We are eating our seed corn.
I guess great minds think alike.
According to the comments section in the link to the post above, there are those who don't agree with that point of view, and furthermore, think that it is rather plebeian.
I suppose all this has something to do with the great Nobel Prize winner who supposedly predicted the current recession and why it all happened.
All I know is that I invested successfully on the basis of my own estimate of the situation. I saw this in 2003 and made money by it. I saw the recession coming in 2007 and made money by it. I think I will trust my own judgment and not the Nobel Prize winner's.
For those who don't read this blog-- let me repeat. This is an energy problem. We can't get at the energy we have. Printing greenbacks does not to solve that problem.
If the Nobel Prize winner "Wizard of Smart" wants a stimulus, then getting the price of energy down to a more reasonable level will add plenty of spending power in people's wallets. But it won't cost the US Treasury a single dime. Instead, it will bring in money.
All the government has to do is to get out of the way. But that won't happen as long as these leftists are in charge. The reason they won't is because we are eating our seed corn by design. It is their design.
It's called limits to growth. That little gem belongs to the left. They won't give that up. Ever. It is an article of faith. Don't forget that ideology can make you stupid.
If I said it once, I have said it a hundred times.
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 23, 2012
Death Wish - Trailer
If the system won't protect you, does that justify becoming a vigilante? That's the question posed by this movie.
I suppose it may be a matter of conscience, or a matter of necessity ( in extreme circumstances).
I suppose it may be a matter of conscience, or a matter of necessity ( in extreme circumstances).
Terraform cycler asteroids
Speculation alert: This alert was added along with the update below.
The idea popped into my mind. Here's what you might do that could be worthy of consideration.
You could use all of the materials that make up the asteroid in order to convert it into a suitable habitat that can sustain you while on a trip to and from Mars.
If a suitable asteroid can be found, of course.
It may well be preferable not to alter its trajectory, but just fly to it and from it.
It may also be preferable not to bring stuff back from it, just stuff that you need for your trip. The materials found on the asteroid will stay on the asteroid. Everything brought to and it would have to be taken from it after each trip. That way, mass isn't added or subtracted.
If there are enough suitable building materials, you could fashion the thing into a large space station. It would be spun up in order to provide artificial gravity. The mass could be used for shielding for long duration stays in space. You could also grow your own food.
If not everything can be provided by the asteroidal resources, then some stuff would have to be imported in. But that amount could be minimized.
It may also be preferable to use nuclear energy instead of solar. That's because nuclear energy is so much more powerful and could aid in recycling all materials. This would be done by heating it into plasma, which would cool down into its constituent elements. Those elements could be recombined chemically into whatever materials needed.
Update:
Here's a drawing of the dumbbell shape of the proposed space station. It would be spun up so that it could provide artificial gravity and would be terraformed inside the spheres at each end so that it could provide shielding, oxygen, and water.
Update:
Summarization of the goals for a terraformed cycler asteroid:
Update:
Next in the series
The idea popped into my mind. Here's what you might do that could be worthy of consideration.
You could use all of the materials that make up the asteroid in order to convert it into a suitable habitat that can sustain you while on a trip to and from Mars.
If a suitable asteroid can be found, of course.
It may well be preferable not to alter its trajectory, but just fly to it and from it.
It may also be preferable not to bring stuff back from it, just stuff that you need for your trip. The materials found on the asteroid will stay on the asteroid. Everything brought to and it would have to be taken from it after each trip. That way, mass isn't added or subtracted.
If there are enough suitable building materials, you could fashion the thing into a large space station. It would be spun up in order to provide artificial gravity. The mass could be used for shielding for long duration stays in space. You could also grow your own food.
If not everything can be provided by the asteroidal resources, then some stuff would have to be imported in. But that amount could be minimized.
It may also be preferable to use nuclear energy instead of solar. That's because nuclear energy is so much more powerful and could aid in recycling all materials. This would be done by heating it into plasma, which would cool down into its constituent elements. Those elements could be recombined chemically into whatever materials needed.
Update:
Here's a drawing of the dumbbell shape of the proposed space station. It would be spun up so that it could provide artificial gravity and would be terraformed inside the spheres at each end so that it could provide shielding, oxygen, and water.
 |
| Dumb bell shaped space station made of asteroidal materials and used as a cycler between Mars and Earth |
Update:
Summarization of the goals for a terraformed cycler asteroid:
- artificial gravity
- life support, ie oxygen, water, radiation shielding
- transportation to and from Mars
- closed carbon and water cycles
- simplicity of design
- durable, made to last a long time
Update:
Next in the series
Witness (7/9) Movie CLIP - A Lesson on Guns (1985) HD
Comment:
Do you want to live like the Amish? It might mean that you have to give up gay marriage. And Lady Gaga.
Do you want to live like the Amish? It might mean that you have to give up gay marriage. And Lady Gaga.
Martin-Zimmerman, part 2
For context, read Part 1 first.
In reading more about the shooting, I've decided to relate another story which could be helpful to those who want to take a more objective look at what happened here.
This story is fairly short and straighforward. There was no conflict or anything, but I think it is instructive in its own way.
I used to do a nightly delivery route. It was quite unconventional as it didn't require signatures, and the deliveries were made to vans. Yes, that's right- vans. These vans were used by repair people, who went out in their vans to do service work the next day. I would deliver parts to these vans, and pick up broken or used parts from them. The vans were parked in the driveways of the homes of the technicians. The route would take me to these locations at the wee hours of the morning.
Needless to say, the unconventional mode of delivery and the fact that I was in neighborhoods at odd hours was something that attracted attention. I was stopped a couple times on this route.
One of those times, I recall feeling a bit resentful about being stopped. I hadn't done anything wrong. I don't think I said anything, but there may have been something in my attitude that caused the cop to remark that he would continue to do what he did. I guess he felt that I was challenging his authority to do his job.
Just relating that bit of the story because it is entirely possible to be resentful if you aren't doing anything wrong and somebody decides to treat you as if you were.
Martin was just a kid. You kinda expect that kids do kid stuff. But you expect more from somebody who is a bit older, and also from those who are in authority. The greater responsibility lied with the others, not with the kid. Now the kid is dead.
No, I'm not going soft. Not saying that Stand Your Ground is wrong. But to lose your gun rights can happen if stupid people are allowed to do stupid things. All rights can be lost that way.
Zimmerman basically got an order to get back into his car. He didn't do that. The kid probably found him first, or they found each other about the same time. The altercation occurred shortly thereafter.
The kid may have attacked first, but Zimmerman shouldn't have even been in that situation. Zimmerman knew he had a gun, and that his own gun could be turned against him. Therefore, he shouldn't have allowed Martin to get that close.
I think Zimmerman could have warned Martin, but he may not have thought of it. Or things may have happened too fast. Martin may have confronted Zimmerman, but by that time, the situation was already out of hand.
At any rate, one man is dead and another is probably ruined.
Was this necessary?
The result of this event is just going to fire up the ideological war between the right and the left. As I have written before, ideology can make you stupid.
This event wasn't about ideology, but it is now.
In reading more about the shooting, I've decided to relate another story which could be helpful to those who want to take a more objective look at what happened here.
This story is fairly short and straighforward. There was no conflict or anything, but I think it is instructive in its own way.
I used to do a nightly delivery route. It was quite unconventional as it didn't require signatures, and the deliveries were made to vans. Yes, that's right- vans. These vans were used by repair people, who went out in their vans to do service work the next day. I would deliver parts to these vans, and pick up broken or used parts from them. The vans were parked in the driveways of the homes of the technicians. The route would take me to these locations at the wee hours of the morning.
Needless to say, the unconventional mode of delivery and the fact that I was in neighborhoods at odd hours was something that attracted attention. I was stopped a couple times on this route.
One of those times, I recall feeling a bit resentful about being stopped. I hadn't done anything wrong. I don't think I said anything, but there may have been something in my attitude that caused the cop to remark that he would continue to do what he did. I guess he felt that I was challenging his authority to do his job.
Just relating that bit of the story because it is entirely possible to be resentful if you aren't doing anything wrong and somebody decides to treat you as if you were.
Martin was just a kid. You kinda expect that kids do kid stuff. But you expect more from somebody who is a bit older, and also from those who are in authority. The greater responsibility lied with the others, not with the kid. Now the kid is dead.
