and socialism-loving as a conservative might imagine. How do I know? I have lived the nightmare for three years at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.
comment:
South Carolina? Boy, if this kind of stuff can go on there, it is pretty widespread. Where can you go where there's some sanity? Even worse, this is how you lose the young people. If you poison their minds like this, where does it lead? Not to a good place I would think.
Crying Man Speaks!
Published on Jun 12, 2012 by badger14videos
Crying Man calls a Wisconsin Talk Show in the aftermath of his blubbering video.
Update:
Part 2 here. This guy reminds me Howard Dean scream in 2004.
Crying Man calls a Wisconsin Talk Show in the aftermath of his blubbering video.
Update:
Part 2 here. This guy reminds me Howard Dean scream in 2004.
Very interesting
via Transterrestrial Musings, Tapping the Richness of Space
quote:
comment:
Something the size of a lawnmower would not take a big rocket to get it there. That means existing rockets could probably do the job. In turn, it means that it wouldn't be too expensive of a project.
The benefits would be an oxidizer for a liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen type propulsion that was used on the shuttle. Here's how it could work. You would carry the hydrogen down to the station, but without the oxygen on board for the trip back up. For that, you would gather that from the lunar surface station just mentioned in the above quote. This reduces the mass needed to carry down, which in turn reduces the size of the rocket system to get you down and back up. In other words, it simplifies the task of landing on the moon and getting back. Seven eighths of the mass needed would be the oxygen, and you are getting that from the surface for the trip back up. That is a significant savings.
Of course, if you found a hydrogen source on the moon, then you wouldn't even need to carry the hydrogen for the return trip, which adds to the benefits. For the moment though, saving on the oxygen mass is the most significant thing. It gets you started.
You could place one of these robots near a lava tube. This would be a suitable location for exploration, because a robot may not be sufficient for the job of determining if these are suitable for shelter against radiation.
If lava tubes have water, like permanent shaded craters do, you could really have something to work with.
quote:
Jerry Sanders from NASA’s Johnson Space Center said that the agency has developed a robot processor that can break down lunar soils and extract oxygen for use in life support and as a rocket propellant. Sanders says that it doesn’t take a huge refinery to do this. A device the size of a lawnmower, processing just 4 cups of soil per minute, will produce 10 metric tons of oxygen annually. NASA has already put a prototype of the oxygen processor through its paces in Hawaii. [emphasis added]--- article by Tom Jones, who is a veteran NASA astronaut, planetary scientist, and co-author of Planetology: Unlocking the Secrets of the Solar System.
comment:
Something the size of a lawnmower would not take a big rocket to get it there. That means existing rockets could probably do the job. In turn, it means that it wouldn't be too expensive of a project.
The benefits would be an oxidizer for a liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen type propulsion that was used on the shuttle. Here's how it could work. You would carry the hydrogen down to the station, but without the oxygen on board for the trip back up. For that, you would gather that from the lunar surface station just mentioned in the above quote. This reduces the mass needed to carry down, which in turn reduces the size of the rocket system to get you down and back up. In other words, it simplifies the task of landing on the moon and getting back. Seven eighths of the mass needed would be the oxygen, and you are getting that from the surface for the trip back up. That is a significant savings.
Of course, if you found a hydrogen source on the moon, then you wouldn't even need to carry the hydrogen for the return trip, which adds to the benefits. For the moment though, saving on the oxygen mass is the most significant thing. It gets you started.
You could place one of these robots near a lava tube. This would be a suitable location for exploration, because a robot may not be sufficient for the job of determining if these are suitable for shelter against radiation.
If lava tubes have water, like permanent shaded craters do, you could really have something to work with.
Never underestimate the power of incompetence, part II
What Ace had to say about independents reminded me of my prior post on incompetence.
quote:
comment:
If it is really true that independents are just poseurs who really don't know what they are doing, then we will get an election result that is largely due to incompetence. That's because the partisans will cancel each other out and the independents will be the ones who decide.
As usual, I will try anyway. I have a tendency to try to fight unwinnable battles. By the way, partisans are the real believers, and I've had something to say about ideology that won't please these people on either side of the political divide.
Something's wrong, judging by the polls. An ideological solution isn't really a solution at all. It just sends us around the merry go round once again.
quote:
That's a bit of ego in this cohort -- they're not partisans. They do not make decisions based only only on partisanship or ideology. They make decisions based upon "facts" (but the fact is, they know fewer facts than partisans on either side of the aisle).
comment:
If it is really true that independents are just poseurs who really don't know what they are doing, then we will get an election result that is largely due to incompetence. That's because the partisans will cancel each other out and the independents will be the ones who decide.
