Saturday, December 22, 2012

No link of video games to violence

Well worth watching. Found this on

Passivity may end war, but it has an unpleasant side-effect

The left won't be satisfied until we become like the passive Eloi, who get eaten by the Morlocks.


This business about pushing society into becoming like the Eloi isn't just rhetoric.  The right of self-defense was originally English Common law, but now, if you live in the UK, you can't defend yourself legally.

An opinion on gun control

larrycorreia  via Ace of Spades
Larry Correia is the New York Times bestselling author of the Monster Hunter International series, the Grimnoir Chronicles, and the thriller Dead Six. My next novel, Monster Hunter Legion, will be available September 2012. All of my books are available in eBook format, but currently only from's webscriptions. (cheap and DRM free!) Audio versions of most of my books are available from  ....I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.

"Gun Control: A Discussion, Not A Lecture."   Like the one posted about previously.

Next Big Future: Progress on the Vortex Rocket Engine

Next Big Future: Progress on the Vortex Rocket Engine: Orbitec has flown a radical new engine technology that promises to cut the size, weight and therefore the cost of putting a rocket – and pay...


The idea is to make a rocket engine that is reusable.  Even maintenance free.  According to the article, it is at technical readiness level 6.  That means its nearly ready.

Piers Morgan, all-American European

There is this tendency amongst those on the left to want to emulate Europe. This is also combined with this overweening superior attitude amongst those like this guy for the European way of doing things. But the worst mass shooting in recent years has been in Europe, not America. Yet, you didn't hear that overweening attitude being displayed toward Europe in the aftermath of that mass murder.

Morgan doesn't address Pratt's arguments. He just ignores them or insults him. Then he recites the statistics. This ignores all history. After all, Americans came here in order to practice religious freedom, which wasn't the case in Europe at that time, or is the case at this time. For example, if gay weddings are required to be performed in a church, there can be no freedom of religion there. It is against Christian teaching. Therefore, no religious liberty. Europe doesn't have the liberty we have, why should we emulate them? We disavow our history if we do that.

Not only does it ignore American history, it ignores European history. After all, how did Europe get where it is today? From wars and dictatorships. Now we are to believe that they are the fountains of enlightenment that we must emulate.

Americans on the left are embarrassed at their own country. If they like Europe so much more, why don't they leave? Why is Morgan pontificating to us instead of his fellow Europeans? Why should we be listening to their lectures?

Big policy changes, little information in advance

It is hard to get basic facts about the Newton school massacre.  Perhaps one should have watched all of the coverage at the time.  However, there does not appear to be much there afterward.

What are the basic facts?  Can you piece together a minute-by-minute narrative of events of the massacre from what is being reported?

The most basic fact of all is how did this guy get access to the school?  It has been reported that he forced his way in.  He may have used his weapons to do this.  But how did he use his weapons?

Did he bust a window?  Did he shoot through a door?  How did he do it?  How did he get on the scene? Did he drive through an access gate?  Was there a guard anywhere on the site?

Now, I do deliveries.  Some of those deliveries are to schools.  A couple of them have walled gates, which require anybody to wishing to enter to pass through security.  Simple arrangement.  Nobody gets in without having to pass through a security checkpoint.  Did Sandy Hook have anything like this?  If not, why not?

Lots of places besides schools have layers of security.  You go through one layer and then another.

If there were layers, and the bad guy gets by one, then he must get by another before he gains full access.

The time taken to get by a multi-layered security scheme would allow an evacuation plan to proceed in such a case as Sandy Hook.  If all else fails, lots of people could just get away or into secured zones.

