Saturday, September 1, 2012

The Dick Cavett Show *Full Interview* Janis Joplin, Gloria Swanson, Margot Kidder, Dave Meggyesy

Recorded in 1970, just a few months prior to Joplin's death. All these guests are interesting. Well worth watching.

Dropkick Murphy's - I'm Shipping Up To Boston [OFFICIAL VIDEO]

That movie must have been better than I thought since I'm making so many posts about it.

Mark Wahlberg as Dignam

Normally, he's a very nice guy. Don't judge him on this meeting alone.

CAIR: Censor or Free-Speech Champion?

The group opposes a law curtailing Jew hatred.

  • CAIR is the Muslim Brotherhood bullhorn created to cheerlead for sharia, for Hamas, and for sundry other jihadists — all under the guise of “civil rights.”
  • Its sole actual imperative is Islamic supremacism: promoting any cause that increases Islamic influence and protesting any effort either to reduce Islamic influence or to subject Islamic-supremacist doctrine to scrutiny.[emphasis added]
  • It is a plain, irrefutable fact that Islamic countries repress the practice of other religions. Indeed, the practice of religions other than Islam is illegal in Saudi Arabia, the OIC’s de facto leader. 
  • We then realize it makes perfect sense that Islamists would oppose critical examination of Islam but favor incitement against Jews.
  • It makes perfect sense that, like our defense lawyer, CAIR is the scourge of “hate speech” one day and the avatar of free expression the next.
  • Alas, Islamists romp in the court of public opinion. It is not a trial court, and there is no captive audience to judge its goings-on. People are busy living their lives. CAIR is obviously fraudulent, but who has time to notice? Or, better to say, the public cannot be expected to notice unless we have a responsible stenographer to make an honest record and a good-faith prosecutor to highlight the contradictions.

    Today, in those roles, we have a left-leaning media that colludes in CAIR’s “civil rights” pretensions, and a pusillanimous political class that coddles Islamists while scalding their detractors. That’s how the charlatans win.
I think we'd be better off if Islam would no longer be considered a valid religion with respect to the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  No other religion that I know of is in fundamental conflict with the Constitution as is Islam.  It is completely incompatible with our way of life.

I'd say treat them as they treat others --- as dhimmis.

A Romney Presidency: A “Minor Impact” On America’s Electric Car Market?


Does Musk have an ace-in-the-hole?  Could it be that he believes that Obama will be back and therefore, there's nothing to worry about?  How does he keep the doors open if the profits aren't there and the debts have to be repaid?

One of the fundamental questions in this election is this one.  That is, should the private sector determine which technologies advance and which remain behind?  We shall see.

T. Boone Pickens throws in the towel on NAT GAS

On Aug. 29 the biggest proponent of the NAT GAS Act, Mr. T. Boone Pickens, decided that some battles simply aren’t worth fighting any more.

The billionaire and former oil baron also lamented that while his plan initially promoted wind energy, that hasn’t worked out so well.

“I’ve lost my ass” to wind-energy investments, he conceded.

Remember Obama and Pickens together in 2008?  That's all over now.  Pickens says Obama hasn't done a damned thing.  ( not exactly in those words)

Unstable MSNBC Host in Angry Restaurant Confrontation

jammiewf via Instapundit

This was good---
Matthews said he told the rowdy group, “What’s this, a douchebag convention?”

The Republicans became angry and retorted back.

“I told him that’s next week,” said New York delegate Anthony Nunziato, referring to the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., that will start on Tuesday.

Old Tingles, what a douche bag.

Friday, August 31, 2012

The Obamas Already Preparing for Move to Hawaii in January 2013

Damn this blogger software.  It lost my original post, and now I have to re-write it.  Arg!

Okay, here's the second line of the post---Hyde Park neighbors talking about Chicago house being sold soon

Now, the thing I wanted to comment on was a comment:

My mother was very high up in MN’s DFL party during the LBJ 1964 election and she told stories of how outcomes were decided far in advance of elections via backroom deals and wealthy people of interest. I hope the fix is in and the the Bamster is OUT!

The fix is in!!!

It makes sense.  Obama made a promise not to go after the banksters and has kept the promise.  Now the banksters don't need him anymore, and aren't funding his campaign like they did in 2008.  They are giving their money to Romney who will continue the kid-glove treatment.

Enough to make you want to disown the country.  Let's see if the damn thing posts this time.

Road to Serfdom

I meant to read this before, but am now just getting around to it.

It is a large project. To write about it afterwards would take hours, so I thought I'd put it a small ditty saying what I'm doing right now.

At first glance, I'd say that this is shocking. Evidently, we have been sliding towards this for a long time now, and the apparent successes in forestalling this appear to have been insufficient. It would be interesting to see if there's any way that this can be stopped. It looks discouraging, to say the least.