No, I'm not going soft. Not saying that Stand Your Ground is wrong. But to lose your gun rights can happen if stupid people are allowed to do stupid things. All rights can be lost that way.
Zimmerman basically got an order to get back into his car. He didn't do that. The kid probably found him first, or they found each other about the same time. The altercation occurred shortly thereafter.
The kid may have attacked first, but Zimmerman shouldn't have even been in that situation. Zimmerman knew he had a gun, and that his own gun could be turned against him. Therefore, he shouldn't have allowed Martin to get that close.
I think Zimmerman could have warned Martin, but he may not have thought of it. Or things may have happened too fast. Martin may have confronted Zimmerman, but by that time, the situation was already out of hand.
At any rate, one man is dead and another is probably ruined.
Was this necessary?
The result of this event is just going to fire up the ideological war between the right and the left. As I have written before, ideology can make you stupid.
This event wasn't about ideology, but it is now.
Weird day
My mind is moving about a thousand miles per hour. Lots of ideas floating about, but little to write about. I am censoring myself basically.
Why? So as to not put too much noise pollution out there. I want quality, not quantity.
Yeah, and people may not care about quality. They just want stuff out there.
Well, you ain't gonna to get "stuff". If I am not satisfied with it, it doesn't get posted.
Why? So as to not put too much noise pollution out there. I want quality, not quantity.
Yeah, and people may not care about quality. They just want stuff out there.
Well, you ain't gonna to get "stuff". If I am not satisfied with it, it doesn't get posted.
Democrat War on Truth and the Rule of Law
Bill Whittle socks it to 'em. via Instapundit and rightscoop
Comment:
Whittle compares how Bush followed the law and Obama did not. The comparisons with the previous administration are not apt. Whatever policy disagreements you might have had with Bush, he didn't go nuclear against the rule of law as Obama and the Democrats have. Covering up the truth is part of the war game. As Sun Tzu said in the Art of War, "warfare is all deception".
Comment:
Whittle compares how Bush followed the law and Obama did not. The comparisons with the previous administration are not apt. Whatever policy disagreements you might have had with Bush, he didn't go nuclear against the rule of law as Obama and the Democrats have. Covering up the truth is part of the war game. As Sun Tzu said in the Art of War, "warfare is all deception".
Friday, June 22, 2012
Howard Dean: “We owe something to the government.”
By Robert Ringer - Monday, June 18, 2012
Note: emphasis is added in bold italics
Last week, the Dean of Dumb, Howard himself, was at his outrageous best on The Kudlow Report, debating Bernie Marcus, cofounder of Home Depot. Marcus is an unabashed champion of capitalism and an advocate of shrinking the size of government.
In response to Marcus’ statement that the answer to America’s economic woes is not taxation and that the government doesn’t own his money, Dean shouted:
“You made a lot of money because you live in the United States of America. We owe something to the government [my emphasis] to grow up in this great country. And I’m tired of hearing people in the private sector talk like they don’t owe the government anything, because we [sic] do. … You’re damn lucky to live in America, and you ought to pay the right bill for it.”
Sorry, Howard, but if a person makes a lot of money by selling people products and services they want, he doesn’t owe anyone — especially the government — anything for his success. The progressive notion of “giving back” implies that a person took something from others against their will.
I realize that Dean’s brain resides in the never-never land of the lunatic left, but … c’mon … the man was governor of a state. And in 2004, he campaigned for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president of the United States. Even today, Dean makes big bucks on the speaking circuit and is a regular guest on television. So, either he knows better than to make such statements or he should know better.
For years, I’ve been preaching that rather than ignoring your enemies, you should learn from them. Yes, you can even learn something from Howard Dean’s idiotic remarks.
For me, his jaw-dropping statement on Kudlow — that “We owe something to the government to grow up in this great country” — was a sharp reminder of how statists view the world. Note that I said statists rather than liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists, or communists.
Statism goes beyond ideological labels. Statism is the arrogant, anti-liberty belief that all power should be concentrated in the state and that people’s rights are derived from the government. George Bush I and II are statists. And recently another Bush, Jeb, made it clear that he, too, is a statist when he warned that the Republican Party must become “more moderate.”
That’s right, it’s not enough to run back-to-back candidates like Mush McCain and Mushier Romney for president. No sir, Republicans must work on becoming even more “moderate.”
Regardless of political-theater speeches to the contrary, the majority in both wings of the Demopublican Party agree on the foundational premise that the state has a right to ignore the Constitution. Their differences lie only in how much of the Constitution it has a right to ignore, and to what extent.
I will shout it from the rooftops until the government shuts me up with a well-aimed drone: It is the government — not the people — whose rights are limited by the Constitution, and those limitations are made clear by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments!
By contrast, individuals can do anything they damn well please, so long as they are not committing acts of aggression against others. And what they do is none of the government’s business. That’s what Natural Law is all about. Unfortunately, however, politicians have zero interest in Natural Law.
Most of the time, of course, government does not have to use violence to protect its statist agenda. There are always more than enough useful idiots around to cheer on politicians at political gatherings — particularly at nominating conventions and election victory celebrations — to assure the perpetuation of the statist system without having to resort to the use of force.
Of course, the useful idiots who are most helpful to the statists in Washington are the ones employed by the media. Take Bill O’Reilly, who represents those patriotic folks who can always be counted on to fall in line when the state employs its age-old pomp-and-circumstance tactics. As just one example of his unflinching patriotism, O’Reilly constantly reminds viewers that they must respect the office of the presidency.
Strange … very strange. I thought you could only respect — or disrespect — people. How do you respect an abstraction such as an “office?” Pretty silly when you think about it, but that’s what pomp and circumstance is all about.
Even if it were possible to respect an office (it isn’t), how could anyone other than a diehard statist respect an office that has been held by such scoundrels as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and, of course, the current Scoundrel-in-Chief, Barack Obama?
Sorry, but “respecting the office of the presidency” does not make you patriotic. Nor are you patriotic for paying more taxes, as Delaware Dimwit Joe Biden would have you believe. Patriotism is about having the courage to demand that the government abide by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Patriotism is also about having the courage to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Urging people to be a part of this sham is a crucial element in perpetuating the corrupt, one-party, statist system we now have.
In that respect, the lawsuit now pending against the Republican Party by Ron Paul supporters is a supreme act of courage and principle. Throughout my lifetime, the Republicans’ excuse for voting for yet another statist candidate has been, “Let’s just get the Democrat out of the White House by closing ranks around the ‘most electable candidate’ we have, then we can pressure him into moving to the right once he’s in office.”
Sounds like a great strategy, but, unfortunately, it’s a strategy that has never worked. Nor will it work this time around.
If there is an election in November … and if Romney ends up getting the nomination after an ugly slugfest with the Ron Paul troops in Tampa … and if he then beats the current presidential pretender in the White House, some of his once-conservative converts (e.g., Ann Coulter) will realize that the Republican copout strategy failed once again when MittMan starts lecturing his subjects on how lucky they are to live in America.
I hate watching reruns of old movies!
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
Comment:
Ringer is obviously a Libertarian. But they have no real chance of winning. He makes valid points, but they aren't going to carry the day. It may be hard to accept, but Romney is the better choice in my opinion. He isn't at war with this culture, as Obama is. I don't like Romney, but Obama is suicide.
Note: emphasis is added in bold italics
Last week, the Dean of Dumb, Howard himself, was at his outrageous best on The Kudlow Report, debating Bernie Marcus, cofounder of Home Depot. Marcus is an unabashed champion of capitalism and an advocate of shrinking the size of government.
In response to Marcus’ statement that the answer to America’s economic woes is not taxation and that the government doesn’t own his money, Dean shouted:
“You made a lot of money because you live in the United States of America. We owe something to the government [my emphasis] to grow up in this great country. And I’m tired of hearing people in the private sector talk like they don’t owe the government anything, because we [sic] do. … You’re damn lucky to live in America, and you ought to pay the right bill for it.”
Sorry, Howard, but if a person makes a lot of money by selling people products and services they want, he doesn’t owe anyone — especially the government — anything for his success. The progressive notion of “giving back” implies that a person took something from others against their will.
I realize that Dean’s brain resides in the never-never land of the lunatic left, but … c’mon … the man was governor of a state. And in 2004, he campaigned for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president of the United States. Even today, Dean makes big bucks on the speaking circuit and is a regular guest on television. So, either he knows better than to make such statements or he should know better.