I suppose all of these are simple questions from a simple mind.  Surely, we must do away with all of our civil liberties just because some folks think that they can ignore security procedures even though there has been a history of mass shootings at schools.  Only sophisticated people, such as those in the press, are capable of telling us what we should think on the basis of their deep and probing analytical coverage of the facts of the case. /sarc

In order for gun-control to stop one of these type incidents, a complete gun confiscation plan has to be implemented.  Otherwise, some guns will remain which can be used in another event just like this one.  For each proposal, please state why it would stop this type of event.  How can you assure that this will remove all guns from all possible places?  The only way that is sure to work would be a draconian suspension of civil liberties combined with a house-to-house gun confiscation policy.  Are you willing to surrender all of your civil liberties for this?

Before any policy changes are to be put into place, there should be a complete and full account of everything that happened and what could have done to stop it.  If confiscating all guns is the only solution, those who advocate it should be prepared to show why it is necessary.  For any policy change, those advocating should show why it would be effective in preventing any recurrence of such events in the future.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Control freak doing her thing

Nurse Ratched kills that kid with her words.

So many flags are at half staff- why?

While driving about, I noticed so many flags at half staff.  What gives?

Something similar happened after 9-11, when so many people put old glory on their cars.  The left at that time lamented the "patriotism run amok".  I suppose this must be the left's answer to that- grief run amok.  Anytime there's a tragedy to exploit, we are encouraged to join in the spirit of victimized outrage.


Parker: Mass Murderers: Blame 1960s Deinstitutionalization


While reading a Daniel Greenfield piece on gun control and whether we are individuals capable of making our own decisions I noticed a piece he did about the rise of mentally ill mass murders which, in turn, led to a piece by Clayton Cramer about how the rise of mass murderers is at least partially a result of letting the mentally ill out of mental hospitals.


Of course, the obvious factor like this is overlooked in the mad dash to deprive the population of its civil liberties.  This from people who swear up and down how much they support civil liberties.

Underneath the skin of their caring and harmless looking facade ( Michael Moore ) beats the heart of a tyrant.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

We need golden eagle control (video)

Golden Eagle almost eats kid.  Not a bald eagle, thank goodness.

Darned eagles are a menace!!! We must control them for the children and the national debt!!! If you aren't against eagle control, you are a murderer!!! Do you hear me? Murderer!!!


Hmm.  This reminds me of something.  Abortion kills a lot of babies, doesn't it?

Where Do We Go From Here? [Warden]

Ace of Spades blog

Consuming things that you know will upset you doesn’t help. Log off Facebook and get away from all that trivial bullshit. Shut off the shouty cable political talk shows. Stop arguing on blogs with people who don’t get it. You’re letting a bunch of losers drag you down to their level.

That includes this place. As soon as it stops being fun, take a break.

You have more hours in the day than you think. You just need to break your negative feedback loop and re-focus.[ emphasis added]

Yeah.  Don't get into a rassling match with a pig.  You only get muddy, and besides, the pig likes it.


Try this one.  Don't let the liberal zombies eat your brain.

Professor calls for assassination of NRA CEO


The professor contended Democratic lawmakers should exploit the tragedy to force more restrictive gun control measures into law.

“You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy,” Loomis tweeted. “[F]uck the NRA.”


Lovely.  Such peaceable, kind-hearted and nice people they are.  Why would anybody even think of "hating" them? /sarc

Remember Krugman's Climate of Hate?

Why is it that liberals spew such hatred and then have the audacity to demand that others stop "hating" them?

Conservatives Rationalize as America Circles the Drain

American Thinker

A process is in motion, a disease besets us, and if you understand its pathology, you know that no amount of Hispandering or appeals to virtue (e.g., personal responsibility) with an electorate largely lacking in the quality will bear fruit. The remaining healthy acorns need to recognize this, stop trying to fertilize a tree destined for the sawmill, and instead prepare to seed new ground

Whew!  "Seed new ground?" ---Whatever does that mean?

Not that I disagree.  But how do you seed new ground and where?  This quote is at the very end of the piece, so there's no hint of what is meant by that phrase.

Let me fill in the blank.  For America as we know it is dying, we need to find a new America.  This would be a place to start anew.  You'd make a new society in a new world, as was done in the past.  What new world would that be?