As usual, I will try anyway. I have a tendency to try to fight unwinnable battles. By the way, partisans are the real believers, and I've had something to say about ideology that won't please these people on either side of the political divide.
Something's wrong, judging by the polls. An ideological solution isn't really a solution at all. It just sends us around the merry go round once again.
Friday, June 15, 2012
What Republicans Think
David Brooks, New York Times
excerpts:
excerpts:
- Democrats frequently ask me why the Republicans have become so extreme [comment: Funny. It seems the other way around to me. Why are the Democrats so extreme?]
- In America as in Europe, Republicans argue, the welfare state is failing to provide either security or dynamism. [ comment: Is that statement an example of an extremist point of view?]
- This is the source of Republican extremism: the conviction that the governing model is obsolete. It needs replacing.[comment: Again- what is extreme about changing things? Obama ran on change, why can't Republicans change things? What we gotten from Obama is more of the same thing. It wasn't change. And it is not working.]
- Republicans and Democrats have different perceptions about how much change is needed.[ comment: Again- Obama ran on change. If the Democrats really wanted change, why are they opposing the Republicans?]
Obama Listens to Rich Liberals, at His Own Peril
Michael Barone
quote:
Comment:
Over and over again, I am beginning to notice a certain pattern. Liberals say that they are for a certain thing, but the results are the exact opposite. They say that they are for education, but nobody gets a good education. They say that they are for affordable health care, but prices are going through the roof. They say that they are for the interests of the people in general, but the people are hurting. That is why Obama is such a failure. He promises "hope and change", but delivers nothing of the sort.
Who is he working for? The common man? No, not hardly.
Update:
Here's a video illustrating an idea I saw on Barhardt's site. It shows a young James T. Kirk solving the Kobayashi Maru "no win" problem. The original reference came from movie The Wrath of Khan.
Barnhardt says:
Update:
I've considered what Barhardt has written and the link as well. Basically she is saying that we have a no win situation on our hands. I don't agree.
She is saying that the Republic dead. I don't agree.
But if Obama wins, we may as well be.
There has to be some accountability in our system. Otherwise, the politicians will ignore us. Rightly so. If you give them a free hand, this is what you should expect. To remove Obama is to restore at least some accountability. Obama would rather be president. Otherwise, why would he run? He and Romney may as well be clones, but they are not. They are different people. They are individuals. A different person in office would at least punish Obama. But it isn't a solution to what Romney may bring. For that, you will have to have a way to insure that he doesn't betray, as Obama did. One way is to make an example of Obama. That should encourage Romney to watch his ass. But that is no guarantee. For that guarantee, be prepared to go right back and do it again in four years. Or less if Romney gets too far out of hand. Just impeach the bastard.
Did Obama betray? Hell yes. Even to the left, he has betrayed. If they vote for him again, it will only confirm what I think of them. That they are totally faithless and treacherous. You can't believe a word they say.
As for Republicans. They are being put on notice by the Tea Party. Several have been removed. Others could be. Keep doing that and that will at least encourage them to not go astray. Republicans are willing to do that. Democrats are not. I think the Republicans are more trustworthy because they will at least boot anybody who goes off the reservation. Look what happened to Nixon. Clinton stayed. Nuff said.
quote:
When given a chance to draw new boundaries of his state Senate district in 2002, Obama made sure to include Chicago's richest lakefront neighborhood. He's been working hard to court rich liberal contributors ever since.
Comment:
Over and over again, I am beginning to notice a certain pattern. Liberals say that they are for a certain thing, but the results are the exact opposite. They say that they are for education, but nobody gets a good education. They say that they are for affordable health care, but prices are going through the roof. They say that they are for the interests of the people in general, but the people are hurting. That is why Obama is such a failure. He promises "hope and change", but delivers nothing of the sort.
Who is he working for? The common man? No, not hardly.
Update:
Here's a video illustrating an idea I saw on Barhardt's site. It shows a young James T. Kirk solving the Kobayashi Maru "no win" problem. The original reference came from movie The Wrath of Khan.
Barnhardt says:
It's high time someone with a Kirkian worldview and carriage hacked into the computer and re-wrote the damn program.question: How the hell do you do that? You can see the problem. People are unorganized and unable to respond to what is being done to them. How do you change that? We elected a guy who was a "community organizer", but whose community is he organizing?
Update:
I've considered what Barhardt has written and the link as well. Basically she is saying that we have a no win situation on our hands. I don't agree.