For years, I’ve been preaching that rather than ignoring your enemies, you should learn from them. Yes, you can even learn something from Howard Dean’s idiotic remarks.
For me, his jaw-dropping statement on Kudlow — that “We owe something to the government to grow up in this great country” — was a sharp reminder of how statists view the world. Note that I said statists rather than liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists, or communists.
Statism goes beyond ideological labels. Statism is the arrogant, anti-liberty belief that all power should be concentrated in the state and that people’s rights are derived from the government. George Bush I and II are statists. And recently another Bush, Jeb, made it clear that he, too, is a statist when he warned that the Republican Party must become “more moderate.”
That’s right, it’s not enough to run back-to-back candidates like Mush McCain and Mushier Romney for president. No sir, Republicans must work on becoming even more “moderate.”
Regardless of political-theater speeches to the contrary, the majority in both wings of the Demopublican Party agree on the foundational premise that the state has a right to ignore the Constitution. Their differences lie only in how much of the Constitution it has a right to ignore, and to what extent.
I will shout it from the rooftops until the government shuts me up with a well-aimed drone: It is the government — not the people — whose rights are limited by the Constitution, and those limitations are made clear by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments!
By contrast, individuals can do anything they damn well please, so long as they are not committing acts of aggression against others. And what they do is none of the government’s business. That’s what Natural Law is all about. Unfortunately, however, politicians have zero interest in Natural Law.
Most of the time, of course, government does not have to use violence to protect its statist agenda. There are always more than enough useful idiots around to cheer on politicians at political gatherings — particularly at nominating conventions and election victory celebrations — to assure the perpetuation of the statist system without having to resort to the use of force.
Of course, the useful idiots who are most helpful to the statists in Washington are the ones employed by the media. Take Bill O’Reilly, who represents those patriotic folks who can always be counted on to fall in line when the state employs its age-old pomp-and-circumstance tactics. As just one example of his unflinching patriotism, O’Reilly constantly reminds viewers that they must respect the office of the presidency.
Strange … very strange. I thought you could only respect — or disrespect — people. How do you respect an abstraction such as an “office?” Pretty silly when you think about it, but that’s what pomp and circumstance is all about.
Even if it were possible to respect an office (it isn’t), how could anyone other than a diehard statist respect an office that has been held by such scoundrels as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and, of course, the current Scoundrel-in-Chief, Barack Obama?
Sorry, but “respecting the office of the presidency” does not make you patriotic. Nor are you patriotic for paying more taxes, as Delaware Dimwit Joe Biden would have you believe. Patriotism is about having the courage to demand that the government abide by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Patriotism is also about having the courage to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Urging people to be a part of this sham is a crucial element in perpetuating the corrupt, one-party, statist system we now have.
In that respect, the lawsuit now pending against the Republican Party by Ron Paul supporters is a supreme act of courage and principle. Throughout my lifetime, the Republicans’ excuse for voting for yet another statist candidate has been, “Let’s just get the Democrat out of the White House by closing ranks around the ‘most electable candidate’ we have, then we can pressure him into moving to the right once he’s in office.”
Sounds like a great strategy, but, unfortunately, it’s a strategy that has never worked. Nor will it work this time around.
If there is an election in November … and if Romney ends up getting the nomination after an ugly slugfest with the Ron Paul troops in Tampa … and if he then beats the current presidential pretender in the White House, some of his once-conservative converts (e.g., Ann Coulter) will realize that the Republican copout strategy failed once again when MittMan starts lecturing his subjects on how lucky they are to live in America.
I hate watching reruns of old movies!
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
Comment:
Ringer is obviously a Libertarian. But they have no real chance of winning. He makes valid points, but they aren't going to carry the day. It may be hard to accept, but Romney is the better choice in my opinion. He isn't at war with this culture, as Obama is. I don't like Romney, but Obama is suicide.
Random Thoughts on The Passing Scene
Thomas Sowell
Charisma is a neutral attribute. It is what you do with it that makes it good or bad.
Many people may have voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because of his charisma. But anyone familiar with the disastrous track record of charismatic political leaders around the world in the 20th century should have run for the hills when they encountered a politician with charisma.
Charisma is a neutral attribute. It is what you do with it that makes it good or bad.
Why NASA Should Nab an Asteroid
By Tom Jones via Instapundit
Comment:
The launch cost of getting the spacecraft to do this mission multiplied by the payback ratio could lead to the mass value in dollars alone to be $4,200,000,000. That's assuming a hundred and 50 million dollar launch cost- comparable to a Falcon 9 heavy launch. Mind you, this isn't the real value of what is being captured, but its value returned in terms of its mass. It could be much more valuable than that. And that would be just the beginning, as the article points out.
So, why hasn't this been done already? Probably because it makes too much sense.
Seriously. Why is it that the most expensive things get done, but those that are economical and could provide an actual return are not done?
The ACR mission would go after a water-rich C-type, or carbon-rich, asteroid. These bodies contain up to 20 percent water and up to 6 percent organic material that's similar to black, asphalt-like tar sands. The water and light elements in these bodies would be valuable as propellants, drinking water, breathing oxygen, and industrial chemicals for an off-planet economy. Plus, the residue left behind from further extraction of nickel and iron would be rich in prized cobalt and platinum-group elements. Altogether, a 7-meter C-type asteroid with a mass of 500 tons could produce up to 200 tons of water, 90 tons of metal (83 tons of iron, 6 tons of nickel, and 1 ton of cobalt), plus 200 tons of silicate rock valuable for their semiconductor elements and radiation shielding. Brophy says that an existing Atlas V booster is powerful enough to place the 18-ton robot craft into low Earth orbit to start its solar-powered journey. If it snared and returned 500 tons of asteroid material, the mass multiplication factor (or payback ratio) would be at least 28:1.
Comment:
The launch cost of getting the spacecraft to do this mission multiplied by the payback ratio could lead to the mass value in dollars alone to be $4,200,000,000. That's assuming a hundred and 50 million dollar launch cost- comparable to a Falcon 9 heavy launch. Mind you, this isn't the real value of what is being captured, but its value returned in terms of its mass. It could be much more valuable than that. And that would be just the beginning, as the article points out.
So, why hasn't this been done already? Probably because it makes too much sense.
Seriously. Why is it that the most expensive things get done, but those that are economical and could provide an actual return are not done?
Our Counter Terror Intelligence Is Drying Up
Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
Comment:
There's a spot in the video which uses an appropriate metaphor for this administration. "We are eating our seed corn." He uses it in reference to how our national security is being undermined, but this is but one example of how this adminstration is running things. Another example of eating our seed corn is with all of this deficit spending for the purposes of "stimulus". It does nothing, absolutely nothing to ensure future prosperity. It just patches things up for the moment. At some point in the future, the seed corn will be gone, and there won't be anything for the future. That is quite a scary proposition and should give people pause to consider whether this guy should get another term in the White House to continue doing this kind of thing.
A more sinister interpretation of this is: since this president is at war with this culture, to deprive it of seed corn is something that he actually wants and is deliberately pursuing. Not as some sort of mistaken policy, but as a deliberate attempt to completely undermine this country in the most fundamental way.
Comment:
There's a spot in the video which uses an appropriate metaphor for this administration. "We are eating our seed corn." He uses it in reference to how our national security is being undermined, but this is but one example of how this adminstration is running things. Another example of eating our seed corn is with all of this deficit spending for the purposes of "stimulus". It does nothing, absolutely nothing to ensure future prosperity. It just patches things up for the moment. At some point in the future, the seed corn will be gone, and there won't be anything for the future. That is quite a scary proposition and should give people pause to consider whether this guy should get another term in the White House to continue doing this kind of thing.
A more sinister interpretation of this is: since this president is at war with this culture, to deprive it of seed corn is something that he actually wants and is deliberately pursuing. Not as some sort of mistaken policy, but as a deliberate attempt to completely undermine this country in the most fundamental way.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Things appear to be breaking down
Opinion
There's a pattern I try to discern amongst my web visitations, and then I blog about it here. The article that got me thinking along the lines of disintegration is this one from Instapundit. If you follow the links and think about it, the entire World Wide Web as we know it could be at risk.
In its turn, the World Wide Web, or internet, has been quite destructive to the old bricks and mortar way. Now the web itself could be in danger. The web relies upon free content. If the advertisers can't monetize visitations, there can be no business basis. If there's no basis for business, the economics cannot be supported.