Elon Musk wants to go to Mars.  I think he will get there.  He wants to take 80k people with him.  Among those 80k could be settlers for a new world where there could be freedom again.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Ann Coulter - December 19, 2012 - WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

Ann Coulter - December 19, 2012 - WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

For once, some sanity has issued forth.

Come and take it

The link above sports the come and take it flag, which can be purchased on Ebay.  The link above also tells the story about the battle.

It should be noted that one of the first thing that a rising tyrant does is to disarm his citizens.  Santa Ana did it.  Hitler did it.  They all do it.  The reasons should be obvious.

Trivia, and some other nonsense, but wtf?

Do you want to know where the nickname "Boner" came from?  Too obvious?

The thought for this post comes from Speaker Boehner's name itself.  His name looks like Boner and he acts like a Boner.  Why do anything at all about the "fiscal cliff"?  The fiscal cliff was a Boner itself since they put it in there.  It was solution for the debt ceiling problem in 2011.  Now it's a problem that once was a solution.  That "solution" was Speaker Boner's boner.  It calls for yet another Boner which will become a "problem" at some point in the future.

Another trivia item--- did you know the five biggest mass shootings in history?  Only one of these was in America.

By the way, the only way to stop mass shootings is to confiscate every single gun in the country.  Do you really want to do that?  I mean if you do that, according to Michael Moore, you still have a country full of killers.  It's in our DNA, he says.  I guess he means kill everybody.  That's the only way you get rid of that bad old DNA we got.   Did Moore commit a Boner by this Freudian slip?  I mean to say, what exactly did he mean by that?

Maybe the world is coming to an end after all.

Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life here.  Couldn't resist the phrase.  Sorry.  Everybody is entitled to at least one Boner.

EXCLUSIVE: Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap via Free Republic


A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza's anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.


It is curious to me that the leftist media is jumping all over this shooting and calling for more gun control, yet told Romney to hold up on his criticism of the Administration with respect to Benghazi.  Where's their call for restraint now until more facts are known?  What if this shooter had a clear cut motive like this and it can be proven?

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Michael Moore hates America

This is not a polemic exercise.  This guy really hates his own country.

Here's some quotes from a speech he made hours after the mass shooting in Connecticut

  • I really believe that even if we had better gun control laws and better mental health, that we would still be the sort of sick and twisted, violent people that we've been for hundreds of years," Moore said. "And to get that out of our DNA is going to take a lot more than passing a bill in Albany or D.C. That's not going to do it."[ emphasis added]
  • 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people,' because that's what we do.
  • when you make sure that 50 million people don't have health insurance in your country and that, according to the congressional study that was done, 44,000 people a year die in America for the simple reason that they don't have health insurance, that's a form of murder.[ comment:  murder?!]
  • frankly, as an American, this is not how I want to be remembered."

If he really felt the way he says he feels, he wouldn't want to be an American.  This is all a phony front to play up to the emotions of the event.

I could understand it if this was Nazi Germany and there was an ongoing extermination of an entire group of people.  In such a case like that, I may want to disown my country.  There has been nobody in our history like Adolf Hitler.  That's not meant to knock Germany, but this country isn't the monster that Moore is making us out to be.

He points out that we are in several wars right now.  Yeah?  How did those wars start?  You can question why we are there, but to call the whole country a nation of killers because of this is over the top.

He points out that nobody died when a crazy man in China attacked kids with a knife.  So?  Does that mean he admires China and wants to emigrate there?  How many innocent people died in Maoist China because of their political purges during that time?  How many in Stalinist Russia?  You can go on and on.

Where are people emigrating to--- China or the United States?

Actually, there are a lot of us in this country who like this country to improve conditions here.  It may be better if those who think like Moore would just leave since they obviously hate this country.  It would make the job go a lot easier.   We don't need this kind of self-hatred.  He's not helpful, he's just hateful.