She is saying that the Republic dead. I don't agree.
But if Obama wins, we may as well be.
There has to be some accountability in our system. Otherwise, the politicians will ignore us. Rightly so. If you give them a free hand, this is what you should expect. To remove Obama is to restore at least some accountability. Obama would rather be president. Otherwise, why would he run? He and Romney may as well be clones, but they are not. They are different people. They are individuals. A different person in office would at least punish Obama. But it isn't a solution to what Romney may bring. For that, you will have to have a way to insure that he doesn't betray, as Obama did. One way is to make an example of Obama. That should encourage Romney to watch his ass. But that is no guarantee. For that guarantee, be prepared to go right back and do it again in four years. Or less if Romney gets too far out of hand. Just impeach the bastard.
Did Obama betray? Hell yes. Even to the left, he has betrayed. If they vote for him again, it will only confirm what I think of them. That they are totally faithless and treacherous. You can't believe a word they say.
As for Republicans. They are being put on notice by the Tea Party. Several have been removed. Others could be. Keep doing that and that will at least encourage them to not go astray. Republicans are willing to do that. Democrats are not. I think the Republicans are more trustworthy because they will at least boot anybody who goes off the reservation. Look what happened to Nixon. Clinton stayed. Nuff said.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Gas prices are too high
I did some price comparisons between 1970's and now in terms of price for a couple items. One comparison was with the price of tires v the price of gas. The other was for a one bedroom apartment v the price of gas. These were extrapolated to current day prices.
The price of gas should be about half what it is now- or even less.
The prices were what I paid in 1975 for gas and a 1 bedroom apartment. Prices for a comparable tire and an apartment were plugged in with the calculated ratio in order to obtain the price per gallon for each item if the ratio was the same as then.
The price of gas should be about half what it is now- or even less.
The prices were what I paid in 1975 for gas and a 1 bedroom apartment. Prices for a comparable tire and an apartment were plugged in with the calculated ratio in order to obtain the price per gallon for each item if the ratio was the same as then.
 |
| circled items are the prices today in terms of tires or rent for 1 bedroom apartment |
Bailed-out General Motors to Receive Another Wasteful Handout
blog.heritage
quote:
Comment:
I would add that this dovetails nicely in the limits to growth mindset of the left. The theory goes that resources are limited, so conservation is necessary. But if sufficient energy is actually available, why the necessity for conservation of energy? There isn't unless there is an impetus to limit growth as a matter of policy. The left doesn't want growth, that's the point. These awards are intended to buy people off for their political support. It is a corrupt practice and it doesn't achieve any policy goals worth pursuing.
quote:
The Department of Energy is awarding $54 million for energy projects that should help manufacturing companies be more energy efficient. If your immediate response is, “If these technologies are going to lower a business’s costs, why aren’t they investing their own money?” then you’re asking the right question.
Comment:
I would add that this dovetails nicely in the limits to growth mindset of the left. The theory goes that resources are limited, so conservation is necessary. But if sufficient energy is actually available, why the necessity for conservation of energy? There isn't unless there is an impetus to limit growth as a matter of policy. The left doesn't want growth, that's the point. These awards are intended to buy people off for their political support. It is a corrupt practice and it doesn't achieve any policy goals worth pursuing.
Article | Why I was won over by Glass-Steagall
manhattan-institute
The second reason seems more cogent than the first. I think the problem is corruption. Corruption requires deceit and deceit requires camouflage. The camouflage is the complexity quoted and emphasized above.
The first reason is good too, don't misunderstand. The first reason gets to the heart of the problem. If you are going to have highly leveraged system -which we have- you must insure its integrity. That's why Glass Steagall worked. It should be reinstated.
- There are certainly better ways to deal with excessive risk-taking behaviour by banks, but we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. In the absence of these better mechanisms, it makes perfect economic sense to restrict commercial banks’ investments in very risky activities, because their deposits are insured.
- The second reason why Glass- Steagall won me over was its simplicity. The Glass-Steagall Act was just 37 pages long. The so-called Volcker rule has been transformed into 298 pages of mumbo jumbo, which will require armies of lawyers to interpret. [emphasis added]
The second reason seems more cogent than the first. I think the problem is corruption. Corruption requires deceit and deceit requires camouflage. The camouflage is the complexity quoted and emphasized above.
The first reason is good too, don't misunderstand. The first reason gets to the heart of the problem. If you are going to have highly leveraged system -which we have- you must insure its integrity. That's why Glass Steagall worked. It should be reinstated.