That would be quite a pickle, since the web itself has been so destructive. What replaces the web if it goes under? There's nothing left.
I think this could be a metaphor for the entire society. Everywhere you look, it seems, there's this disintegration.
The business about Holder and executive privilege is another example. It's all about the rule of law, but this government is acting more and more alienated to that regime, and a new vicious one could be replacing it. That regime would be called the rule of men. The same accusation that brought down the Nixon administration.
The difference then was an infrastructure that could support the rule of law. What happens if that has disappeared, or is no longer possible for some reason? Like the rest of society breaking down, for instance? The economic basis for a civilized society is losing its foundation. The Federal Reserve prints money to support an economy that produces little, but a lot debt. But how does the debt get paid back? It doesn't, that's the whole point.
Not everything that supports a civilization is reliant upon the use of force. You have to have a morality that governs individual behavior. If that breaks down too, the result must be chaos. The only way to restore order is to use an extraordinary amount of force. That brings you back to the rule of men as opposed to the rule of law.
People have also lost their sense of reality. If you can't discern the truth, and won't listen to reason, what can anchor you? Yet that is the way people tend to be acting. It is madness. It is the very definition of madness.
Something has to bring us back to center. First principles should be recognized-- the rule of law must be one of those. Also, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Debts must be paid. Income must be earned to pay those debts.
Hopefully the way will be found before things get so lost that getting back may be impossible.
Update:
The madness isn't entirely coming from the left. I saw something on the net that said Romney may attack Iran if he becomes president.
That's even more nuts than what Obama is doing. The opportunity for military action of this type has passed.
There's a pattern I try to discern amongst my web visitations, and then I blog about it here. The article that got me thinking along the lines of disintegration is this one from Instapundit. If you follow the links and think about it, the entire World Wide Web as we know it could be at risk.
In its turn, the World Wide Web, or internet, has been quite destructive to the old bricks and mortar way. Now the web itself could be in danger. The web relies upon free content. If the advertisers can't monetize visitations, there can be no business basis. If there's no basis for business, the economics cannot be supported.
That would be quite a pickle, since the web itself has been so destructive. What replaces the web if it goes under? There's nothing left.
I think this could be a metaphor for the entire society. Everywhere you look, it seems, there's this disintegration.
The business about Holder and executive privilege is another example. It's all about the rule of law, but this government is acting more and more alienated to that regime, and a new vicious one could be replacing it. That regime would be called the rule of men. The same accusation that brought down the Nixon administration.
The difference then was an infrastructure that could support the rule of law. What happens if that has disappeared, or is no longer possible for some reason? Like the rest of society breaking down, for instance? The economic basis for a civilized society is losing its foundation. The Federal Reserve prints money to support an economy that produces little, but a lot debt. But how does the debt get paid back? It doesn't, that's the whole point.
Not everything that supports a civilization is reliant upon the use of force. You have to have a morality that governs individual behavior. If that breaks down too, the result must be chaos. The only way to restore order is to use an extraordinary amount of force. That brings you back to the rule of men as opposed to the rule of law.
People have also lost their sense of reality. If you can't discern the truth, and won't listen to reason, what can anchor you? Yet that is the way people tend to be acting. It is madness. It is the very definition of madness.
Something has to bring us back to center. First principles should be recognized-- the rule of law must be one of those. Also, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Debts must be paid. Income must be earned to pay those debts.
Hopefully the way will be found before things get so lost that getting back may be impossible.
Update:
The madness isn't entirely coming from the left. I saw something on the net that said Romney may attack Iran if he becomes president.
That's even more nuts than what Obama is doing. The opportunity for military action of this type has passed.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Asserting executive privilege shows desperation in the Obama White House
Bookwormroom.com via Free Republic
comment:
G. Gordon Liddy once explained how the Clintons were guilty in the Whitewater case by a process similar to this. The way the Clintons escaped justice was for Susan McDougal to take the fall and letting herself be in contempt of court for refusing to answer a question. The only way she could answer the question was to implicate the Clintons or commit perjury. So, she decided not answer at all, which provoked the judge to cite her for contempt.
Why did the Clintons get away with this? The economy was going gangbusters and the people didn't care.
Now the economy is struggling and Obama is in a similar situation if this is correct. The likely outcome looks not so good for Obama.
He may not make it through the summer.
Because of the way privilege operates, we can understand Obama’s assertion of executive privilege in only three ways. (1) Obama’s White House was either involved in Fast and Furious, which is bad; (2) or it means that Obama’s White House doesn’t understand the nature of a privilege, which is embarrassing, especially with a lawyer at the helm; (3) or it means that the documents Holder is hiding are so dreadful that Obama’s White House would rather risk looking criminal or stupid than take the risk of allowing Congress and the public to see those documents.
comment:
G. Gordon Liddy once explained how the Clintons were guilty in the Whitewater case by a process similar to this. The way the Clintons escaped justice was for Susan McDougal to take the fall and letting herself be in contempt of court for refusing to answer a question. The only way she could answer the question was to implicate the Clintons or commit perjury. So, she decided not answer at all, which provoked the judge to cite her for contempt.
Why did the Clintons get away with this? The economy was going gangbusters and the people didn't care.
Now the economy is struggling and Obama is in a similar situation if this is correct. The likely outcome looks not so good for Obama.
He may not make it through the summer.
Energy from Thorium: Interview with Driving Force Radio
Kirk Sorensen and Baroness Worthington were interviewed by Jan Mazotti and Kelly de la Torre of Driving Force Radio and ICOSA Magazine during the Baroness’s visit to Huntsville, Alabama, on Tuesday, June 5, 2012.
tidbits:
The full video:
tidbits:
- One of the reasons she likes the LFTR technology
- The need for new technology that can replace the old which is out of date.
- Development of LFTR may require a Sputnik Moment
The full video:
Never mind what he says, watch what he does
Obama says he favors transparency, but he does not do it himself.
To tell the truth, I never believed the guy. But he is even worse than I thought. That's saying something.
Nobody should be taking this guy at face value on anything he says. Everybody should require that for everything he says, he should have to prove it.
This may seem like partisan hackery, but no. This isn't an exception. It appears to be the rule for this guy.
To tell the truth, I never believed the guy. But he is even worse than I thought. That's saying something.
Nobody should be taking this guy at face value on anything he says. Everybody should require that for everything he says, he should have to prove it.
This may seem like partisan hackery, but no. This isn't an exception. It appears to be the rule for this guy.
Bob Turner Stands with Kids as Libs Heckle Them for Singing Lee Greenwood Song
Limbaugh
Is this for real? God Bless the USA was linked to 911 and these people heckled it?????? Okay, it was written 1984 and re-released. But it got airplay at that time. So, what's so wrong about the song that somebody wants to heckle it when kindergartners are singing it?
You know, these guys have their president. You will remember what his pastor said once, and it wasn't God Bless America. It was something quite different.
Do you have to wonder why he wants to do his Pronunciamientos? He's at war with this culture.
He has a Muslim name. Why keep his Muslim name if he is a Christian? Those who convert to Islam don't keep their Christian name. Why did he keep his Muslim name?
In your face.
Get him some more dog to eat.
You remember when they were banned from singing God Bless the USA at a graduation ceremony not long ago? "A group of New York City children banned from singing God Bless the USA at a graduation ceremony were heckled by adults when they sang the song at a nearby playground." So kids singing God Bless the USA got heckled by Democrat adults! "The protest had been organized by parents at PS 90 in Coney Island. They were outraged after principal Greta Hawkins banned kindergartners from performing the song at their graduation ceremony.
Is this for real? God Bless the USA was linked to 911 and these people heckled it?????? Okay, it was written 1984 and re-released. But it got airplay at that time. So, what's so wrong about the song that somebody wants to heckle it when kindergartners are singing it?
You know, these guys have their president. You will remember what his pastor said once, and it wasn't God Bless America. It was something quite different.
Do you have to wonder why he wants to do his Pronunciamientos? He's at war with this culture.
He has a Muslim name. Why keep his Muslim name if he is a Christian? Those who convert to Islam don't keep their Christian name. Why did he keep his Muslim name?
In your face.
Get him some more dog to eat.
Popularity isn't Truth, and the Truth is not necessarily Popular
Couldn't resist the phrase.