Bushmen tribe ( repost from January 26, 2011)

Note:  I am reposting this as a suggestion in how to handle wayward boys.  These are the kind of boys that need the kind of attention that the Bushmen used with great effect amongst themselves.  A kid who threatens others and himself is using those threats as a way of being manipulative.  He becomes arrogant, I suspect, because he learns how to control others.  He becomes more and more dangerous the longer he is not confronted with his natural born aggressiveness.

Anyway, the original post below:

Bushmen tribe

In connection with current events, in particular this business about "vitriolic" speech, let's take a look at one of the practices of the Bushmen tribe of Africa. I mention this tribe because something about one of their practices struck me and has remained with me for over 30 years now since I first read about it in an Anthropology textbook. It was the Bushmen's attitude toward arrogance and how dangerous it can be to the safety of the group.

Briefly, the story went like this: an anthropologist studying the Bushmen decided to buy an animal which was to be slaughtered for a feast for this small group. Instead of being grateful and praising the quality of the animal he bought for them, they kept saying how rotten it was. The man didn't get upset, but he did get curious and finally asked why they kept downgrading his gift even when they had to know it was of the best quality available. The answer was "arrogance". To the Bushmen, someone who is arrogant is dangerous. He can endanger others in the group, and so this problem has to be dealt with aggressively. So they tear down a person's sense of superiority, as the Bushmen are very egalitarian. In the words that I remember, the man explaining says it cools his heart and makes him more gentle. The Bushmen are relentless in cutting you down to size. They won't put up with swelled heads.

Now let's look at this complaint about "vitriolic" speech. What's so bad about criticism even if it is unjust. The Bushmen didn't seem to worry about it so much. Actually, they seemed to profit from it. Our politicians can be even more dangerous than a wayward Bushman is to his tribe. The effects of arrogance can be much more serious in a nation which is among many other nations who possess nuclear weapons. A little vitriol from time to time can go a long way to cooling some swelled heads in Washington who get a little too sure of themselves.

Therefore any complaint about "vitriolic" speech should be looked upon with suspicion. If politicians only want to be praised and told how wonderful they are, that should be a red flag. This is why I don't watch State of the Union speeches. It seems that it is just one long self serving promotion of a politician and his supporters in Washington. It wasn't even the custom of the President to address Congress in person. Thomas Jefferson started the tradition of sending written messages to Congress rather than address the body publicly. He considered it too imperial in its implications. This complaint about vitriol in the public discourse is a troubling thing if it was intended to squelch dissent just before an imperial address before Congress.

It should be noted that the practice of the President addressing Congress in person ended with Woodrow Wilson. This was during the so called Progressive Era in American politics. It was also the same time that the income tax was adopted and the Federal Reserve was created. It was the time before two great wars and the beginning of the modern system of big government. Was this a good thing, this growth of government and the tendency toward an imperial Presidency?

Anarchist Soccer Mom: Thinking the Unthinkable

In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

Threats of violence against others or oneself are a big, red flag.

This is just one incident among many recounted in this mother's story.  Gun control does nothing to help her with the kind of problems she faces with her son.  Gun control talk is useless because it does not address the real problem, such as the one she faces.  She has to face it alone.  She gets no help.  The system won't help her.  Gun control won't help her.  It won't help us either.

Click on the link above for her full story.

Cui bono? ( Who benefits?)

That's what gets overlooked about these environmentalists and their opposition to anything that will actually work.  Who benefits?  Why the incumbent power producers, that's who.

Anyway, Energy From Thorium must be making advances, and so the campaign against it is heating up.

'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'
I'm tempted to label the above quote as The Big Lie.  The reason that they haven't been adopted is that they will work, and that fact is what threatens the incumbents.  Besides, Thorium has received virtually nothing in funding for the last forty years.  While Thorium reactors will be breeders, it is a different kind of breeder.  This is a willful conflation of significantly different concepts.