Now, I'm reading THE LAW by Frederic Bastiat. More dreary stuff. For instance, he says that it is our nature to want to live off the labor of others, as opposed to living off our own labor. Immediately, you recognize this to be true. Everybody wants free shit. That's what makes liberalism aka socialism, so seductive. Hence, the slow, creeping, socialism since the New Deal. The author, commenting upon Bastiat notes how the words liberal and conservative have changed significantly in the last fifty years. It like the boil the frog analogy. We really don't understand what's happening to us.


I found this video called Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom' in Five Minutes. The posters that you are supposed to read go by too fast for me, so I hit the pause button so as to have time to read it. Scary stuff. People do not know the trap that the left is setting for us all.  That will seem extreme, but the video is based upon historical fact.  This is no theoretical possibility. It will happen if it isn't stopped.

Here's a review of THE LAW:


One last thing before I end this post.  Bastiat classified the possibilities of plunder of the law as follows:
  1. the few plunder the many
  2. everybody plunders everybody else
  3. nobody plunders nobody

Of these three, the ideal ought to be the third.

What the Democrats will say is that the Republicans want the few ( the 1%, to plunder the many the 99%).  Let's presume that this is true.  So, does everybody plundering everybody else a good solution?!?  It should be obvious that the plunder of by the few by of the many is the problem.  But their solution is to plunder everybody all the time.  The Democrats will deny this of course.  They will deny that it is plunder to take from one and giving it to another.  But one way to tell if it is plunder or not is to note that no private individual could legally compel you to give your stuff to somebody else.

Therefore, it is legal plunder and is illegal and unjust and should be abolished just as slavery was because that is what it is.

Miscellaneous political news

Yep, Anti Obama all the time.  Bwah hah hah

St. Jude Medical [300] layoffs a move to offset pressure of medical device tax [Obamacare tax]--Two analysts saw the layoffs as a measure to offset the imminent pressure of the 2.3 percent medical device tax.  Nice going Barry.

House panel probing stimulus cash for MSNBC ads-- Corruption?  We don't see no stinkin' corruption!!!

Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College---- Sore-Loserman rides again.

Obama order targets industrial efficiency, emissions--- Constitutional authority?  We don't need no stinkin' constitutional authority!!!

Republicans Endorse Platform Language to Dismantle Most of the Federal Government--- If only.

Lawrence O'Donnell Grills Empty Chair--- Give him some Prozac, he needs it after the convention.

Jumah event removed from DNC web site.--- Wonder if they can still do it anyway and not tell anyone.  Consistent with their modus operandi.

NBC News Reporter Attacks Romney Over 'Climate change'---  Reporter Haake is a Democratic hack.

Feds fail to catch 117,000 collecting disability and unemployment----  Corruption?  We don't see no stinkin' corruption!!!

No plans yet for Obama visit to Gulf Coast--- Not enough campaign cash to be had.  Too busy cleaning up after the mess to give to The One, so later gator.  Won't glorify them with his brilliant presence.  /sarc


Another one just for kicks

Couldn't resist a twist of this headline


I'm truly amazed at how little of a sense of humor this Administration and its supporters have.  The smartest thing they could have done is laugh it all off.  But they can't take it.  They look like losers.  I sure hope people see this and take note.  A lack of a sense of humor is not a good thing in leadership.  They should be able to take this in good grace.  As John F. Kennedy once called it, it is 'grace under pressure'.  Most people in prominent positions should know this.  It is quite interesting that these people don't.


Couldn't resist putting this one in. Dr Evil laughing scene.

Krugman's comments on corruption and why this should be an issue

This quote from Conscience of a Liberal said this with respect to corruption:
 Moreover the Roosevelt administration demonstrated that one of the standing arguments against large-scale intervention in the economy- that it would inevitably lead to equally large-scale corruption- wasn't true.  In retrospect it's startling just how clean the New Deal's record was.  FDR presided over a huge expansion of federal spending, including highly discretionary spending by the Works Press Administration.  Yet the popular image of public relief, widely regarded as corrupt before the New Deal, actually improved markedly.  (he claims)

So, stringent policing needs to be employed in order to guard against corruption.  What comparable assurance have we that the same occurred with Obama's Stimulus?  Where did all the money go?  Do we have strict accounting for it all?  It seems that some of the money is being used for electioneering.  That should be a definite no-no right there.  This probe had to be done by a Republican Congress, which contrasts with the Democrats actually minding their own store during the New Deal.  Also, there are other stories like this because corruption is like cockroaches, where you see one, there's bound to be more.  Many more.