Morning Jay: Obama’s Problem With His Base
weeklystandard
excerpts:
Comment:
The Republicans need a solid theme to run on. I would suggest an anti-corruption theme. The challenge here is that the corruption may exist throughout the political system. If Romney can pass muster and be credible on an anti-corruption theme, he can close the deal. Otherwise, the above scenario may not play out.
excerpts:
- ...American Jobs Act. This bill is basically a huge payoff to Democratic constituent groups
- the American Jobs Act is a watered-down version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (i.e., the stimulus that the country thinks was a failure)
- So why, then, is the president still insisting on this package? He has trouble with his base.
- I do not mean the Democratic party is set to abandon him en masse.... the problem is at the margins, which is where electoral politics is inevitably played
- Obama is doing terribly with the independent vote...According to the Gallup poll, the president has pulled in just 43 percent support from independents over the last month, and just 36 percent of “pure independents,” i.e., those with no ties at all to either party.
- if the independent vote holds roughly where it has been for the last two years, Obama will need that 2008 Democratic turnout edge just to keep the race a toss-up...How will the Democratic base perform in November? It is impossible to say for sure, but there is solid evidence that points to trouble on the left flank.
- the Republican base vote that is more energized than its Democratic counterpart, at least at the moment
- If that holds up over the next five months, and independents do not warm up to the president, Obama is going to lose.
Comment:
The Republicans need a solid theme to run on. I would suggest an anti-corruption theme. The challenge here is that the corruption may exist throughout the political system. If Romney can pass muster and be credible on an anti-corruption theme, he can close the deal. Otherwise, the above scenario may not play out.
Is Methanol the Key to Energy Independence?
realclearenergy
excerpts:
This is a Bob Zubrin idea that I saw way back in 2008. It makes sense, but it won't get done. Too much corruption. No way the subsidies can be ended for ethanol.
The fertilizer option would also work because you can burn ammonia in an internal combustion engine. Also, ammonia can be electrolyzed which can produce hydrogen for fuel cells.
An additional idea: recapture the carbon dioxide and run it through an algae farm. Pyrolyze the algae, and create biochar. Sequester the carbon by adding to soil. You could repeat the process again and again until most of the carbon is extracted.
But would that be economical? Probably not. But the current system isn't either.
The one that makes the most sense economically is the least likely option that will be taken. That's the whole point.
excerpts:
- Yossie Hollander has a concise way of summarizing our dependence on foreign oil. “We get 36 percent of our energy from petroleum in this country and 20 percent from coal,” says the California entrepreneur turned philanthropist. “Yet we spend only $35 billion a year on the coal and $780 billion on oil products – most of it going into foreign pockets.”
- When the corn ethanol push began, natural gas was scarce and considered best suited for heating homes and a providing feedstock for the plastics and fertilizer industries. [ emphasis added, think ammonia]
- So what’s the problem? Well, unfortunately putting methanol into car engines is illegal.
- “Right now the auto companies could produce flex-fuel vehicles any time they want,” says Hollander. “Their answer is always that they’ve tried before and nobody wanted to buy them.”
- “You could sell methanol today at the octane equivalent of $2 per gallon,” says Hollander. “You wouldn’t need any subsidies. The market would handle everything.”
This is a Bob Zubrin idea that I saw way back in 2008. It makes sense, but it won't get done. Too much corruption. No way the subsidies can be ended for ethanol.
The fertilizer option would also work because you can burn ammonia in an internal combustion engine. Also, ammonia can be electrolyzed which can produce hydrogen for fuel cells.
An additional idea: recapture the carbon dioxide and run it through an algae farm. Pyrolyze the algae, and create biochar. Sequester the carbon by adding to soil. You could repeat the process again and again until most of the carbon is extracted.
But would that be economical? Probably not. But the current system isn't either.
The one that makes the most sense economically is the least likely option that will be taken. That's the whole point.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript)
Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript)
This just keeps getting worse and worse. It is Kafkaesque.
We may be headed toward a period of great instability.
This just keeps getting worse and worse. It is Kafkaesque.
We may be headed toward a period of great instability.
Stafford: Why I gave up on being a Republican
Jersey Journal NJ.com ^ | June 13, 2012 | Michael Stafford
Actually, this is a prime example of how ideology can make you stupid. Not just Democrats, but also Republicans.
The argument over climate change can be won, but not by refuting it intellectually. It has to be shown. Just support the LFTR guys. The left can't oppose this and be serious about "climate change". There is no waste issue or any other issue that can be seriously argued against this. The result would be a technology employed that will create jobs and improve the quality of life for everyone.