Here's another big whopper from the linked article above ( "Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option" ) :
But even were its commercial viability established, given 2010's soaring greenhouse gas levels, thorium is one magic bullet that is years off target. Those who support renewables say they will have come so far in cost and efficiency terms by the time the technology is perfected and upscaled that thorium reactors will already be uneconomic. Indeed, if renewables had a fraction of nuclear's current subsidies they could already be light years ahead.
Solyndra alone cost more than what Sorensen is asking for to making a prototype reactor.  Renewables will never be enough to power a modern society.  Talking about hype, there it is.

Another questionable statement---
even conventional nuclear reactors will not deliver what the world needs in terms of safe, affordable electricity

France gets a high percentage of its electricity from nuclear.  It can be done and has been done.  Thorium will do it even better.

Environmentalists are either unwittingly or willfully aiding and abetting the status quo.  Their ideas will never work and they will actively prevent any new ideas being implemented.  The result is benefits to the incumbent energy producers.  If one is inclined, one may suspect a conspiracy.

Norway Begins Four Year Test Of Thorium Nuclear Reactor


But is thorium really cheaper, cleaner and more efficient than uranium? And if so, do the added benefits really warrant the cost and effort to make the switch? Data is still pretty scarce, but at least one report is urging us to not believe the hype.

Hype?  Thorium is much more abundant than uranium.  That's not hype.

The piece doesn't mention molten salt reactors.  Those can work with uranium as well.  They are more efficient and cleaner than conventional reactors.  You don't have to get hung up on Thorium.  There was one design that didn't emphasize Thorium all that much, from what I can gather.

Thorium: Proliferation warnings on nuclear 'wonder-fuel'

"The problem is that the neutron irradiation of thorium-232 could take place in a small facility," Ashley said. "It could happen in a research reactor, of which there are about 500 worldwide, which may make it difficult to monitor."

But this has nothing to do with its use as a fuel.  Besides, this can be done anyway, regardless of its use as a fuel or not, and could have been done for decades now and we wouldn't know about it.  There's nothing new here.

What they are trying to say here is that anybody can make a nuke with thorium.  So, why haven't they?


The idea of a U233 bomb is absurd.  It is impossible to have a pure U233 because it simply can't happen.  Read this here.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Where’s Mitt?

Playing bean bag.

Where was this commentary when it mattered?  Back during the primaries, perhaps?

It's all well and good to comment on this, but it is a little bit late, and a little too little.  The article is good in that it says something which I suspect to be true--- that we are getting played for suckers.

The question now is, what's next?   Or keep committing the same mistakes and waiting too late to say---ooops?

Wrote to my Congressman

I said to break off the negotiations at once or else I leave the party.

I am just one guy.  Unless there are thousands or millions of such reactions, there will be a cave-in.

Do yourself a favor.  If you don't like what this party is doing, let your representative know about it.  Right now.

Can the Republican Party Remain Relevant

American Thinker 


  • John Boehner must go.
  • There is an option...The Speaker of the House does not have to be an elected member of the House...There is only one person in the Republican or conservative political sphere that has national name recognition, experience, stature, as well as the proven ability to deal with the media and a popular Democratic President while coordinating an effective messaging operation-- that is Newt Gingrich.
  • There is no question that during this period Newt's forceful and at times abrasive personality grated on many of his fellow Republicans; but in retrospect that is why things got done.

Yes, it sounds like a good idea.  But what are the chances of anything like this happening?

The Republican Party looks like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.  Bonehead looks like Neville Chamberlain v. Hitler at Munich.  Maybe there should be a breakup, or something to shake up this mess.


Here's Gingrich in an interview.  While I don't agree with everything he says, he does say some common sense things like you should get Obama's respect first.  Does anybody have any common sense anymore?

Democrats scare me more than the madmen shooters

There's Obama on television again.  Who knows what he said, and frankly I don't care.