Examples? Take a lynch mob. Is the lynch mob right? Is the lynch mob about truth, or about naked power? But, by definition, the mob is popular. Except to the guy being lynched.
For the other half of the phrase: take a look at Greece. In their hearts, they know the system is crumbling. That's the reason for the bank runs.
But they keep voting for Socialists. That's because the Socialists keep lying to them by promising what they can't or won't deliver, yet the truth is that they can't afford the promises their politicians have made to them- and that is not so easy to accept.
Examples? Take a lynch mob. Is the lynch mob right? Is the lynch mob about truth, or about naked power? But, by definition, the mob is popular. Except to the guy being lynched.
For the other half of the phrase: take a look at Greece. In their hearts, they know the system is crumbling. That's the reason for the bank runs.
But they keep voting for Socialists. That's because the Socialists keep lying to them by promising what they can't or won't deliver, yet the truth is that they can't afford the promises their politicians have made to them- and that is not so easy to accept.
Viruses are a Microsoft problem
With respect to this at Ace, I think it is well worth pointing out that Windows is inherently insecure as an operating system.
If there's anything important, like a military application, the Iranians would not be using Windows. Thus, the viral problems could be overcome, if they aren't being overcome already. Just use a different operating system. Duh.
I wouldn't take much comfort in a virus stopping the Iranian nuke program.
If there's anything important, like a military application, the Iranians would not be using Windows. Thus, the viral problems could be overcome, if they aren't being overcome already. Just use a different operating system. Duh.
I wouldn't take much comfort in a virus stopping the Iranian nuke program.
Getting a good definition for the term "Politics Schmolitics"
The term was coined and used in order to express the skepticism that politics is any good for anything- except perhaps the politicians.
But it is a bit too loosely defined. There's a need to tighten it up. Just because you don't like something about politics is not a good enough reason to condemn it in all cases.
Even the Founding Fathers believed that government was necessary- but it was a necessary evil. With government comes politics- and thus, it is also a necessary evil.
Choices have to be made, yet the choices that get made are not going to be universally liked. In a democracy, there will be dissent. In a democracy, there will be opposition.
I have a preference for two things in general. That there be accuracy and that there be effectiveness.
A third preference may be efficiency. But efficiency could be too broad based of a term that could be applied to government. Let's narrow that down to where government doesn't impede efficiency, nor promote inefficiency. This would be applied to economics in general. But governments should be inefficient when it comes to taking peoples' lives, liberty, or property. Efficiency in doing those types of things are what should be avoided like the plague. The use of force is a necessary evil at times. But it shouldn't be efficient, you see. If it is too efficient, it can be lead to some consternation. Once certain kinds of things get done, it is really hard to get them undone.
Accuracy in politics is tough. Perhaps the reason for this is that it is competitive. Once competition gets in the mix, things can get a little rough. The idea may have been expressed pretty well by Leo Durocher, who wrote the book Nice Guys Finish Last. People love the game, but if the game overrides everything else, we could all suffer for it. Not everything in life should be a game. Another quote: "Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing". But are there limits on what people should do in order to win? Winning at all costs in politics is something that could tear a society apart. There should be lines that don't get crossed.
Let's just say that the game can prohibit certain actions that are necessary and effective in dealing with problems. George Washington didn't like political parties, but James Madison believed that they were inevitable in a democracy. I can see Washington's point if partisanship can lead to outcomes that are good for the partisans, but bad for the country. I can also see Madison's point that "faction" are to democracy as air is to fire. If you eliminate one, the other must also die out.
The trick is to have an umpire. The role of umpire can be played by the media, if it is honest. Failing that, there should be a first amendment. To back that up, there needs to be a second amendment. This protects the people from the politicians. It can keep the game as honest as possible and lead to the best possible outcomes over time. Above all, however, it should prevent the competitive urges from destroying the integrity of the game itself.
Madison believe that a multiplicity of interests could manage the faction problem. This is the strength of federalism and a system of checks and balances.
We should be careful about changing any of this. It has worked well for us for over 200 years.
But it is a bit too loosely defined. There's a need to tighten it up. Just because you don't like something about politics is not a good enough reason to condemn it in all cases.
Even the Founding Fathers believed that government was necessary- but it was a necessary evil. With government comes politics- and thus, it is also a necessary evil.
Choices have to be made, yet the choices that get made are not going to be universally liked. In a democracy, there will be dissent. In a democracy, there will be opposition.
I have a preference for two things in general. That there be accuracy and that there be effectiveness.
A third preference may be efficiency. But efficiency could be too broad based of a term that could be applied to government. Let's narrow that down to where government doesn't impede efficiency, nor promote inefficiency. This would be applied to economics in general. But governments should be inefficient when it comes to taking peoples' lives, liberty, or property. Efficiency in doing those types of things are what should be avoided like the plague. The use of force is a necessary evil at times. But it shouldn't be efficient, you see. If it is too efficient, it can be lead to some consternation. Once certain kinds of things get done, it is really hard to get them undone.
Accuracy in politics is tough. Perhaps the reason for this is that it is competitive. Once competition gets in the mix, things can get a little rough. The idea may have been expressed pretty well by Leo Durocher, who wrote the book Nice Guys Finish Last. People love the game, but if the game overrides everything else, we could all suffer for it. Not everything in life should be a game. Another quote: "Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing". But are there limits on what people should do in order to win? Winning at all costs in politics is something that could tear a society apart. There should be lines that don't get crossed.
Let's just say that the game can prohibit certain actions that are necessary and effective in dealing with problems. George Washington didn't like political parties, but James Madison believed that they were inevitable in a democracy. I can see Washington's point if partisanship can lead to outcomes that are good for the partisans, but bad for the country. I can also see Madison's point that "faction" are to democracy as air is to fire. If you eliminate one, the other must also die out.
The trick is to have an umpire. The role of umpire can be played by the media, if it is honest. Failing that, there should be a first amendment. To back that up, there needs to be a second amendment. This protects the people from the politicians. It can keep the game as honest as possible and lead to the best possible outcomes over time. Above all, however, it should prevent the competitive urges from destroying the integrity of the game itself.
Madison believe that a multiplicity of interests could manage the faction problem. This is the strength of federalism and a system of checks and balances.
We should be careful about changing any of this. It has worked well for us for over 200 years.
Trayvon Martin case and Stand Your Ground
Early yesterday wasn't a very busy morning, so I had a lot of time on my hands. I picked up a Time magazine, dated April 9th, and noticed that it had an article about the Martin case.
It seemed to be on the left side of the argument and I was tempted to write something scathingly critical about it. The author of the piece, John Cloud, didn't seem to think it was important that Zimmerman was defending himself. His attitude was rather curious to me. However, I recalled something that happened just a couple of years ago and it gave me some thoughts to ponder on. To relate that, I'll have to tell a story. The story is not one that I like to tell because I'd like to consider myself to be an even tempered person. Normally, that is true. But not all of the time.
It was near Christmas in 2009 and I was out doing my job making deliveries. I was told that there was a drop point at a school and so I went there, but it didn't seem to be the right place. So I parked the truck in the lot, which was mostly empty because of the holiday. Not thinking that this would be a problem, I called the guy up in order to find out exactly where he was. I had him on the phone when somebody drove up and parked nearly behind me toward to the driver's side.
While I was on the phone, this guy called out and asked if he could help me. I didn't expect to be there long, especially since I was on the phone with the guy who could tell me where I needed to be. As soon as I had found what I needed to know, I would leave. All of this took just a couple minutes to develop. Just the amount of time to park and make the phone call. And this guy shows up and he's asking me if he could help me. I just wanted to take care of business as quickly as possible because that is what I get paid for.
His interruption was a bit annoying to me since I wasn't there long and the parking lot was empty and I wasn't bothering anybody or anything. As far as I knew, when I had arrived there, I was to make a delivery. It wasn't as if I was there for no good reason. It was just a mistake in communications.
But this guy persisted and was interrupting my call. I tried to wave him off, but he wouldn't back off. Finally, I had gotten the information I needed, and proceeded to back out of the parking spot, and this guy pulled in behind me- blocking my departure. That did it. I got very angry ( by my standards), got out of my truck, and proceeded to cuss this guy out.
It turned out that he was the school principal. He rolled up the window, evidently threatened by my language and demeanor. I pointed out to him, in very salty language, that he had no business blocking me because he wasn't a cop, even if he was the principal of the school-- he wasn't a cop. He also wasn't a security guard. There wasn't any way to identify him as a school principal since he was dressed in ordinary street clothes. Evidently, he agreed to that logic, and proceeded to pull away from my truck. But not before demanding to know who I was. I told him and he demanded to talk to my boss and proceeded to complain about my language.
It is state law- I know this because I was on jury duty once for a case that involved this law- that nobody can act in the capacity of a security guard without being a cop, or having specialized training in security work. So this principal was in the wrong for stopping me. I don't think somebody can just take it upon themselves to stop you from leaving as this guy was doing. I wasn't bothering anybody or anybody's property and hadn't been there that long.
The guy told the dispatcher that I was parking in his place, which was probably wrong, since the spaces weren't marked. There were plenty of spaces. I think the guy made up that story as a cover for himself and to justify himself.
Even today, thinking about this makes me a bit mad, but a bit worried that something as silly as this could have ended up in a more serious altercation. If it had, and he had been armed, it occurred to me that I might have been shot. He felt threatened and he was trying to act like a cop. And I was cussing because I was angry. But at the bottom of all this was some legitimate issues and some probably honest mistakes. The principal probably had cause to want to know who I was and what I was doing on the property, but he didn't have the authority to stop me from leaving if I didn't comply and answer his questions. At least this is what I think is state law. There was no way for me to know that he was the principal. He just looked like "Joe Blow" to me.
The point of all this is this: what if somebody has a little authority and pushes it a little too far? What if that person is armed and what if that person as a consequence of feeling threatened, decides to shoot at somebody? What if that same person is in street clothes and can't be identified as having any authority, but is exercising authority just the same? In overstepping his authority, what if he provokes someone to anger who would normally not be inclined to do anything to anybody and otherwise had legitimate business to be there?
Not to say that "stand your ground" is wrong, but just considering the possibilities, that something like this could lead to a tragic outcome in certain circumstances. You don't have to be doing anything wrong. You could just be making an honest mistake and somebody else could be making an honest mistake and the situation might get out of hand even without anybody intending it to.
I don't know how much you can consult your law books in the heat of the moment.
It would seem that a lot of education is in order before someone should be armed. And if this person is armed, he should know the law to every dot and crossing every "t".
You can't take this back if somebody dies, it can't be fixed.
You can look at this from the other point of view, which is why I was initially critical of the Time article.
Frankly, I want the right to arm myself if I feel that it is needed. I also feel like I have the right to defend myself. But I can see where in the course of everyday life how something like this can get out of hand, and when it does, it could lead to unexpected and unwelcome outcomes.
This isn't as cut and dried as the politicians and agitators would like to make it.
It seemed to be on the left side of the argument and I was tempted to write something scathingly critical about it. The author of the piece, John Cloud, didn't seem to think it was important that Zimmerman was defending himself. His attitude was rather curious to me. However, I recalled something that happened just a couple of years ago and it gave me some thoughts to ponder on. To relate that, I'll have to tell a story. The story is not one that I like to tell because I'd like to consider myself to be an even tempered person. Normally, that is true. But not all of the time.
It was near Christmas in 2009 and I was out doing my job making deliveries. I was told that there was a drop point at a school and so I went there, but it didn't seem to be the right place. So I parked the truck in the lot, which was mostly empty because of the holiday. Not thinking that this would be a problem, I called the guy up in order to find out exactly where he was. I had him on the phone when somebody drove up and parked nearly behind me toward to the driver's side.
While I was on the phone, this guy called out and asked if he could help me. I didn't expect to be there long, especially since I was on the phone with the guy who could tell me where I needed to be. As soon as I had found what I needed to know, I would leave. All of this took just a couple minutes to develop. Just the amount of time to park and make the phone call. And this guy shows up and he's asking me if he could help me. I just wanted to take care of business as quickly as possible because that is what I get paid for.
His interruption was a bit annoying to me since I wasn't there long and the parking lot was empty and I wasn't bothering anybody or anything. As far as I knew, when I had arrived there, I was to make a delivery. It wasn't as if I was there for no good reason. It was just a mistake in communications.
But this guy persisted and was interrupting my call. I tried to wave him off, but he wouldn't back off. Finally, I had gotten the information I needed, and proceeded to back out of the parking spot, and this guy pulled in behind me- blocking my departure. That did it. I got very angry ( by my standards), got out of my truck, and proceeded to cuss this guy out.
It turned out that he was the school principal. He rolled up the window, evidently threatened by my language and demeanor. I pointed out to him, in very salty language, that he had no business blocking me because he wasn't a cop, even if he was the principal of the school-- he wasn't a cop. He also wasn't a security guard. There wasn't any way to identify him as a school principal since he was dressed in ordinary street clothes. Evidently, he agreed to that logic, and proceeded to pull away from my truck. But not before demanding to know who I was. I told him and he demanded to talk to my boss and proceeded to complain about my language.
It is state law- I know this because I was on jury duty once for a case that involved this law- that nobody can act in the capacity of a security guard without being a cop, or having specialized training in security work. So this principal was in the wrong for stopping me. I don't think somebody can just take it upon themselves to stop you from leaving as this guy was doing. I wasn't bothering anybody or anybody's property and hadn't been there that long.
The guy told the dispatcher that I was parking in his place, which was probably wrong, since the spaces weren't marked. There were plenty of spaces. I think the guy made up that story as a cover for himself and to justify himself.
Even today, thinking about this makes me a bit mad, but a bit worried that something as silly as this could have ended up in a more serious altercation. If it had, and he had been armed, it occurred to me that I might have been shot. He felt threatened and he was trying to act like a cop. And I was cussing because I was angry. But at the bottom of all this was some legitimate issues and some probably honest mistakes. The principal probably had cause to want to know who I was and what I was doing on the property, but he didn't have the authority to stop me from leaving if I didn't comply and answer his questions. At least this is what I think is state law. There was no way for me to know that he was the principal. He just looked like "Joe Blow" to me.
The point of all this is this: what if somebody has a little authority and pushes it a little too far? What if that person is armed and what if that person as a consequence of feeling threatened, decides to shoot at somebody? What if that same person is in street clothes and can't be identified as having any authority, but is exercising authority just the same? In overstepping his authority, what if he provokes someone to anger who would normally not be inclined to do anything to anybody and otherwise had legitimate business to be there?
Not to say that "stand your ground" is wrong, but just considering the possibilities, that something like this could lead to a tragic outcome in certain circumstances. You don't have to be doing anything wrong. You could just be making an honest mistake and somebody else could be making an honest mistake and the situation might get out of hand even without anybody intending it to.
I don't know how much you can consult your law books in the heat of the moment.
It would seem that a lot of education is in order before someone should be armed. And if this person is armed, he should know the law to every dot and crossing every "t".
You can't take this back if somebody dies, it can't be fixed.
You can look at this from the other point of view, which is why I was initially critical of the Time article.
Frankly, I want the right to arm myself if I feel that it is needed. I also feel like I have the right to defend myself. But I can see where in the course of everyday life how something like this can get out of hand, and when it does, it could lead to unexpected and unwelcome outcomes.
This isn't as cut and dried as the politicians and agitators would like to make it.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Why Solutions v Problems?
I'm reminded of the song by Eric Burdon and The Animals. You can have the best of intentions, but the road to hell is said to be paved with good intentions. At the very least, I think it may be time to explain a few things.
The blog is ad hoc, so there's no master plan. It just happens. Whatever comes to mind. Each day, I have no idea what I'll be doing in advance.
That can seem pretty disorganized way of doing things. To compensate, I try to be a little more organized and keep to one subject longer before leaving it.
So, this morning, the thing on my mind is these problems that we have that don't seem to get solved. It is a recurrent theme on this blog. Perhaps it would be useful to explicate on the idea just a bit more than what I've done so far.
Rush Limbaugh once talked about how the politicians don't want to solve problems, but want to use the problem as an issue. Whatever you may think of Limbaugh, that is a really good point. As long as the problem exists, it can provide a reason for existence of someone out there to solve it. There is a conflict of interest then, in trying to actually solve it. What happens when the problem is actually solved? No more need for that politician. He would have solved the problem at the expense of his job.
Another thing Limbaugh talks about is Big Government. It seems that the very first thing people want to do is go run to the Government and have them solve the problem. But what if that really doesn't work very well? Especially if the politicians aren't really interested in actually solving the problem, but just using it for political purpose. Hence, Big Government isn't the way towards solving problems. It may well be the case that problems will just keep on getting bigger and bigger until another way is found.
But it may go deeper than even that. What if Big Government metastasize like a cancer, which will be fatal if it isn't caught in time? What if government deliberately got in the way of actually solving problems because those in government see the solutions as a threat to themselves? That could be like a Tiberius syndrome, also noted earlier on this blog.
But that is nothing new, just a reminder.
Another thing came to mind this morning is the notion of thinking in concepts. I found this in a book about entrepreneurship. You need to learn to think in terms of concepts, it was advised. So, I've made a habit of trying to do that. So far, it hasn't yielded a concept which I can use in a business in order to make money. Obviously, something's missing. I'm not making dough. But the idea is sound in its own right, whether or not you make money off it is another question.
That gets back to good thinking v bad thinking. Just because I haven't gotten rich off of these ideas don't mean that they're bad. But that is how many people think. They'll think, "who's this guy?" If he's so smart, how come he's not rich? Or famous, or what have you.
All I know is what I read about. It used to be books and now it is the web. I'm just finding a way to use those ideas to solve a problem that I'm having. The problem I'm having is that the government is failing me and failing everyone else. Now there's a lot of people who think we are on the wrong track, given the polls. What can be done about this?
That's a political problem because it may require some mass action. People have to be organized in order to solve political problems.
We have solutions to the more serious problems, but we have to mobilize ourselves because the politicians won't do it for us. They will have to be encouraged to do so, or if they won't, they will have to be replaced with somebody who will.
But that is the paradox. You have a problem with government, but you have to deal with government because you have no other choice if the government is actually forcing you to do this. It is forcing a political solution because it has managed to politicize everything. It has politicized everything because it is in their interests to do so. But these interests are not in harmony with the larger interests. So the problems don't get solved. We are at a point where the problems are going to have to get solved, or collapse will be the inevitable result.
In order to get the most from this blog and to understand it, you will have to click through the links.
I'm not just talking out my ass here. I'm relying on smart people. Plus I'm throwing in a little of my own creativity.
There's no need for a war here. Just solve the danged problem.
The blog is ad hoc, so there's no master plan. It just happens. Whatever comes to mind. Each day, I have no idea what I'll be doing in advance.
That can seem pretty disorganized way of doing things. To compensate, I try to be a little more organized and keep to one subject longer before leaving it.
So, this morning, the thing on my mind is these problems that we have that don't seem to get solved. It is a recurrent theme on this blog. Perhaps it would be useful to explicate on the idea just a bit more than what I've done so far.
Rush Limbaugh once talked about how the politicians don't want to solve problems, but want to use the problem as an issue. Whatever you may think of Limbaugh, that is a really good point. As long as the problem exists, it can provide a reason for existence of someone out there to solve it. There is a conflict of interest then, in trying to actually solve it. What happens when the problem is actually solved? No more need for that politician. He would have solved the problem at the expense of his job.
Another thing Limbaugh talks about is Big Government. It seems that the very first thing people want to do is go run to the Government and have them solve the problem. But what if that really doesn't work very well? Especially if the politicians aren't really interested in actually solving the problem, but just using it for political purpose. Hence, Big Government isn't the way towards solving problems. It may well be the case that problems will just keep on getting bigger and bigger until another way is found.
But it may go deeper than even that. What if Big Government metastasize like a cancer, which will be fatal if it isn't caught in time? What if government deliberately got in the way of actually solving problems because those in government see the solutions as a threat to themselves? That could be like a Tiberius syndrome, also noted earlier on this blog.
But that is nothing new, just a reminder.
Another thing came to mind this morning is the notion of thinking in concepts. I found this in a book about entrepreneurship. You need to learn to think in terms of concepts, it was advised. So, I've made a habit of trying to do that. So far, it hasn't yielded a concept which I can use in a business in order to make money. Obviously, something's missing. I'm not making dough. But the idea is sound in its own right, whether or not you make money off it is another question.
That gets back to good thinking v bad thinking. Just because I haven't gotten rich off of these ideas don't mean that they're bad. But that is how many people think. They'll think, "who's this guy?" If he's so smart, how come he's not rich? Or famous, or what have you.
All I know is what I read about. It used to be books and now it is the web. I'm just finding a way to use those ideas to solve a problem that I'm having. The problem I'm having is that the government is failing me and failing everyone else. Now there's a lot of people who think we are on the wrong track, given the polls. What can be done about this?
That's a political problem because it may require some mass action. People have to be organized in order to solve political problems.
We have solutions to the more serious problems, but we have to mobilize ourselves because the politicians won't do it for us. They will have to be encouraged to do so, or if they won't, they will have to be replaced with somebody who will.
But that is the paradox. You have a problem with government, but you have to deal with government because you have no other choice if the government is actually forcing you to do this. It is forcing a political solution because it has managed to politicize everything. It has politicized everything because it is in their interests to do so. But these interests are not in harmony with the larger interests. So the problems don't get solved. We are at a point where the problems are going to have to get solved, or collapse will be the inevitable result.
In order to get the most from this blog and to understand it, you will have to click through the links.
I'm not just talking out my ass here. I'm relying on smart people. Plus I'm throwing in a little of my own creativity.
There's no need for a war here. Just solve the danged problem.
We Don’t Need More Scientists—We Need Better Ones
Derek Lowe- Slate -- Instapundit
----A chemist responds to Slate’s David Plotz’s claim that not enough students are going into science and engineering.
Comment:
Bigger isn't necessarily better. More isn't necessarily better. What drives this type of thinking is the drive towards Big Government. Science has become a client to Big Government, so the call for more scientists is the same as the call for more government. More jobs, you see.
The preference for Big Government in this context is another example of bad thinking.
Albert Einstein didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity because of some government grant. You can't always use brute force to solve a problem or make a discovery. It requires intelligence.
----A chemist responds to Slate’s David Plotz’s claim that not enough students are going into science and engineering.
Comment:
Bigger isn't necessarily better. More isn't necessarily better. What drives this type of thinking is the drive towards Big Government. Science has become a client to Big Government, so the call for more scientists is the same as the call for more government. More jobs, you see.
The preference for Big Government in this context is another example of bad thinking.
Albert Einstein didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity because of some government grant. You can't always use brute force to solve a problem or make a discovery. It requires intelligence.
Another thing to worry about
The next really big volcanic eruption. It could cause crop failures. Uh, oh.
Of course, we could all be better prepared for such things if we developed LFTR tech and conquered outer space. But that would make too much sense.
Of course, we could all be better prepared for such things if we developed LFTR tech and conquered outer space. But that would make too much sense.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Will Obama Get Latinos?
Dick Morris
Obviously, the answer must be yes. But Morris wants Marco Rubio as VP.
Politics is very dirty business. What Obama did was filthy, but what is the response? More filthiness?
President Obama’s surprise announcement of de facto amnesty for children of illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and have lived in the U.S. for five years will reap big dividends among Latino voters.
Obviously, the answer must be yes. But Morris wants Marco Rubio as VP.
Politics is very dirty business. What Obama did was filthy, but what is the response? More filthiness?
In Denmark, Hu Jintao (Red China's president) sets eyes on Greenland's minerals
Free Republic via EurActiv
quote:
Most likely, people do not know that thorium deposits are found with rare earths. Thorium is treated as a radioactive waste, even though it is benign. So mining companies in this country avoid deposits, which could be rich in rare earths, just to avoid the thorium.
The stupidity of this staggers the mind. There is no need for a Chinese monopoly. There is no need for an energy shortage. There is no need for what could be a war brewing. But these idiots are making it possible.
quote:
Greenland, a self-governing dependency of Denmark, has some of the world's biggest deposits of rare earth elements, strategically important metals in which China has a near monopoly.Comment:
Most likely, people do not know that thorium deposits are found with rare earths. Thorium is treated as a radioactive waste, even though it is benign. So mining companies in this country avoid deposits, which could be rich in rare earths, just to avoid the thorium.
The stupidity of this staggers the mind. There is no need for a Chinese monopoly. There is no need for an energy shortage. There is no need for what could be a war brewing. But these idiots are making it possible.
Rodney King Dead at 47
Ed Driscoll
quote:
Actually, King didn't do all that. All those rioters did that. The riots, in turn, were instigated by the media. They kept playing the beating over and over again. They wanted the riots in order to blame Bush ( Papa Bush) for them. It was an election year coming up and they needed something to point to for their blame game. What better way to do this than a police brutality case against a black man?
King was just a hapless human being. He was turned into a symbol of oppression for political purposes. He was used and the rioters were used to further the ends of politicians. The media did this for the politics.
Bill Clinton was elected in the year of the riots.
This year is also a political year. A black kid gets killed. The media is attempting to instigate another riot.
Time will tell if the intent of that instigation leads to another term for Obama.
quote:
“It’s one thing to waste your life,” Kathy Shaidle writes in response to King’s death, “It’s another to cost your community at least a billion dollars and get other people maimed and killed in the process.”Comment:
Actually, King didn't do all that. All those rioters did that. The riots, in turn, were instigated by the media. They kept playing the beating over and over again. They wanted the riots in order to blame Bush ( Papa Bush) for them. It was an election year coming up and they needed something to point to for their blame game. What better way to do this than a police brutality case against a black man?
King was just a hapless human being. He was turned into a symbol of oppression for political purposes. He was used and the rioters were used to further the ends of politicians. The media did this for the politics.
Bill Clinton was elected in the year of the riots.
This year is also a political year. A black kid gets killed. The media is attempting to instigate another riot.
Time will tell if the intent of that instigation leads to another term for Obama.
Totalitarian forces held at bay--- for now
Courtesy of Ace's blog, I found this video about threats to the First Amendment. This president is at war with our culture. The Bill of Rights is key to that culture. This is but just one example of how that part of our culture is being attacked.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
RAW VIDEO: Gov. Brewer reacts to Pres. Obama's immigration
Comment:
I've been looking into the issue of the rule of law. The main problem here is on what authority did this president have in doing this?
I've been looking into the issue of the rule of law. The main problem here is on what authority did this president have in doing this?
Neil Munro and Sam Donaldson
via Memeorandum and Huffpo
Look at this gem
quote:
Comment:
I would wager that if Obama loses, these people will blame it on racism. Just my own opinion here, if Obama was lily white, it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference to me.
Obama shouldn't be there because of his name. It is an Islamic name. He is using it as a type of "in your face" attitude so often seen by those on the left towards traditional American culture. There are many examples of this "in your face" attitude I could give, but I'll use this one as the most prominent example of the type.
The left rejects this culture. Yet they claim that we reject them. The problem is that we don't reject them. Barak Hussein Obama would not be president if the people rejected him. Yet too many accept him even though he does not reciprocate that generosity. He is at war with this country. If anybody opposes him, they'll claim that you hate him because of your own moral reprehensibility. Sorry, but I'm not buying that guilt trip crap.
Yes, there were wrong things done to black people in this country. The history is there and it isn't pretty. But at some point, the debt should have been paid. I think the left is trying to make the guilt trip permanent. You will never be able to escape this no matter what you do to atone for it. You are guilty, super guilty, and guilty for all time. Any objection is proof positive of your unrepentant nature. That's the way the left's attitude toward this country looks to me.
It is enough, probably too much, to have made this guy president. This culture bent over backwards to overlook his past and give him a chance. And he has gotten his chance. Any other president would be called to account for the failures this president has committed. Why should he be any different from any other president? Just because he's black?
Barak Hussein Obama's ancestors were not wronged by anyone here in this country. He wasn't personally wronged in any way. Why should anyone in this country be required to tolerate being wronged by this president? His skin color should not give him a pass.
Neil Munro was probably rude in a normal setting. But this isn't normal. Obama just did an "in your face" act and probably had no intention of answering any questions. That has been his pattern. It's "if you don't like it, lump it" attitude that is so in your face. He is showing his hostility towards this country every time he does this. It's about time people start talking back at him. Even if it seems rude. We are not his subjects. He needs to answer questions on issues that are controversial. He has just put a bunch of law breakers interests ahead of the line. Why did he do this? Just so he could poke the rest of us in the eye, and tell you if you don't like it then just go to hell? It is in your face. A requisite response was called for. No apologies should be made.
Look at this gem
quote:
Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!
Comment:
I would wager that if Obama loses, these people will blame it on racism. Just my own opinion here, if Obama was lily white, it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference to me.
Obama shouldn't be there because of his name. It is an Islamic name. He is using it as a type of "in your face" attitude so often seen by those on the left towards traditional American culture. There are many examples of this "in your face" attitude I could give, but I'll use this one as the most prominent example of the type.
The left rejects this culture. Yet they claim that we reject them. The problem is that we don't reject them. Barak Hussein Obama would not be president if the people rejected him. Yet too many accept him even though he does not reciprocate that generosity. He is at war with this country. If anybody opposes him, they'll claim that you hate him because of your own moral reprehensibility. Sorry, but I'm not buying that guilt trip crap.
Yes, there were wrong things done to black people in this country. The history is there and it isn't pretty. But at some point, the debt should have been paid. I think the left is trying to make the guilt trip permanent. You will never be able to escape this no matter what you do to atone for it. You are guilty, super guilty, and guilty for all time. Any objection is proof positive of your unrepentant nature. That's the way the left's attitude toward this country looks to me.
It is enough, probably too much, to have made this guy president. This culture bent over backwards to overlook his past and give him a chance. And he has gotten his chance. Any other president would be called to account for the failures this president has committed. Why should he be any different from any other president? Just because he's black?
Barak Hussein Obama's ancestors were not wronged by anyone here in this country. He wasn't personally wronged in any way. Why should anyone in this country be required to tolerate being wronged by this president? His skin color should not give him a pass.
Neil Munro was probably rude in a normal setting. But this isn't normal. Obama just did an "in your face" act and probably had no intention of answering any questions. That has been his pattern. It's "if you don't like it, lump it" attitude that is so in your face. He is showing his hostility towards this country every time he does this. It's about time people start talking back at him. Even if it seems rude. We are not his subjects. He needs to answer questions on issues that are controversial. He has just put a bunch of law breakers interests ahead of the line. Why did he do this? Just so he could poke the rest of us in the eye, and tell you if you don't like it then just go to hell? It is in your face. A requisite response was called for. No apologies should be made.
Next Big Future: Robert Zubrin on Technological Slowdown and the Ne...
Next Big Future: Robert Zubrin on Technological Slowdown and the Ne...: A guest post by Joseph Friedlander for Brian Wang’s Next Big Future (excerpts, rearranged for effect) from http://www.nss.org/settlemen...
Comment:
I tried to leave a comment there, but it locked up my computer.
So, I'll comment here. Zubrin is mostly right. Some of the ways that he said it may be seen as offensive to those outside of American experience. But resent it or not, it is true. America had been on top, but is giving that up for stupid reasons. Maybe it's because of reactions such as the ones I saw in the comment section. Americans are being taught not to be self assertive anymore. Not to have self confidence. To have doubts about their own selves, their own country, their own culture. This is not the way that it used to be.
I've haven't got much use for that point of view. Nor the "culture" that is producing it. In general, I absolutely reject the left and everything that they are doing to this once great country.
Comment:
I tried to leave a comment there, but it locked up my computer.
So, I'll comment here. Zubrin is mostly right. Some of the ways that he said it may be seen as offensive to those outside of American experience. But resent it or not, it is true. America had been on top, but is giving that up for stupid reasons. Maybe it's because of reactions such as the ones I saw in the comment section. Americans are being taught not to be self assertive anymore. Not to have self confidence. To have doubts about their own selves, their own country, their own culture. This is not the way that it used to be.
I've haven't got much use for that point of view. Nor the "culture" that is producing it. In general, I absolutely reject the left and everything that they are doing to this once great country.
Sex is stupid
If this is any indication:
ARE DANGEROUS MEN more attractive to women?
I'm not Dead Sexy and I don't care. No. It isn't sour grapes. I. Just. Don't. Care.
If you are inclined to understand my point of view, try this reading the links at the bottom of the page referenced above. Anybody who follows that advice is, in my opinion, stupid.
ARE DANGEROUS MEN more attractive to women?
I'm not Dead Sexy and I don't care. No. It isn't sour grapes. I. Just. Don't. Care.
If you are inclined to understand my point of view, try this reading the links at the bottom of the page referenced above. Anybody who follows that advice is, in my opinion, stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)