If corruption can't be an issue in this campaign, when can it?  How else can we ensure accountability?

Ryan's Diet of Whoppers

By Eugene Robinson 

Usually, I don't read lefty stuff, but I made an exception this time.  As I suspected, he came very close to accusing the Medicare cut claim by the Romney campaign to be "racist":
To be sure, these are not the worst of the Republican lies. For me, the ultimate dishonor goes to the untrue charge that Obama has eliminated the work requirement for welfare recipients -- a lie designed not only to deceive but to stoke racial resentment among working-class voters. There are also the cynical and misleading claims about Medicare savings under the Affordable Care Act. 
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the overuse of the term racism is a power play.  This time coming from the Ministry of Truth and Propaganda, aka Robinson and others like himself.  As for the welfare work requirement--- I remember the welfare reform of 1996 and how liberals said that they would "fix it later".  Looks to me liked they fixed it!  But you can't take that statement by the liberals that they would fix it later and shove it down the memory hole---unless it's 1984.

The most honest thing he said was at the beginning:
Anyone familiar with this column knows that I prefer the progressive vision over the conservative one.

Of course!  Anyone can have a wrong opinion.  But to claim it as objective truth goes a bit too far.  This shot---"Romney's pollster, Neil Newhouse, boasted this week that "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." I'll say."  isn't a fair shot.  The "fact-checkers" aren't necessarily interested in the facts themselves if the facts conflict with their own biases-- like Robinson's.  Newhouse should have said "so-called" fact-checkers-- a small slip up in the use of language which Robinson has pounced upon.

He goes on to say why he thinks that Ryan lied about the closure of the Janesville plant.  I've looked at that statement myself, and I find no error in it.  That's because Robinson leaves out some important details, like Obama coming back after the closure announcement and while the plant was still open and clearly promising to keep the plant open, but failing to do so.  Therefore, it was a fair shot.

Another gem here:
Another supremely dishonest moment was Ryan's criticism of how Obama dealt with the Simpson-Bowles debt panel: "He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing."

That's right he did nothing, which is 100% correct.  But Ryan rejected it as well, which is also correct.  But you have a conflict in policies here-- you really can't expect Ryan to accept Obamacare--- nor can you expect Obama to abandon his own signature legislative accomplishment.  This one conforms to the old saying "Methinks he doth protest too much".   This one is a wash, not a reason to screech and howl in protest.

Another brief moment of honesty here with this quote:  "It's hardly unusual for politicians to highlight convenient facts and ignore inconvenient ones."  No, but one would expect an opinion writer truly interested in the truth as Robinson claims to be to be a bit more even-handed in his criticisms.  His article could have been approved by the Democrat Party.  Gee, since when do journalists get to write propaganda for one of the parties?  I think his claims to respect for truth are a bit exaggerated as the typical politician.  Maybe he missed his calling.

Paul Ryan Spoke the Truth About Obamacare

Paul Ryan Spoke the Truth About Obamacare

  • Here are the facts:

    (1) Obamacare cost about $1 trillion dollars over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Democrats raised roughly half of that money through new taxes, and the other half was “raised” from cuts in Medicare.
  • (2) that comes from Social Security actually belongs to the Social Security Trust Fund...The exact same is true of Medicare; the catch is that the rules of CBO budgeting allowed the Democrats to count it as an offset...So, Obamacare looked deficit neutral on paper, when in fact half of it was paid for with borrowed money.
  • (3) The $500 billion in cuts to Medicare do not amount to cuts in benefits to patients, at least nominally.  However, government accountants believe that is what effectively will happen....seniors will have the same benefits on paper – but, much like those in the Medicaid program, they will find it difficult to find a doctor or hospital willing to provide the service.
  • (4) The original version of the Ryan budget retained these cuts. However, there was an important difference: the money was not funneled out to sponsor a new entitlement. Instead, it was credited back to the Medicare Trust Fund, thus strengthening our long term deficit situation. 
  • (5) The Romney-Ryan plan restores all of the lost funding to Medicare.
  • THEREFORE  His criticism of Obamacare is perfectly legitimate
But racist, I suppose. /snark

Next Big Future: NASA funding Development of Aeutronic fusion power...

Next Big Future: NASA funding Development of Aeutronic fusion power...: Federal Business Opportunity - NASA/JSC is currently looking at the development of aneutronic fusion power for spacecraft applications. Res...

Half measures won't get it.

Are We Headed Towards 1984?

If "That’s Racist!", is any indication, the answer is "yes".

For those not familiar, 1984 was the dystopian novel by George Orwell.  The modern media is playing the role of the Ministry of Truth and Propaganda.  The media is concocting the NewSpeak of our Time, and "racism" is one of their favorite words:
One character, Syme, says admiringly of the diminishing scope of the new language: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

Objective truth doesn't matter.  All power to the Soviet!  For your thoughtcrime of racism, you shall be punished!  Any evidence of the contrary of the latest party line is immediately flushed down the memory hole.  Notice the use of the words "thoughtcrime" and "memory hole".  That's because the fiction NewSpeak is now becoming fact.  What was once only in a novel is now becoming all too true in real life.  What the arbiters of right thinking according to our infallible and true thinking media have defined as "racism" is now the current definition, and any evidence that existed of the prior definition will be erased from all memory banks, thus it goes down the memory hole.

Once upon a time, the left accused the Republicans of taking us down the path of 1984.  Funny how the roles reversed once they got into power.  Who is more at fault for this ever increasing pace of government control of even our very thoughts?  It would seem to me that both parties are at fault, as both crave power, and this is why we need the Tea Party.  But the Tea Party is racist, don't you know.  The media says so, so it must be true.  To align yourself with the Tea Party makes you guilty of that seditious thoughtcrime and you will be punished for your transgression.  Doesn't matter that the left was once out of power, their acts were not thoughtcrimes then, but the memory of that has been flushed down the memory hole, and what matters is only the here and now.

Just saying, for anyone who has an ear, let him hear.  Look where we are going.  Do you like what you see?

Kotkin: The Unseen Class War That Could Decide The Presidential Election  via Free Republic

  • there’s justifiable anger at the impoverishment of much of the middle and working classes
  • Blaming a disliked minority — rich business folks — has morphed into a predictable strategy for President Obama’s Democrats, stripped of incumbent success
  • The “one percent” are splitting their bets. In 2008 President Obama received more Wall Street money than any candidate in history, and he still relies on Wall Street bundlers for his sustenance. [corrupt bargain! Well-connected people like...Steven Rattner, who is also known as a vigorous defender of “too big to fail"]
  • Obama’s core middle-class support, and that of his party, comes from what might be best described as “the clerisy,” a 21st century version of France’s pre-revolution First Estate.[ apparatchiks!]
  • The Republicans have turned increasingly to those patricians who depend on the more tangible economy....In contrast, Democratic-leaning industries, such as Internet-related companies, enjoy relatively high public support[ the intangible can slip from your fingers, the tangible is easier to hang on to--- this is a mistake-- talk about "false consciousness"!]
  • “Labor” increasingly means not guys with overalls and lunch pails, but people whose paychecks are signed by taxpayers.[ labor is not your servant anymore, but your master]
  • Ultimately this division — clerisy and their clients versus yeomanry — will decide the election.   The Democrats enjoy a tactical advantage....Romney’s imperative will be to rouse the yeomanry by suggesting the clerisy, both by their sheer costliness and increasingly intrusive agenda, are crippling their family’s prospects for a better life.
Being right isn't enough.  But what will be?  I think it is incumbent to point out two things, as I did above:
  1. The intangible, while important, is still intangible, and therefore very hard to hang on to.  You need more than the intangible assets alone.
  2. You need a moral basis for social harmony.  The left is corrupt as their "too big to fail" philosophy demonstrates.  If this becomes a master-slave relationship between the people and the government, this will lead to social discord and ultimately, social upheaval.  This is not a stable situation.  This is a false consciousness promoted by the left which will spell the doom for stability in this society.

The left likes to talk about "false-consciousness", but what is it about the left that is ever been true?  The left doesn't value truth, but denies it.  If you have respect for the truth, you cannot be on the left.  A "house divided against itself cannot stand".

Thursday, August 30, 2012


Good reviews of her speech at the Republican Convention.

"You can come from humble circumstances and do great things. doesn't matter where you came from, but where you are going."

Raw Video: Condoleezza Rice's speech at the RNC

Group Proceeds With 2-Hour Islamic ‘Jumah’ Prayers ‘at the DNC’ (And You Won‘t Believe Who’s Invited)


Wahhaj elaborated, according to bestselling author Brigitte Gabriel, to say: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

He continued: “Take my word. If 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”
So, the Democrats are lining up with these guys?

Not surprising.

When It Comes to ‘Brazen Lies,’br / Nobody Excels Joan Walsh

When It Comes to ‘Brazen Lies,’br / Nobody Excels Joan Walsh

There needs to be a law!

Maybe a Truth in Media law.  A fact checking government entity that will expose and expunge all dishonesty from the public discourse.  ( snicker, snicker )

You know the lies are coming in by the barrel with all the claims about lies.

Seriously, the bias is real, as the article points out that the ratio of liberal reporters to conservative is probably close to 10 to 1.

Comic relief

That Hillary part was hilarious. I could use a laugh right now.

Conservative voters, are you bluffing or for real?

George Will |

  • Twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservative as liberal. Nov. 6 we will know if they mean it. 
  • Before Franklin Roosevelt, “liberal” described policies emphasizing liberty and individual rights. He pioneered the politics of collective rights — of group entitlements. And his liberalism developed policies not just to buy the allegiance of existing groups but to create groups that would be dependent on government.[emphasis added]
  • Republicans also practice clientelism, but with a (sometimes) uneasy conscience. Both parties have narrowed their appeals as they have broadened their search for clients to cosset. Today’s Democratic Party does not understand what one of its saints understood — that big government is generally a patron of the privileged, a partner of rent-seekers.[ emphasis added]

Yes, an entire ruling class---both parties--- devoted to the practice of the self-seeking, rent-seeking apparatchiks.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Barnhardt: Balkanization of Former U.S. Territory? Disaster.


This struck me as I was thinking the same damned thing--- that the USA could divide itself into various parts and Balkanize itself.

After reading it, I am persuaded that such an idea should not be attempted.  Frankly, I wouldn't mind waving good by to these Marxists bastards, but the scenario she outlined looked like a serious possibility once they inevitably get into trouble.  Unfortunately, I don't see any real opposition that would emerge that would counter a Marxist takeover.  There are too many RINOS.

On the other hand, I am not persuaded that Obama and Romney are equally bad-- in this respect.

But, I am also not sure that the Republicans really intend to shrink the government down to a more manageable size.  There are too many of them that like the power that this gives them over the citizenry.  That's what the Tea Party is for.  To weed out these RINOS.

It may come down to the fundamental state of mind that exists in this country--- do the people intend to remain free, or they willing to trade their freedom for the shackles of socialism.  Time will answer that question.

How Mitt Romney Can Strip President Obama Of His Teflon Coating

To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you are not allowed to criticize. - Voltaire

Categorical preemption also prevents radical honesty. It disallows speech that is necessary to learning and comprehension. Mitt Romney does not have to be evil for opposing the undoing of welfare reform legislation by executive order. All that requires is a fairly rigorous reading of the US Constitituion and a basic understanding of what Democratic Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan described as “the defining-down of deviancy.” This defining-down, like the “soft bigotry of low expectations” that dwells in synonymy therewith, is a problem that saps and will eventually kill America the way lung-cancer kills the nicotine addict. Mitt Romney doesn’t have to be “mean”, “divisive”, “uncaring” or even egregiously “White-acting.” Yet he does need to tell America a series of hard truths about the road we are all on. He needs to ignore all the flacks and the flunkies who try to preemptively brand him a racist as he speaks out on behalf of his vision for the future.

What we need is the truth.  What we are preventing from getting is the truth.  Somehow, the disinfecting qualities of truth needs to be allowed in so that the stench in our politics can be let out.

Dishonest reporting from NY Times

A sort-of correction from the NYTimes

It has taken more than three months, but the New York Times today published a sort-of correction of its erroneous description about the napalm attack in Vietnam in June 1972 that preceded the famous photograph of children terrified and wounded by the bombing.

If respect for truth matters in this election, something should be done about all the false reporting such as this.

The return of Obama's 'body man' (Is Obama gay?)

First Republic

As for Obama being gay, I never thought of it, nor gave it much importance.  It just seemed like one of those vicious type of rumors that get bandied about.  But then, you read this stuff, and it seems to fit a pattern of hiding the truth.  Yes, Obama is hiding a good many things, and one of those things could be something like this.

You get that, and then you get Obama demanding that Romney release some of his tax records while accusing him of hiding something.  I think that is rather foolish if Obama is hiding something himself.  Romney can come back with a counter accusation and how can Obama reply to that?

I think the fact that Obama wants to make the accusation makes this kind of accusation fair game.  What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander as the saying goes.  But it won't be treated that way by the media.  But what fool actually believes the media anymore anyway?  Who cares what the media says?   Put the pedal to the metal and let it rip.  The thing that may win is the truth and the country needs the truth these days.

Iran: They’re Not Kidding

Iran: They’re Not Kidding

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

I wouldn't credit Obama as being a good man, though.

Regarding Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, President Obama stated in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March of this year that, “Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment.”

Why?  Does he want the world to be dominated by the fear of a nuclear holocaust?  What kind of man takes that attitude?

Movement to conceal the truth

  1. Don't let the UN steal the Internet--- Many politicians just don't like the internet.  Too much truth.  Time to shut it up.
  2. Robert Reich: How Romney Gets Away With So Many Lies--- Typical left-wing projection.  See #4.
  3. MSNBC protects their meme any way it can--- They'll cover your eyes and ears so you can't see what they don't want you see.
  4. Obama calls for full disclosure, almost--- If the media was truly unbiased, how does Obama get away with demanding disclosure from Romney when he won't do it himself?
  5. New York Times Editor: Ann Romney 'Slipped The Knife' Into President Obama--- Why such graphic language unless it is a partisan accusation?  This from the alleged "newspaper of record".
  6. Isaac Shows Media Bias Of Hurricane Proportions--- Why not?  Katrina worked so well for them.
  7. CNN Fact Check: Energy proposals [Laughable analysis claims Obama not trying to kill oil]--- Somebody needs to "factcheck" CNN!!!
Just to reiterate my opinion of the media--- They are worthless.  Better to not listen to them.  They are getting something for their biased reporting--- access to power is the most likely thing.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Avatar Review (Part 1 of 2)

Another entertaining review from whatshisface on some place called RedLetterMedia

and Part deuce...

Climate change alarmism rests on two hypotheses not supported by the evidence

One:  That most of the projected warming will come from feedback, not from the carbon dioxide itself.
Two:  That expected warming that isn't observed as of present time due to aerosols which are hiding the warming effects.

Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day

US officials are worried that if Greece exits the eurozone, it will damage President's election hopes

American officials are understood to be worried that if they decide Greece has not done enough to meet its deficit targets and withhold the money, it would automatically trigger Greece's exit from the eurozone weeks before the Presidential election on 6 November.

Wait until the election is over, then you can throw Greece under the bus.

That will solve Obama's problems, but I don't know who else will get anything out of it.

Sowell: Insurance is all about risk

thomas sowell

Insurance is all about risk. Yet neither insurance companies nor their policy-holders can do anything about one of the biggest risks — namely, interference by politicians, to turn insurance into something other than a device to deal with risk.
Too many political "solutions" are solutions to problems created by previous political "solutions" — and will be followed by new problems created by their current "solutions."
Health insurance would be a lot less expensive if it covered only the kinds of risks that can involve heavy costs, such as a major operation or a crippling disability. While such things can be individually very expensive, they don't happen to everybody, and insurance is one way to spread the risks, so that the protection of a given individual is not prohibitively expensive.

Once again, it is just common sense.  Just pay for your own stuff and use insurance to pay for those things that are not likely to strike everybody at once, and therefore can be met in a type of pool where risks are shared over a large number of people.

Next Big Future: Lunar Space Elevator Kickstarter is over $16,000 a...

Next Big Future: Lunar Space Elevator Kickstarter is over $16,000 a...: Lunar Space Elevator Kickstarter is over double its $8000 goal. The Lunar space elevator kickstarter is over $16,000 and still increasing. ...

This appears to be promising a lot. Maybe too much. The lunar part may be feasible, but you have to stay with the concept awhile until you get to that point. This project is starting out with some climber technology, and they apparently believe they can make this work on the moon.

I've looked into moonstalks before. The video below is not exactly what I had in mind, but it could be what was written about in the link shown in the previous sentence. The video doesn't mention what materials would be used for the climbing "ribbon". Nor the masses required and so forth. I suspect that this method may be oversimplified, but here it is all the same:


I may have jumped to conclusions. They aren't promising that much.  It looks reasonable after reading a bit more of it, but perhaps it is packaged a little too aggressively.  They will eventually need a lot of money to do this project, but according to the site, this is not their goal right now.  Okay, if that sounds confusing, you'll just have to read it yourself.

What is Iran doing?

That is, what is Iran doing with their pursuit of nuclear energy?  This presents Israel with a problem of what to do about it.

Based upon recent statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one may get the impression that Iran wants Israel to go away.  One means toward that end would be a nuclear strike upon the Jewish state.  Hence the development of nuclear energy, which could be a way towards making nuclear weapons of war:
...was embroiled in controversy regarding statements he made supporting Holocaust denial and for commenting that "the occupying regime" would, according to various translations, be eliminated, or "vanish from the pages of time." The New York Times reported this as a call for the destruction of the State of Israel when the phrase was translated as "wiped off the map" by Ahmadinejad's official website and Iranian state run media.[source: Wikipedia]

Iran has denied this, but are their denials credible, given their warlike proclamations?  How to assess their intentions?  From all appearances, their intentions are indeed warlike, and that leaves Israel with a serious problem.

Could the Iranians follow a different path that would show good intentions?  There could be another way forward with their nuclear program.  One that could lessen the risk of proliferation and weapons development.  This way could be towards a LFTR type reactor design.  These reactors do not use uranium directly, and it is not feasible nor practical to make bombs with them.  The design is not technically too difficult.  The technology was developed in the USA over 40 years ago.

In any case, the development of a reactor design which would allow the recovery of plutonium which could be used for bombs is the issue.  Perhaps there are reactor designs which would make this difficult, if not impossible, but that has yet to be demonstrated.  If it can't be demonstrated, it would leave Israel no choice but to attack-- or take the risk of a nuclear Iran.  It is up to Iran to show their peaceful intentions, but that doesn't appear to be the case at the moment.  If Iran is being misunderstood, whose responsibility is it to change this?  If you want to be understood as peaceful, you should conduct yourself that way.

So, what is Iran up to?  Are they forcing Israel to attack?  To bring about what result?

Let's say that Israel attacks.  Let's also say that they are successful in knocking out their nuclear facilities.  What comes next?  Iran would probably want to retaliate, but how would this retaliation take place and in what manner?  A tit-for-tat retaliation may mean a missile attack upon Israel.  But that is not likely to be successful.  Israel is too well-defended for that.  Iran must know that-- so why the provocation?  Is it to unite the Islamic world against Israel, so as to eliminate the Jewish state with a united military effort?  Iran may want to do an invasion, but they would have to go through some other countries before they could get to Israel.  This means a much wider war than just an missile exchange- tit-for-tat.  That seems unlikely.  Without a united effort, a move against Israel doesn't seem likely to be successful, so why provoke an attack for such limited purposes?

This leaves out a discussion of how Israel may take out the Iranian installations.  Let's assume for the sake of discussion that a way exists for Israel to do that and do it without the use of naval or land forces.  Then Iran's only response isn't likely to be successful unless it can lead to a broader effort to wipe out Israel on the ground.  An Israeli attack may unite the Islamic World, but to what end?  To what extent is that unity going to be useful for any purpose-- the Islamic World is already divided.   How would they unite behind Iran?  Are they willing to go to war with Iran as an ally?

It would seem to be a game of chicken, which is silly.  It seems much too silly to be taken seriously, yet this is what could be happening.  The Iranians may be deluding themselves into thinking that Israel doesn't have the will to do anything-- or the ability.  They also may be deluding themselves into thinking that the world will unite with them in wiping out Israel.  They may be provoking an attack that will only demonstrate their impotence in stopping it and their impotence in retaliating against the effects of it.  They may be provoking an attack which only demonstrates that they can make Israel defend themselves with a preemptive attack, while deluding themselves into believing that Israel can't nor won't be able to do this effectively.  Israel may behave in a manner consistent with a local saying that it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.  Or to put it another way, it is better to be judged alive than admired dead.

Iran may be provoking a war in which they have little to gain.  Also a war in which their adversary has everything to lose if they don't act.  To what end?  It makes little sense unless the whole exercise is to make Israel look bad on the world stage.  But if the matter is about Israel's survival, why should the Israelis care about that?  How does that help Iran?

Frankly, it doesn't make much sense.  Unless it is a big game of chicken.  If that is the case, the Iranian regime needs to grow up.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Review (Part 1 of 3)

Uploaded by favorites411 on Apr 24, 2011

Entertaining review, but beware the language. Lots of bad language, but I don't mind.
The narrator sounds drunk, though. Given the movie, and what he's reviewing, maybe he has a good excuse.

Part 2

Part 3

What is the Tea Party?

There is so much said about this that it would seem that the answer would be obvious.  The Samuel Jackson claim that the Tea Party is racist is a starting point, I suppose, into that aspect of the movement.  It appears that Jackson's claim is mostly about opposition to Obama.  Somehow, race has been thrust into the discussion, but a reading of a this Tea Party document reveals nothing about race.   The Tea Party Patriots endorsed that document, but the Democrats refused to sign it.  Not all Republicans endorsed the document either, but endorsed the Pledge for America instead.  Thus, the Tea Party is not what you would call a unanimous movement of either one of the parties, but the Tea Party does tend to follow conservative principles.

Who's in the Tea Party?

The Tea Party movement's membership includes notable Republican politicians Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, and Michele Bachmann. Joshua Green has said the elder Paul is not the Tea Party's founder, or its culturally resonant figure, but has become the "intellectual godfather" of the movement as many now agree with his long-held beliefs.  In July 2010, Michele Bachmann formed the Tea Party Congressional Caucus, which now contains 66 members .

 Ron Paul ran for President, his son Rand is in the Senate.  Sarah Palin was the Vice Presidential nominee in 2008.  Dick Armey was a former congressman from Texas.  Michelle Bachmann is a congresswoman from Minnesota who ran for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.   Yet none of these people clearly define what the Tea Party actually is, in terms of its leadership and principles, as far as I can determine.

If the principles are dedicated to the US Constitution, then the document mentioned above, The Contract From America, adheres to this fairly closely, in my opinion.  But this is not what you'd call a founding document, nor a party platform to run on in an election.  It doesn't have universal support for that, although the Republican Party tends to follow it loosely, but there's plenty of opposition to it.

Here's a list of Tea Party politicians.   Some of these names are questionable, in my opinion.  In the recent run off election, Ted Cruz v. David Dewhurst, this list shows both as being Tea Partiers.  But the Dewhurst claim is not believable.

As best as I can tell, the Tea Party is not well defined, neither in terms of its leadership, nor its organization, nor its principles.  It is a loose amalgamation of various personalities with generally small government ideas.  It not organized according to race, nor racial doctrines.  There is no clear leader amongst the group.  If anything unites it, it may well be the strong opposition to President Obama, and his signature legislative achievement, known colloquially as ObamaCare.


A significant omission was a discussion about foreign policy.

My own impression would be that they should follow the principles of Ronald Reagan in terms of committing US forces overseas.  Reagan tended to avoid large commitments and entanglements.  His general approach was peace through strength.  The Tea Party should avoid Bush-like neo-Conservative policies which have cost the nation dearly and divided the nation bitterly.

The Tea Party positions on these issues are not well-defined as they are on domestic issues.

Walter Russell Mead has an article discussing the Tea Party on this subject.  But you have to be a subscriber to read all of it, and I'm not.  The first part is published, though, and it is too general to offer an opinion.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Most Daring - ser.7 ep.7

Uploaded by 3bepko on Aug 29, 2011

MOST DARING is the ultimate adrenaline rush show, featuring the most heat-stopping, teeth grinding, gut busting moments ever caught on tape. Whether it's death defying clips, outrageous behavior or spell binding stories tune in to see how ordinary people tackle extraordinary situations.

Scientists find liberal gene

free republic

As I've come to expect, a liberal commenter says liberals are smarter than conservatives.  Is there a way to gauge this empirically?   Perhaps one way would be to observe how well each does in political campaigns.

Republicans have won 5 out the last 8 Presidential elections.  So much for liberal superiority complexes.

For one particular example, consider Ronald Reagan.  I would put forth the idea that most Republicans and Democrats for that matter, do not understand why Reagan was as successful as he was.  I was old enough to vote for or against him, and voted against.  It was very easy to underestimate Reagan.  Intelligence is a subtle thing, not so obvious to discern.  The conventional wisdom at the time was Reagan was an "amiable dunce".  But not so.  Reagan was very wise not to call himself "right wing".  There is a strong bias against "right wing" politics, so any politicians that aligns himself in such a way has beaten himself before he even starts.  Reagan didn't do that.  Another problem amongst the conservatives is the tendency to divide themselves.  Reagan had a rule-- thou shalt not criticize other Republicans in public.  Another example of his wisdom--which is something that the Republicans need to remember.  A third thing to remember is that even though Republicans favor military strength, they are all-too-often, all-too-willing to use it.  Reagan was very judicious in how he used the military.  The two Bush presidencies were not so judicious, and wound up dividing themselves and the country in so doing.

It is a fine line in appearing weak and coming on too strong.  Clinton was able to walk that line.  Maybe not so much with Obama, but the jury is still out.  Bush, on the other hand, came on too strong.  Reagan was like the Goldilocks and Three Bears, just right.

It is not so useful, I think, to look only at the ideologies.  You need to look at the person.  Reagan was better than the two Bushes, Clinton was also better, but probably not as good as Reagan.  Obama may be more like Carter, who was the least of them all, in my opinion.  Ideologies didn't have that much to do with any of it.  It mattered more in how they conducted themselves while in office.  Clinton would have done much better if he was more truthful and kept his zipper up.  Reagan was getting a little old, but his judgment as still superior to Bush or Clinton.  Obama may appear strong in foreign policy, but that may be an illusion.  Trouble signs are mounting. He is failing badly in economics--- foreign policy requires strength, and a weak economy makes a weak hand.

Romney seeks to unseat Obama.  One advantage Romney brings to the table is a record of competence.  It doesn't help Obama when he doesn't appear to have a grasp of the problems that face the nation.  In a mano y mano matchup, it will become apparent who will be the better master.  I'd bet on the guy who has a record of success versus a guy who doesn't.  The ideology won't matter for people who are looking for leadership and signs of competence and strength.  Obama doesn't project that at the moment--- Romney has an edge.

THORIUM Molten-Salt Reactor [LFTR] - The Future of Energy

Update #23 · Aug. 23, 2012

Kim Johnson - Last TEAC4 Lecture

Kim discusses how to use this type of chemistry to improve various valuable mining processes in order to produce hydrogen from oil sands, amongst other things.

He calls it molten salt science-- or Ms Sci