Demands for guns are over the top.  This event in Connecticut had nothing to do with the Second Amendment.  Predators will be predators.  To stop predators, you have to have force.  The force belongs in the hands of the people at the scene.  It doesn't belong in Washington DC.  The failure was with the people at the scene.  Let them handle their own domestic security problems.  It is not a national problem.  There's no reason for Obama to be trying to take this over.

The question now is this: do the Republicans actually intend to oppose this rising dictator?

Those in Congress don't seem to want to.  Bonehead appears all to ready to give in.

What's this country coming to?

Sunday, December 16, 2012

At least that's what it looks like to me

Source: Obama has chosen John Kerry  Count Chocula as Secretary of State

President Barack Obama has chosen Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to be the next secretary of state, a source has told Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed.

Senator Franken Berry wasn't available for comment


"I Live With A Son Who Is Mentally Ill. I Love My Son. But He Terrifies Me "

Ace of Spades


This is just another Gabby Giffords episode.  The left will try to exploit it for political gain.

From the political standpoint, we need better arguments to counter this ideological attack.  This article is the step in the right direction.

Furthermore, in some of these cases, from what I can gather, the entire situation could have been mitigated or even eliminated with some simple steps that weren't taken.  But when this type of tragedy finally happens, the first thing we hear is the ideological call for gun control.  Or how it is the result of something that is somehow the political right's fault.

Those of us who support our traditional forms of governance are under increasing assault.  We need to do better in the increasing need to protect our way of life from this ideological and cultural assault.   Besides, as I have mentioned again and again, ideology can make you stupid.  Our reactions to these tragedies tend towards stupidity because the first thing out of someone's mouth all too often is some stupid ideological argument.

Why do conservatives play the liberal's game?

Here's a few examples of that.  No doubt there are many more.
  1. The "fiscal cliff".  The so-called cliff is a Keynesian notion that government spending is required to keep the economy afloat.  I would put forth the possibility that there will be no recession regardless of whether or not we go over the cliff.  The other part of the "cliff" is the looming tax rate hikes.  Who cares?  The new rates will be the old rates under Clinton.  If Clinton was so great, what's wrong with his rates?  If Bush was so bad, why do we need his rates?  As for the middle class tax cuts, well, that's letting Obama get away with playing one group off against the other---  aka class warfare.  Bush got his tax cuts by emphasizing that tax cuts are for everybody.  So tax increases should be for everybody- don't play their game.  All the tax increases do is to put us back to the rates when Clinton was President.
  2. Gun control.  Yeah, I've been silent about the shootings recently.  Why?  Because the media has been silent on Benghazi.  Let your silence speak volumes about their silence on Benghazi.  Besides, why should we allow the left to take away our only means of self-defense?  Especially since this president refused to help his own ambassador.  I wouldn't give the government the monopoly on defending us when that monopoly can lead to outcomes like Benghazi.  What if an official allows someone to be murdered who is an inconvenient person to them?  ( like Obama did) Don't give them that power.  Never.  No matter how much pressure they bring to bear.  Don't play that game.
  3. The race issue.  Republicans should represent the people who vote for them.  If few of them aren't white, who cares?  The Democrats are anti-white.  Not only are they playing the class warfare card, they play the race card.  Why let them get away with that?  What's wrong with representing whites if the left insists upon being anti-white?  The conservatives have this great fear of being labeled racist.  But the left is racist.  Why not call them on it?

Getting rocket fuel into orbital space depots

Speculation alert
MAB post 11

John Powell of JP Aerospace wants to get up to orbit with an airship.  John Hunter wants to use an air gun to get fuel up to orbit.  Now, this may be a crazy concept, but here goes.  Combine the two by sending 100 lb payloads to orbit from JP Aerospace's Dark Sky Station.

Hunter says he can do 10 shots per day.  That would be a 1000 lbs per day.  After a month, you have a respectable amount of fuel in orbit.

Another purpose for using the Dark Sky Station this way is to avoid the energy loss of going through the lower atmosphere at high velocity.  This enables a smaller gun to do a bigger job.