But if you continue to argue against climate change, it will probably end up losing. They'll get their way again on their latest rent seeking attempt. Meanwhile, all the rent seeking is breaking the backbone of this economy.
The rent seeking behavior is what Democrats believe in. It will destroy the basis of the economy upon which their rents can be paid. It is stupid.
The Republicans fighting on the Democrats turf ( by engaging the argument of climate change itself) is also stupid. They can't win this argument because it is rigged in the Democrats favor. For example, if the scientists are getting paid to find evidence of climate change, then they will find it. They know where they are getting their paychecks. Duh.
If the Republicans can take over, start paying the scientists to refute climate change. Turn the Democrats tactics right back on them. You will find that the scientists will "discover" all kinds of new evidence to support the climate skeptic point of view. But that would lack scruples. Well, duh. Democrats don't care about that. That would show them too. Show by example.
Actually, this is a prime example of how ideology can make you stupid. Not just Democrats, but also Republicans.
The argument over climate change can be won, but not by refuting it intellectually. It has to be shown. Just support the LFTR guys. The left can't oppose this and be serious about "climate change". There is no waste issue or any other issue that can be seriously argued against this. The result would be a technology employed that will create jobs and improve the quality of life for everyone.
But if you continue to argue against climate change, it will probably end up losing. They'll get their way again on their latest rent seeking attempt. Meanwhile, all the rent seeking is breaking the backbone of this economy.
The rent seeking behavior is what Democrats believe in. It will destroy the basis of the economy upon which their rents can be paid. It is stupid.
The Republicans fighting on the Democrats turf ( by engaging the argument of climate change itself) is also stupid. They can't win this argument because it is rigged in the Democrats favor. For example, if the scientists are getting paid to find evidence of climate change, then they will find it. They know where they are getting their paychecks. Duh.
If the Republicans can take over, start paying the scientists to refute climate change. Turn the Democrats tactics right back on them. You will find that the scientists will "discover" all kinds of new evidence to support the climate skeptic point of view. But that would lack scruples. Well, duh. Democrats don't care about that. That would show them too. Show by example.
Bobby Fuller Four - I Fought The Law
I was going to use Mellencamp's Authority Song, but someone said it was a ripoff of this song.
If you are out of step, it is like fighting the law. That's why I put it up.
If you are out of step, it is like fighting the law. That's why I put it up.
Some random thoughts on blogging
Back to the popularity topic. Just read this morning on Ace some info on the subject. Since Ace has a lot of traffic, I guess he must be on the right track. This gives me something of a clue. What he says is that you need to put out content. I've read about this before. Quantity not quality.
But to me quality matters. It kind of takes me aback to think of my blog as quality though. But this blog is intended to be a source of information. The way Ace describes it, blogs are more of a pastime. Nobody is to take what is on a blog very seriously.
As usual, I seem to be out of step. I am flouting conventional wisdom. Blogs ain't supposed to be cerebral.
I want to have somebody be able to find some information of interest on this blog, hence the liberal use of links.
Something else comes to mind. Somewhere someone wrote disparagingly about how web being a source of information. So, why isn't it? Or is it a bad source of information?
I wouldn't have known about a number of things if it weren't for the web. Heck, all I know anymore comes from the web. If the web is a bad source of information, then I'm getting bad information. Actually, bad information is worse than no information at all. To tell the truth, I don't believe it. Too much stuff is out there for me to believe it is all bad. Some of it has to be good, some of it has to be bad. I wouldn't make blanket statements one way or another.
Another thing comes to mind. My writing style seems to be uneven. I may write pretty well at times, at other times, it is lower in quality. The blog doesn't really have standards, although I did put up a post about standards, it is loosely kept.
Somebody may take that as a lack of seriousness.
Ace mentioned one fact that I should also relate here--- you are always under a time constraint when blogging. That's because something needs to go up every day. That isn't easy to do. Every day I wonder what the heck I'll write about. It isn't necessarily easy to do that.
Heck, let me just state that it's my own damn blog and I'll write whatever the hell I want. Don't cost nothing but time. If you've got the time, I've got the blog. Waste your time here. Maybe you'll learn something. Maybe not.
But to me quality matters. It kind of takes me aback to think of my blog as quality though. But this blog is intended to be a source of information. The way Ace describes it, blogs are more of a pastime. Nobody is to take what is on a blog very seriously.
As usual, I seem to be out of step. I am flouting conventional wisdom. Blogs ain't supposed to be cerebral.
I want to have somebody be able to find some information of interest on this blog, hence the liberal use of links.
Something else comes to mind. Somewhere someone wrote disparagingly about how web being a source of information. So, why isn't it? Or is it a bad source of information?
I wouldn't have known about a number of things if it weren't for the web. Heck, all I know anymore comes from the web. If the web is a bad source of information, then I'm getting bad information. Actually, bad information is worse than no information at all. To tell the truth, I don't believe it. Too much stuff is out there for me to believe it is all bad. Some of it has to be good, some of it has to be bad. I wouldn't make blanket statements one way or another.
Another thing comes to mind. My writing style seems to be uneven. I may write pretty well at times, at other times, it is lower in quality. The blog doesn't really have standards, although I did put up a post about standards, it is loosely kept.
Somebody may take that as a lack of seriousness.
Ace mentioned one fact that I should also relate here--- you are always under a time constraint when blogging. That's because something needs to go up every day. That isn't easy to do. Every day I wonder what the heck I'll write about. It isn't necessarily easy to do that.
Heck, let me just state that it's my own damn blog and I'll write whatever the hell I want. Don't cost nothing but time. If you've got the time, I've got the blog. Waste your time here. Maybe you'll learn something. Maybe not.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Good business is where you find it
The most significant thing about the movie is how it illustrates the government's failures. It portrays business and government as conspirators who were only interested in money, not the well being of the people they are supposed to serve.
Actually, the movie is quite cynical overall. It goes after everybody.
I think the movie is culturally significant because of the nature of man and his responses to problems he faces. It throws a lot of doubt on technology as an answer, though.
I don't necessarily agree with the cynicism. Who's right though? Maybe the cynicism is justified.
Actually, the movie is quite cynical overall. It goes after everybody.
I think the movie is culturally significant because of the nature of man and his responses to problems he faces. It throws a lot of doubt on technology as an answer, though.
I don't necessarily agree with the cynicism. Who's right though? Maybe the cynicism is justified.
Obama’s Most Clueless Moment Yet?
powerlineblog
quote:
Comment:
Also, they blame the private sector for what has gone wrong with the economy. I think that it is pure projection. They are what's wrong with the economy. They caused this.
Right after 9/11, there were calls for bigger government. That was deemed necessary to deal with the threat. But it was the government that had failed. It seems that every time the government fails, it becomes an excuse for an even bigger government. You could even say that government has an incentive to fail.
Why is there any incentive for the government to become efficient and effective? If they solve a real problem, they are no longer needed. Instead, they have the incentive to raise hell with the society and use that as an excuse for demanding that they get more responsibility to "solve" the problems and hence more funding through higher taxes and spending.
quote:
Obama really did say, at some length, that the private sector is prospering and we need to spend more money on government...Galbraith’s book was epically wrong-headed, but the idea that the private sector is rich and the public sector is underfunded lives on as one of the pillars of liberal ideology...To them, the private sector is always “doing fine;” if anything, in their hostile eyes, too well.
Comment:
Also, they blame the private sector for what has gone wrong with the economy. I think that it is pure projection. They are what's wrong with the economy. They caused this.
Right after 9/11, there were calls for bigger government. That was deemed necessary to deal with the threat. But it was the government that had failed. It seems that every time the government fails, it becomes an excuse for an even bigger government. You could even say that government has an incentive to fail.
Why is there any incentive for the government to become efficient and effective? If they solve a real problem, they are no longer needed. Instead, they have the incentive to raise hell with the society and use that as an excuse for demanding that they get more responsibility to "solve" the problems and hence more funding through higher taxes and spending.
Too Much Space Safety
Safety is just being used as an excuse. The politicians are more worried about themselves than about anything else.
Monday, June 11, 2012
'Green Acres' actor Frank Cady dies at 96
freerepublic
This is the sitcom and its intro theme:
Frank Cady interview.
I wish I had more time to find Mr. Douglas' speech. It was a kinda patriotic speech about farms and such. It was supposed to be funny, but I wonder how I would see it now. Maybe there's some truth in it. Mr Douglas had the right idea, but he was a city slicker who couldn't execute a good idea. Those country bumpkins just kept outsmarting him.
This is the sitcom and its intro theme:
Frank Cady interview.
I wish I had more time to find Mr. Douglas' speech. It was a kinda patriotic speech about farms and such. It was supposed to be funny, but I wonder how I would see it now. Maybe there's some truth in it. Mr Douglas had the right idea, but he was a city slicker who couldn't execute a good idea. Those country bumpkins just kept outsmarting him.
Unspecifying the unspecifiable, or basically a bunch of nonsense
Warning: Don't read this. You are just wasting your time. But if you insist...
Something's on my mind and I just have to mention it. It is this popularity thing. You see, that's what I'd love to have, but can't get it. I've gone around and around in circles on that. I've even written something to the effect of "the heck with it". But it always keeps coming back. It bugs me. It really does. So I think about it and write about it.
Einstein said that insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. So, let's not try to be crazy here. If something isn't working, time to do something different. Or a new version of the same thing? Let's see, some blogs can drive that traffic. So what are they doing that I'm not? Or is it just a matter of talent? If you've got it, you've got it. If you don't, you don't. Maybe saying "the heck with it" is the other half of doing the same thing- just don't expect any different result. If you know that it isn't ever going to be popular, but keep doing it anyway. That wouldn't be crazy because it doesn't fulfill the requirement of expecting a different result.
Here's a thought-- "if it bleeds, it leads". You see, this blog isn't about bleeding and leading. It has been an effort to find solutions for problems. Now if popularity requires the part where it has to bleed before it leads, then we just won't get to the popularity thing. Still, it is hard to accept that people seem to be hardwired to respond in just that way. You can't fight reality. That's also what this blog has been about. Accepting reality as it is, not how we wish it was.
Another phenomenon is the savior thing. If you offer something promises to be a savior for all problems, why people will flock to it. Now, I think we can solve our problems. But these are specific problems and sometimes the answer to a problem is really pretty simple. It's like the old joke on the TV show Hee Haw. Somebody complains about a pain when he does a certain thing, and the doctor says "don't do that". It's pretty simple to put in words, but maybe not simple to implement. Somehow, the offer to be a savior to be all the solutions for all problems bugs me as well. Expecting a different result when I can't do those things to be popular is like going to the doctor and saying it hurts when I do this-- and the doctor says "don't do that". Easier said than done.
So, my blog's message could be too boring. It doesn't bleed and it says problems can be solved and the answer could quite simple. But that is so, so boring.
Another thought-- I remember a nifty little phrase--- "it works better if you plug it in." Yeah, but it is too simple. There has got to be a more exciting way of fixing a problem. Maybe like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. People need that curtain for the feeling of belief that you really need a Wizard. And the Wizard is just some guy behind the curtain. He's just a guy.
I told you. Nothing to see here, now move along.
Something's on my mind and I just have to mention it. It is this popularity thing. You see, that's what I'd love to have, but can't get it. I've gone around and around in circles on that. I've even written something to the effect of "the heck with it". But it always keeps coming back. It bugs me. It really does. So I think about it and write about it.
Einstein said that insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. So, let's not try to be crazy here. If something isn't working, time to do something different. Or a new version of the same thing? Let's see, some blogs can drive that traffic. So what are they doing that I'm not? Or is it just a matter of talent? If you've got it, you've got it. If you don't, you don't. Maybe saying "the heck with it" is the other half of doing the same thing- just don't expect any different result. If you know that it isn't ever going to be popular, but keep doing it anyway. That wouldn't be crazy because it doesn't fulfill the requirement of expecting a different result.
Here's a thought-- "if it bleeds, it leads". You see, this blog isn't about bleeding and leading. It has been an effort to find solutions for problems. Now if popularity requires the part where it has to bleed before it leads, then we just won't get to the popularity thing. Still, it is hard to accept that people seem to be hardwired to respond in just that way. You can't fight reality. That's also what this blog has been about. Accepting reality as it is, not how we wish it was.
Another phenomenon is the savior thing. If you offer something promises to be a savior for all problems, why people will flock to it. Now, I think we can solve our problems. But these are specific problems and sometimes the answer to a problem is really pretty simple. It's like the old joke on the TV show Hee Haw. Somebody complains about a pain when he does a certain thing, and the doctor says "don't do that". It's pretty simple to put in words, but maybe not simple to implement. Somehow, the offer to be a savior to be all the solutions for all problems bugs me as well. Expecting a different result when I can't do those things to be popular is like going to the doctor and saying it hurts when I do this-- and the doctor says "don't do that". Easier said than done.
So, my blog's message could be too boring. It doesn't bleed and it says problems can be solved and the answer could quite simple. But that is so, so boring.
Another thought-- I remember a nifty little phrase--- "it works better if you plug it in." Yeah, but it is too simple. There has got to be a more exciting way of fixing a problem. Maybe like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. People need that curtain for the feeling of belief that you really need a Wizard. And the Wizard is just some guy behind the curtain. He's just a guy.
I told you. Nothing to see here, now move along.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Next Big Future: Steel-Strength Plastics and Environmentally Friend...
Next Big Future: Steel-Strength Plastics and Environmentally Friend...: Prof. Moshe Kol of Tel Aviv University's School of Chemistry is developing a super-strength polypropylene — one of the world's most commonl...
Comment:
Strong as steel, but lighter in weight. Space applications come to mind because of the strength v. weight advantage. Is the stuff easy to make? Can you make it in space?
Comment:
Strong as steel, but lighter in weight. Space applications come to mind because of the strength v. weight advantage. Is the stuff easy to make? Can you make it in space?
Inspector Clouseau visits Dreyfus at the psychiatric hospital
Uploaded by PinkPantherClips on Oct 27, 2011
There was an article about the head coach of the Houston Oilers National Football League team during the early eighties. It said that Bum Phillips, the head coach at that time, identified with the character known as Clouseau. One thing about Clouseau, he could drive the Inspector nuts as we see here.
I don't quite get the point of that. I also don't remember why the author wrote that. Perhaps you can get the better of someone by just driving 'em nuts.
There was an article about the head coach of the Houston Oilers National Football League team during the early eighties. It said that Bum Phillips, the head coach at that time, identified with the character known as Clouseau. One thing about Clouseau, he could drive the Inspector nuts as we see here.
I don't quite get the point of that. I also don't remember why the author wrote that. Perhaps you can get the better of someone by just driving 'em nuts.
Sobering statistics
 |
| China has 24 times the reserves of the USA; USA has 21 times more debt than China. |
 |
| Trade deficit comes from consumer goods and oil, and the deficit is large |
Please note the captions. We are deep in debt and the cause is from purchasing consumer goods with borrowed money.
This is a phenomenon which I noticed well back in the eighties. All during that time to this, we were told that the trade deficit didn't matter. Yet all this time, for most people, living standards have been static or in actual decline.
Now, if you combine the trade deficit with the budget deficit, all you seem to get is the ability to buy stuff that isn't productive, like consumer goods. These consumer goods are- for the most part- manufactured overseas, and thus do not help Americans get and keep good paying jobs. All the deficit spending seems to do is to encourage spending which helps put people in other countries to work. But look what happening here.
If you also consider the very low savings rate, the ability to invest goes by the wayside. Now you are looking at people who are living only to consume-- as opposed to producing income and growth. Is there any wonder the economy is in such poor shape?
But Krugman and his ilk want to spend like drunken sailors. The money doesn't stay here though. He isn't worried about debt, but how does that debt get paid back? Somebody has to pay for these consumer goods. It isn't financially wise to take on so much debt, but that is what this country has been doing on an gargantuan scale. It isn't just the government, it is also the people. But the government should be responsible so as to show the way. The only way that Krugman and his ilk are showing is how to be stupid and poor.
Educational standards have been slipping for the longest time. Any attempt to improve that is met with fierce resistance. Just like any attempt to improve financial responsibility. Higher taxes? Please. We tried that before. Going after the rich is like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. It makes one meal and then what? Who knows what, if anything, is being taught in our schools these days.
China is increasing its wealth and living standards. We are going the other way.
China is building nuclear reactors. China will do space and China will do LFTRs. In the meantime, we may be lucky if anybody even knows about or cares about space. The stupid media makes everyone afraid of nuclear energy. But the media is only corporations which can be owned by foreigners. They don't necessarily have the people's best interests at heart. But the people listen to these stupidities.
Yeah, that may sound "xenophobic". But what's wrong with being patriotic? If you lose your country what will you have? A country whose leadership has so little regard for its people is on the way out. Who in this country is going to notice and actually care about changing this? The only thing they seem to know is is to go to DC and ask for another handout because that is what the media wants to report about and wants us to think about ourselves.
This used to be a free and proud country. I don't know what it is now, but it isn't going to be prosperous nor free much longer if these trends continue.
But I wrote it back then. It has only gotten worse.
Update:
It would seem that this post is in contradiction to the line of thought expressed in the post about the Luddites. But machines are not creative. There has to be a creative impulse in order that the machines can do something with the inspiration that can only flow from the human mind. My hunch is that people will find something to do with themselves, even if it isn't what we traditionally call work. But that time has not yet arrived. In the meantime, we all still need to work. However, there are way too many people in this society who have gotten the idea that they don't have to work anymore. Now whether or not that day truly arrives is another question. But the ones bringing that reality into being won't have much use for people who don't know anything and don't want to know anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)