As I noted earlier, you can't put a gas gun on a plane.  You can't even put a gas gun on an Ascender.  But you can assemble one in a Dark Sky Station because the Station is frickin' huge.

Getting the gun there is only half the problem, though.  Maybe the easier half.  The other half is what to do about the recoil of the gas gun?  It will be too much for the Dark Sky Station to handle.

One thing that could be considered is to capture the energy of the recoil and use it to make work.  That work will act as the buffer that will soften the recoil of the gas gun.

How to do that? The old 64K dollar question.

You could use the energy to spin up one or more flywheels.  A flywheel with enough mass and capability to spin at great velocity.


As long as this is a speculative post, let's use the MAB concept in concert with this concept.  The MAB would take it to orbit.  The Hunter gas gun would give it a boost to 1/2 orbital velocity.  The total wet mass calculated assuming 20% payload fraction ( Parkins assumption) gives us a vehicle of under 1k lbs.

Wet mass for 100 lb payload launched from DSS/MAB assuming 20% mass fraction (MAB module)

What to do about that recoil?  Use the Airship to Orbit module launched from the Dark Sky Station for your launch pad.  Point it in the direction so that the recoil forces the Airship down.  The buoyancy of the Airship will force it to come back up.  You could also dampen the recoil a bit as described above.

The gas gun would have a smaller payload than what Hunter is talking about.  But the extra mass brings it back up to full size.  That's much too big again.  So, we pare down the size of the gas gun by making it less ambitious.  It will only go 1/2 orbital velocity.  A conventional rocket will take it to orbital velocity from there.

Still worried about the recoil.

Stream of consciousness post

The idea for this post came after making some notes and observing the stream of consciousness aspect of it all.

It all started yesterday when I couldn't think up anything to write. I started watching movies, free movies on the web. What I watched is unimportant here, just putting things in chronological order.  ( Later note: it was World War II).

I woke up this morning in a suspicious mood.  I started thinking about Romney.

Romney is suspicious for bean bagging the Benghazi thing. He looks like a rich stooge that gave the impression of opposition, but delivered no real opposition at all. This segued into a thought about conspiratorial type thinking. The thought that I could agree with a conspiracy---if provable--- led me to think of one that I do believe:  The conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid, by Donald Luskin.

I figured I gotta to buy his book.  But wait. ( I'm good at that, if you haven't noticed already).

I'm missing something. Going back into my own investing history, I remembered I did something like Luskin.  I invested in JDS Uniphase.   But I did it at the wrong time.  The thing I was missing there was the inverted yield curve and the coming recession in 2001.  I remembered that lesson in 2007 when the credit markets froze as the yield curve had been inverted for a year.  A recession was likely, so when the credit markets froze, that was my signal to get the hell out of Dodge.

So I got out of my long position, went short and made some money. I also bought gold. Gold did well and I made some money there, too.

The thought occurred to me that the thing I am missing is that I'm giving too much credit to others for having a brain.

But wait.  Maybe I'm missing the deleveraging. The deleveraging was said to be undeniable--- that means it was going to happen  regardless of what anybody said or done, it was going to happen anyway.  Yes, and it is happening as I write this. We are still deleveraging.

I learned about leveraging when I traded currencies. You borrowed on a 100 to 1 basis. That means a thousand bucks of your own money controlled 100 thousand bucks.  Now, that's what you call leverage.  As a consequence, there was a chance to make big money, but also to lose your ass fast.  Unfortunately for me, I lost my ass fast.

So, I segued into the general case from my own specific case.  Leverage is bad. The problem with our economy is too much leverage.  If we continue to deleverage towards the complete job, we will be okay.

If we releverage, we will be screwed again. It may seem fine for awhile, but if we releverage, we will fail again.

So, what's the problem with leverage? The same problem I had. The chance to make big money exists with leverage, but the risk of losing big money fast is even greater than any possible reward.  It turns the markets into a casino.  In a casino, only the house wins.

Got that?  The house wins because it is a conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid.