I was wondering if this process would work with methane gas. The goal would be to cause the carbon to precipitate out leaving hydrogen gas.
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.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Israel to land unmanned craft on moon
It will hitch a ride on a commercial rocket and then fly on to moon and land. It will weigh only 330 pounds. Most likely, the propulsion system to get there will be an ion system. If it is successful, they will win the Lunar X prize.
Thermal decomposition of methane using a LFTR?
Last night, I posted a pdf file that described the use of concentrated solar power to strip away carbon from methane, which leaves hydrogen.
The weakness in that approach is the use of solar energy. It isn't reliable.
Now, if you were to use a LFTR to split methane instead of water, the hydrogen should be cheaper. That's my guess at the moment. I don't know exactly.
Anyway, with the hydrogen, you can make ammonia, and ship it to the final distribution point. From that point, it is put into final form as cryogenic hydrogen and sold to the end user. Preferably, the costs should be low enough in order to make a decent profit.
Who would buy it? I'm thinking owners of fuel cell vehicles. Not only that, but owners of really economical fuel cell vehicles. If you were to modify the Urbee vehicle to use hydrogen, the cost per mile could be brought down to reasonable levels even if the final price is 9 bucks per kilogram.
There's the two stumbling blocks, though. One, to get LFTRs built. Two, to get Urbees built.
These two techs could be killer apps, but they need backing. Here's the big chance for the climate changers to prove that they aren't just a lot of hot air.
The fuel cells already exist and can be mass produced for a reasonable price. I've been over that several times.
There's no stumbling block here but money and government red tape. Ooops! Don't want to underestimate the red tape. If you get rid of the red tape, you may get the money.
Update:
I've run some numbers and they work. You can make money doing this, but you need to get past those stumbling blocks.
The weakness in that approach is the use of solar energy. It isn't reliable.
Now, if you were to use a LFTR to split methane instead of water, the hydrogen should be cheaper. That's my guess at the moment. I don't know exactly.
Anyway, with the hydrogen, you can make ammonia, and ship it to the final distribution point. From that point, it is put into final form as cryogenic hydrogen and sold to the end user. Preferably, the costs should be low enough in order to make a decent profit.
Who would buy it? I'm thinking owners of fuel cell vehicles. Not only that, but owners of really economical fuel cell vehicles. If you were to modify the Urbee vehicle to use hydrogen, the cost per mile could be brought down to reasonable levels even if the final price is 9 bucks per kilogram.
There's the two stumbling blocks, though. One, to get LFTRs built. Two, to get Urbees built.
These two techs could be killer apps, but they need backing. Here's the big chance for the climate changers to prove that they aren't just a lot of hot air.
The fuel cells already exist and can be mass produced for a reasonable price. I've been over that several times.
There's no stumbling block here but money and government red tape. Ooops! Don't want to underestimate the red tape. If you get rid of the red tape, you may get the money.
Update:
I've run some numbers and they work. You can make money doing this, but you need to get past those stumbling blocks.
Blog: What the media isn't telling you about that ice-bound ship
American Thinker
What they aren't telling you is that the ice wasn't there a 100 years ago and that there is a video of it. This is in contradiction to the alarmism of the climate changers.
Just to throw my own two cents in here: the climate changers don't want to solve any problems. They want two things: 1) to punish everybody and 2) to make money punishing everybody.
What they aren't telling you is that the ice wasn't there a 100 years ago and that there is a video of it. This is in contradiction to the alarmism of the climate changers.
Just to throw my own two cents in here: the climate changers don't want to solve any problems. They want two things: 1) to punish everybody and 2) to make money punishing everybody.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Thermal decomposition of methane
An experiment was done in which concentrated solar energy is used to split methane into hydrogen and carbon black (pdf).
This could be the cheapest way to obtain hydrogen for fuel cells.
We propose an alternate strategy using highly concentrated
sunlight as the energy source that does not result in an increase of environmental liability. Indeed, it represents a route for utilizing current natural gas reserves that fixes carbon as well as increasing the energy content of the fuel.
This could be the cheapest way to obtain hydrogen for fuel cells.
If computers are as smart as people, then what?
Like Scarlett O'Hara, they'll think about that tomorrow.
Gun rights to survive a bit longer
Dick Morris says that the arms control treaty sign by the Secretary of State John Kerry has been defunded for the next year.
While this is good news for the guns rights people, should be kept in mind that the treaty is still in effect. It hasn't been ratified and it can't be ratified, but that won't stop the Democrats for wanting to implement it anyway So, they will just block the ratification of the Treaty, which will have to force of law even though it isn't ratified.
So we just barely dodged that bullet. But the gun is still loaded as long as Obama is in the White House.
Red, blue states move in opposite directions in a new era of single-party control
Washington Post
"Diversity" is a euphemism for racism. The Democrats play the race card, which in the larger picture is the identity card, of which includes the claims of injustice due to race, gender, sexual orientation, and economic inequality. The GOP has no answer for this except denial, which redounds to the benefits of Democrats. As long as the Democrats can slice and dice the country into smaller and smaller subgroups, based upon some alleged grievance, they can succeed in their attempts at division and conquest.
If Democrats succeed ultimately, they will have a new problem. They won't have the white man to kick around anymore.
Update a little bit later:
As I saw in Reid Reasor's video, you can boil down the Democrat's ideology thusly: The White Man Is The Problem. Well, if you get rid of the white man, you still got your problems. African countries got rid of white men and look what good it did for them.
In a red state such as Texas, government exists mostly to get out of the way of the private sector while holding to traditional social values. In blue states such as California and Maryland, government takes more from taxpayers, particularly the wealthy, to spend on domestic priorities while advancing a cultural agenda that reflects the country’s growing diversity. [emphasis added]
"Diversity" is a euphemism for racism. The Democrats play the race card, which in the larger picture is the identity card, of which includes the claims of injustice due to race, gender, sexual orientation, and economic inequality. The GOP has no answer for this except denial, which redounds to the benefits of Democrats. As long as the Democrats can slice and dice the country into smaller and smaller subgroups, based upon some alleged grievance, they can succeed in their attempts at division and conquest.
If Democrats succeed ultimately, they will have a new problem. They won't have the white man to kick around anymore.
Update a little bit later:
As I saw in Reid Reasor's video, you can boil down the Democrat's ideology thusly: The White Man Is The Problem. Well, if you get rid of the white man, you still got your problems. African countries got rid of white men and look what good it did for them.
Late start again
Time is a bit short, so I have to make a quickie post. By the way, that's the nature of this business. You have to post something every day. It gets to be a grind sometimes because there are other things to do, like sleep!
Anyway, I was thinking again about that problem of getting back to the moon, since China is likely to go there. There doesn't appear to be that much interest in going back there here in America. However, that may be a mistake. Or is it? I think it is if China means to dominate space. If they dominate it sufficiently, we may not be able to do it even if we want to. So, we'd better get moving.
The latest idea is to bring an asteroid to the moon and mine it for water and carbon so as to make rocket fuel.
What if there isn't any carbon dioxide on an asteroid? What if it is just elemental carbon?
You can take elemental carbon and use hot carbon dioxide to make carbon monoxide. Then, oxidize the carbon monoxide to make more carbon dioxide. Once you have carbon dioxide and hydrogen, you can then make methane and lox.
Why not just make hydrogen and oxygen? That's because hydrogen is deeply cryogenic and is a pain in the neck to store for long periods. For this reason, Elon Musk is going to use methane lox engines in the future.
The long range goal is to go to Mars, where there's plenty of carbon dioxide and water. You'd better learn to make fuel, or be forced to take it with you.
Carbon dioxide may not always be handy, thus the need to convert carbon back to carbon dioxide.
All of these chemical reactions are going to require energy, so you will need a nuclear reactor.
Anyway, the trip to Mars is going to take a lot of fuel. Which means you must find a way to get fuel up cheaply by lowering launch costs, or you must use in-situ resourcing and fuel depots, or perhaps both techniques. If none of this is done, you must use heavy lift vehicles to bring along all that will be needed.
Heavy lift is the brute force way of doing things, but even brute force has its limits. You can make these rockets just so big. Big rockets cost big money.
One of the proposed Mars missions requires seven heavy lift launches. If you don't use nuclear thermal engines, it would require up to fifteen. No wonder Constellation got canceled. People may shrink in horror at such a proposition.
It would seem that in-situ resourcing and reusable rockets are the way to go. But if China pushes things, we may be tempted to go back to the old, big, dumb rockets. That's would be a mistake.
One way or another, we are going to have to meet the challenge that China is offering. Or forfeit the position of leadership in space. Something needs to be decided and soon.
Anyway, I was thinking again about that problem of getting back to the moon, since China is likely to go there. There doesn't appear to be that much interest in going back there here in America. However, that may be a mistake. Or is it? I think it is if China means to dominate space. If they dominate it sufficiently, we may not be able to do it even if we want to. So, we'd better get moving.
The latest idea is to bring an asteroid to the moon and mine it for water and carbon so as to make rocket fuel.
What if there isn't any carbon dioxide on an asteroid? What if it is just elemental carbon?
You can take elemental carbon and use hot carbon dioxide to make carbon monoxide. Then, oxidize the carbon monoxide to make more carbon dioxide. Once you have carbon dioxide and hydrogen, you can then make methane and lox.
Why not just make hydrogen and oxygen? That's because hydrogen is deeply cryogenic and is a pain in the neck to store for long periods. For this reason, Elon Musk is going to use methane lox engines in the future.
The long range goal is to go to Mars, where there's plenty of carbon dioxide and water. You'd better learn to make fuel, or be forced to take it with you.
Carbon dioxide may not always be handy, thus the need to convert carbon back to carbon dioxide.
All of these chemical reactions are going to require energy, so you will need a nuclear reactor.
Anyway, the trip to Mars is going to take a lot of fuel. Which means you must find a way to get fuel up cheaply by lowering launch costs, or you must use in-situ resourcing and fuel depots, or perhaps both techniques. If none of this is done, you must use heavy lift vehicles to bring along all that will be needed.
Heavy lift is the brute force way of doing things, but even brute force has its limits. You can make these rockets just so big. Big rockets cost big money.
One of the proposed Mars missions requires seven heavy lift launches. If you don't use nuclear thermal engines, it would require up to fifteen. No wonder Constellation got canceled. People may shrink in horror at such a proposition.
It would seem that in-situ resourcing and reusable rockets are the way to go. But if China pushes things, we may be tempted to go back to the old, big, dumb rockets. That's would be a mistake.
One way or another, we are going to have to meet the challenge that China is offering. Or forfeit the position of leadership in space. Something needs to be decided and soon.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
I know how this guy must feel
It's kinda like a broken record around here. For three years, I've pounded away at the keyboard and tried to build up an audience here. But the blog remains rather obscure. I've tried all kinds of ways to promote it too. It's really tough.
I can't put my finger on why it is so tough. Maybe you have to kiss the ring of somebody powerful who will pull the strings you need in order to move up.
Whatever the reason, it is a tough slog. So, what happens when a guy runs for Senate against an incumbent that most people have some sort of problem with, but don't know quite what to do about it. I'm referring to Senator Cornyn of Texas. He's got a big warchest and a big name. How can anybody unknown defeat this guy?
I was reminded how soon the primary is here in Texas when I read this Free Republic article. It was written by Steve Stockman, one of Cornyn's opponents. He has several opponents, but Stockman may well be the best known. Somebody in the comment section gave a list of all the candidates and links to each of their sites. So, I went over there and started doing a bit of research.
Realistically, it going to be Stockman v. Cornyn, and Cornyn has the inside track. But I've made up my mind that I'm not going to vote for Cornyn like some trained monkey.
I came across somebody who impresses me. But he has no name. He is a Tea Party guy. His name is Reid Reasor. Based on what "ve seen so far, I think I may vote for him in the primary. Trouble is, nobody is watching his videos. You see, no big name, no big bucks, nobody knows who you are, and you are nowhere. I know exactly how that feels.
Hopefully, there will be enough votes against Cornyn to force a runoff. If that happens, I hope it is somebody we can be proud of to represent us in the Senate. Cornyn has to go.
I can't put my finger on why it is so tough. Maybe you have to kiss the ring of somebody powerful who will pull the strings you need in order to move up.
Whatever the reason, it is a tough slog. So, what happens when a guy runs for Senate against an incumbent that most people have some sort of problem with, but don't know quite what to do about it. I'm referring to Senator Cornyn of Texas. He's got a big warchest and a big name. How can anybody unknown defeat this guy?
I was reminded how soon the primary is here in Texas when I read this Free Republic article. It was written by Steve Stockman, one of Cornyn's opponents. He has several opponents, but Stockman may well be the best known. Somebody in the comment section gave a list of all the candidates and links to each of their sites. So, I went over there and started doing a bit of research.
Realistically, it going to be Stockman v. Cornyn, and Cornyn has the inside track. But I've made up my mind that I'm not going to vote for Cornyn like some trained monkey.
I came across somebody who impresses me. But he has no name. He is a Tea Party guy. His name is Reid Reasor. Based on what "ve seen so far, I think I may vote for him in the primary. Trouble is, nobody is watching his videos. You see, no big name, no big bucks, nobody knows who you are, and you are nowhere. I know exactly how that feels.
Hopefully, there will be enough votes against Cornyn to force a runoff. If that happens, I hope it is somebody we can be proud of to represent us in the Senate. Cornyn has to go.
If You Think Being Ruled by Obama Is Bad, Try Being Ruled by the Chinese
Breitbart via Free Republic
Excellent article. Couldn't agree more. But it is a voice crying in the wildnerness. This country is asleep and maybe it isn't going to wake up at all.
Excellent article. Couldn't agree more. But it is a voice crying in the wildnerness. This country is asleep and maybe it isn't going to wake up at all.
Feds Say Just One Car Out of 100 Will Be Electric in 2040
wired via Instapundit
Didn't I cover this before? I did! I did! ( in my tweety bird imitation ).
Could it be that the tech needed to make this work already exists? I think that it is possible, maybe even likely. If the government says this tech won't exist, it must certainly be because the government doesn't want it to exist.
I'd like to put that to the test, but I need money. You can't get financing for something like this, so it may take my winning the lottery in order to get the cash. I played it last night, but it didn't work as usual.
Didn't I cover this before? I did! I did! ( in my tweety bird imitation ).
Could it be that the tech needed to make this work already exists? I think that it is possible, maybe even likely. If the government says this tech won't exist, it must certainly be because the government doesn't want it to exist.
I'd like to put that to the test, but I need money. You can't get financing for something like this, so it may take my winning the lottery in order to get the cash. I played it last night, but it didn't work as usual.
Eric Davis on Warp-Drives and FTL
From the description section of the youtube page:
Question: Can you follow this description? To me, it's like reading a foreign language in which you can recognize the words, but not really get the full meaning because you lack familiarity.
Here's the vid:
Dr. Eric Davis is leveraging the emerging models of String and Brane Theory for applied-physics work in Faster-Than-Light Travel, Antigravity, and extracting Zero-Point Energy. Davis begins his first presentation by tackling the subject of travel through traversable wormholes in a paper entitled "Experimental Concepts for Generating Negative Energy in the Laboratory" with co-author Hal Puthoff, which offers insight into the negative-energy density required to create wormholes large enough to allow passage for communications-signals, human beings, and spacecraft. His second presentation at the conference focused on the subject of experimentally testing a method for extracting Zero-Point Energy by using a Casimir plate-system to extract electrical energy from the ground-potential states of hydrogen atoms, entitled "Studying the Quantum Vacuum Field". Davis final presentation was entitled, "The Alcubierre Warp Drive in Higher Dimensional Spacetime", in which he partnered with NASA's Harold White to consider the concept of FTL Warp-Drives in a Brane-Theory model of physics. Conceptually, he argues that when the Alcubierre drive is operational it creates an FTL manifold around itself by shifting into higher-dimensional spacetime, offering an interesting array of future propulsion possibilities.
Question: Can you follow this description? To me, it's like reading a foreign language in which you can recognize the words, but not really get the full meaning because you lack familiarity.
Here's the vid:
Saturday, December 28, 2013
NASA Warp Drive Project
They say it bends space time, but I think that it will bend your brain.
Maybe these guys are smoking something funny over there...
Naw, seriously, this is something I read about many years ago. You can't predict where this might go. It may not go anywhere, or it can go somewhere, or should I say everywhere.
Maybe these guys are smoking something funny over there...
Naw, seriously, this is something I read about many years ago. You can't predict where this might go. It may not go anywhere, or it can go somewhere, or should I say everywhere.
Next Big Future: Bosch has advanced start-stop coasting system for ...
Next Big Future: Bosch has advanced start-stop coasting system for ...: With its new start-stop coasting function, Bosch enables drivers of vehicles with combustion engines to travel in zero-emission, noise-free,...
Improvements in combustion engines? That's like improving the buggy whip for horse drawn carriages. Time to move on. Electric powered vehicles are the next big thing if somebody would just jump on in there.
Improvements in combustion engines? That's like improving the buggy whip for horse drawn carriages. Time to move on. Electric powered vehicles are the next big thing if somebody would just jump on in there.
U.S. can still beat China back to moon
Mark Whittington, USA Today via Instapundit
Why bother with the SLS?
Two Falcon Heavy launches could put 240k lbs into LEO. With careful planning, that would be enough for an Apollo type mission. The first launch will put the command module and lunar module package into LEO. The second launch will bring the fuel that would be needed to propel the craft towards the moon.
Of course, you'd have to develop the lander that would do the lunar landing. Somebody in the private sector could do that. Perhaps someone in the commercial field already has something that could work. I'm not too sure about that, but if it became a national priority, it may not take all that long to set it up and go with it.
Since the Falcon Heavy is already close to operational status, the entire project can be done in just a few years. Or at least by 2020. It would have to be a national priority, though.
Update:
Here's an idea:
Use the Dragon's SuperDraco engines for the necessary propulsion after getting into lunar trajectory.
These would be the capture to lunar orbit burn, the descent burn, the ascent burn, and the departure burn.
You would need to carry sufficient fuel to execute these four burns, but if you were to use the same engines for all four, the amount of mass would be less than what was used for Apollo. I'm guessing about 15k kgs for ascent and descent. I won't hazard a guess for the insertion and departure burns, but those should be less than the ascent and descent since the delta v is less. Even if they equal out, that 30k kg for fuel and about 5k for the Dragon itself bringing the mass up to 35 k plus the fuel tanks. This should be less than what the Apollo missions used. The savings would result from less hardware as the Dragon would be used for landing and for returning to Earth.
Another advantage is that it wouldn't require anything substantially new to develop as the SuperDraco thrusters are already being developed and the Dragon already exists. The Falcon Heavy is near testing and all the parts could be made ready in a short time.
Update:
Actually, that last paragraph needs correction. In this proposed configuration, there is no Earth Departure Stage hardware that exists. It must be developed before a mission can take place. I'm presuming one will be developed, but that presumption could be incorrect.
The missions to Mars are the ones that I had in mind, but none of those may have these requirements.
In one scenario, NASA could provide the manned Orion deep space craft which would be launched with the heavy-lift rocket, Space Launch System, while the private sector could provide lunar landing vehicles and the habitats that would comprise a lunar base. The lunar base would be established and owned by a commercial enterprise and NASA would be a core customer leasing space.
Why bother with the SLS?
Two Falcon Heavy launches could put 240k lbs into LEO. With careful planning, that would be enough for an Apollo type mission. The first launch will put the command module and lunar module package into LEO. The second launch will bring the fuel that would be needed to propel the craft towards the moon.
Of course, you'd have to develop the lander that would do the lunar landing. Somebody in the private sector could do that. Perhaps someone in the commercial field already has something that could work. I'm not too sure about that, but if it became a national priority, it may not take all that long to set it up and go with it.
Since the Falcon Heavy is already close to operational status, the entire project can be done in just a few years. Or at least by 2020. It would have to be a national priority, though.
Update:
Here's an idea:
Use the Dragon's SuperDraco engines for the necessary propulsion after getting into lunar trajectory.
These would be the capture to lunar orbit burn, the descent burn, the ascent burn, and the departure burn.
You would need to carry sufficient fuel to execute these four burns, but if you were to use the same engines for all four, the amount of mass would be less than what was used for Apollo. I'm guessing about 15k kgs for ascent and descent. I won't hazard a guess for the insertion and departure burns, but those should be less than the ascent and descent since the delta v is less. Even if they equal out, that 30k kg for fuel and about 5k for the Dragon itself bringing the mass up to 35 k plus the fuel tanks. This should be less than what the Apollo missions used. The savings would result from less hardware as the Dragon would be used for landing and for returning to Earth.
Another advantage is that it wouldn't require anything substantially new to develop as the SuperDraco thrusters are already being developed and the Dragon already exists. The Falcon Heavy is near testing and all the parts could be made ready in a short time.
Update:
Actually, that last paragraph needs correction. In this proposed configuration, there is no Earth Departure Stage hardware that exists. It must be developed before a mission can take place. I'm presuming one will be developed, but that presumption could be incorrect.
The missions to Mars are the ones that I had in mind, but none of those may have these requirements.
Shale Gas Boom At 'Tip Of Iceberg'
Forbes
This is big news. If I may throw in something a bit negative though, and that is this: Is this the lowest cost possible for energy? If not, it may not develop as is anticipated.
He adds that the Marcellus Shale region is producing the equivalent of 2 million barrels of oil a day, which exceeds the oil production of many OPEC countries. The energy agency, meanwhile, says that 2,203 trillion cubic feet of shale gas here is technically recoverable — enough to last 92 years.
This is big news. If I may throw in something a bit negative though, and that is this: Is this the lowest cost possible for energy? If not, it may not develop as is anticipated.
NASA Con Ops Assess Baseline Features for SLS/Orion Mission to Mars
NASASpaceFlight.com
Got this link from the Space Launch System ( SLS ) article in Wikipedia. It gives a detailed proposed mission to Mars using this rocket system. It is called a Design Reference Mission (DRM), and in this example, it is referred to as the "Forward Work Mars Landing".
The SLS rocket is said to be a rocket in search of a mission. Well, here it is. But, it is one of many DRMs, so anything could happen, or nothing could happen. Time will tell.
Got this link from the Space Launch System ( SLS ) article in Wikipedia. It gives a detailed proposed mission to Mars using this rocket system. It is called a Design Reference Mission (DRM), and in this example, it is referred to as the "Forward Work Mars Landing".
the 5.0 overview involves a launch campaign using seven HLVs (Heavy Lift Vehicles), sporting nuclear propulsion stages....The 5.0 approach involves seven HLVs launching the major elements of three vehicles using NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) propulsion, namely the MLV Cargo Vehicle – created from two HLV launches, the MLV Habitat Vehicle – created from two HLV launches, and the MTV Crew Transfer Vehicle – created from three HLV launches. All three vehicles would be assembled in Low Earth Orbit.This looks like a rather ambitious and complicated mission proposition.
The SLS rocket is said to be a rocket in search of a mission. Well, here it is. But, it is one of many DRMs, so anything could happen, or nothing could happen. Time will tell.
Same-sex marriage triumphalism could be premature
The claim that "it's over" and same sex marriage will be the law of the land seems based upon a strain of triumphalism that doesn't exist. However, the triumphalism may justified if the courts swing to the left in the near future. If nobody leaves the Court in the near term, and this case can be heard in a reasonable amount of time, the triumphalism may receive a shock.
The country class doesn't want it. If left to a vote, it would be voted down---witness Prop 8 in California of all places. Only the ruling class can force this upon the country.
The most recent decisions in the Supreme Court did not affirm a right to same-sex marriage. If the tea leaves have been correctly interpreted, the court could reinstate Prop 8 in California and the same-sex marriage ban in Utah. It should be recalled that the Prop 8 case was also heard at the same time DOMA was, but failed not upon its merits, but on the question of standing---nobody representing the California had legal standing to defend the law. Now that Utah's law has been overruled by a Federal judge, the case can be brought up to the Supreme Court, and this time, they will have standing. The results of that case could leave us with a landmark ruling of one kind or another. I'm hoping for one that will shake the ruling class to its foundation.
The country class doesn't want it. If left to a vote, it would be voted down---witness Prop 8 in California of all places. Only the ruling class can force this upon the country.
The most recent decisions in the Supreme Court did not affirm a right to same-sex marriage. If the tea leaves have been correctly interpreted, the court could reinstate Prop 8 in California and the same-sex marriage ban in Utah. It should be recalled that the Prop 8 case was also heard at the same time DOMA was, but failed not upon its merits, but on the question of standing---nobody representing the California had legal standing to defend the law. Now that Utah's law has been overruled by a Federal judge, the case can be brought up to the Supreme Court, and this time, they will have standing. The results of that case could leave us with a landmark ruling of one kind or another. I'm hoping for one that will shake the ruling class to its foundation.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Obamacare’s Pajama Boy: ‘I am a liberal f***’
The Daily Caller via Instapundit
Man oh Man, is this a post to respond to or what?
The gist of the post is that liberals see themselves as warriors and their opponents as wusses. They may have a point.
This full Alinsky post comes to mind. Liberals can't win their arguments on the merits, so it comes down to dissing their opponent in some way so as to claim victory.
The technique of a liberal fuck isn't limited to extremes, nor liberals. It is a technique that can be applied even in high level debate by someone you wouldn't consider extreme..
Anybody my age will likely remember the Bentsen-Quayle debate. That debate ruined Quayle's political career because he couldn't respond adequately to the insult Bentsen laid on him---"you're no Jack Kennedy". I studied that debate. Up to that point, Quayle was doing quite well. But he was ruined by that remark.
It's the attitude brought to the table---"we're better than you"--- that gushes forth from them. It is like they have the lordly right to rule, and you had better not forget it.
It was unfortunate for Quayle that he couldn't respond. But what could he have done? There is an expectation that certain rules will be followed, and one of these is civility. I'm sure Quayle expected that. But once somebody steps over that line in a contest like this one, it is similar to winning a prize fight by punching below the belt. In a match like this though, a referee cannot disqualify a competitor for taking a cheap shot. It is up to the guy who just got dissed to respond appropriately so as to get the respect back which has just been lost. The judges that count are the folks back home. Bentsen made Quayle look bad and it stuck.
I've thought a lot on the subject over the course of all these years. What could he have done differently? But Quayle didn't have the luxury of time. He had to respond quickly to something he probably had no idea was coming. Some pre-preparation might have been in order. But Quayle literally came out of nowhere. He didn't have the time for that kind of preparation. How does someone prepare for something like Bentsen did? It might take years of practice to learn how to fend off a vicious attack like that and at the same time maintain a sense of dignity and decorum.
You want another example? Sarah Palin. She got ambushed in the same way Quayle did. The media did it, but the media set up Quayle too. Quayle got asked the same question four different times before Bentsen struck.
Interesting that it some moderate GOP guy who picks a conservative that can't respond to something that is difficult to respond to and difficult to prepare for. You wonder if they do this deliberately with an intention to lose that point, or make conservatives look dumb.
Perhaps the GOP, like Quayle in 1988, just doesn't know how to handle this kind of thing. I don't know if it is because of being dumb, as Quayle was accused of being, or just too gentlemanly to fight on those terms. But if it is because they are too gentlemanly, they had better learn to "win on the streets", because if you don't, your opponent is going to keep coming at you that way. It's like the blitz in football. You burn it, or you keep getting it. It's not enough to point out that somebody cheated. You have to make em pay for cheating.
Man oh Man, is this a post to respond to or what?
The gist of the post is that liberals see themselves as warriors and their opponents as wusses. They may have a point.
This full Alinsky post comes to mind. Liberals can't win their arguments on the merits, so it comes down to dissing their opponent in some way so as to claim victory.
“A Liberal Fuck is not a Democrat, but rather someone who combines political data and theory, extreme leftist views and sarcasm to win any argument while make the opponents feel terrible about themselves. I won every argument but one.”
The technique of a liberal fuck isn't limited to extremes, nor liberals. It is a technique that can be applied even in high level debate by someone you wouldn't consider extreme..
Anybody my age will likely remember the Bentsen-Quayle debate. That debate ruined Quayle's political career because he couldn't respond adequately to the insult Bentsen laid on him---"you're no Jack Kennedy". I studied that debate. Up to that point, Quayle was doing quite well. But he was ruined by that remark.
It's the attitude brought to the table---"we're better than you"--- that gushes forth from them. It is like they have the lordly right to rule, and you had better not forget it.
It was unfortunate for Quayle that he couldn't respond. But what could he have done? There is an expectation that certain rules will be followed, and one of these is civility. I'm sure Quayle expected that. But once somebody steps over that line in a contest like this one, it is similar to winning a prize fight by punching below the belt. In a match like this though, a referee cannot disqualify a competitor for taking a cheap shot. It is up to the guy who just got dissed to respond appropriately so as to get the respect back which has just been lost. The judges that count are the folks back home. Bentsen made Quayle look bad and it stuck.
I've thought a lot on the subject over the course of all these years. What could he have done differently? But Quayle didn't have the luxury of time. He had to respond quickly to something he probably had no idea was coming. Some pre-preparation might have been in order. But Quayle literally came out of nowhere. He didn't have the time for that kind of preparation. How does someone prepare for something like Bentsen did? It might take years of practice to learn how to fend off a vicious attack like that and at the same time maintain a sense of dignity and decorum.
You want another example? Sarah Palin. She got ambushed in the same way Quayle did. The media did it, but the media set up Quayle too. Quayle got asked the same question four different times before Bentsen struck.
Interesting that it some moderate GOP guy who picks a conservative that can't respond to something that is difficult to respond to and difficult to prepare for. You wonder if they do this deliberately with an intention to lose that point, or make conservatives look dumb.
Perhaps the GOP, like Quayle in 1988, just doesn't know how to handle this kind of thing. I don't know if it is because of being dumb, as Quayle was accused of being, or just too gentlemanly to fight on those terms. But if it is because they are too gentlemanly, they had better learn to "win on the streets", because if you don't, your opponent is going to keep coming at you that way. It's like the blitz in football. You burn it, or you keep getting it. It's not enough to point out that somebody cheated. You have to make em pay for cheating.
NSA spying likely to go to Supreme Court
http://m.cnet.com/news/judge-nsa-phone-surveillance-is-legal-and-a-vital-tool/57616313
Seems that way to me because lower courts are in conflict.
Phil Robertson, Gramsci, and Tolerance
American Thinker
If you don't know who Gramsci was, this is a nice introduction.
Also explains Alinsky, if you were wondering about that person as well.
There's not much excuse for ignorance even if the so-called educational system doesn't do its job. You can google these names and get all the information that you could want.
Yet the ignorance is out there anyway. In fact, I think much of the left's power depends upon the ignorance of people, in which they try to enforce with their political correctness.
In this case, it is failing. As long as controversy continues, people can inform themselves and learn about what they are doing and how they do it. This can't be good for the leftists. They need people to remain fat, dumb, and happy.
If you don't know who Gramsci was, this is a nice introduction.
Also explains Alinsky, if you were wondering about that person as well.
There's not much excuse for ignorance even if the so-called educational system doesn't do its job. You can google these names and get all the information that you could want.
Yet the ignorance is out there anyway. In fact, I think much of the left's power depends upon the ignorance of people, in which they try to enforce with their political correctness.
In this case, it is failing. As long as controversy continues, people can inform themselves and learn about what they are doing and how they do it. This can't be good for the leftists. They need people to remain fat, dumb, and happy.
Blog: Danger, Phil Robertson! Do Not Kiss Jackson's Ring
American Thinker
quote:
This isn't going to affect Robertson. Jackson is going after the people who are scared of him, and that is A&E and Cracker Barrel. There's nothing that they can threaten Robertson with.
Robertson doesn't need the money. He doesn't need their approval.
It would be quite puzzling if Roberston behaved the way this article fears that he might. It seems to me that he knows what he is doing. He can just keep on doing it. Remember that there have been a lot worse things than this in history. It's not like they can throw him to the lions or anything.
Instead, he can forgive THEM just as Christianity teaches. If he did that, it might send them into another tizzy, but they are powerless against him. Thus, they will be forced to concentrate on these others, not him. I mean, what can they do to him? He doesn't need them for anything.
quote:
Whether or not A&E and Cracker Barrel bow down to worship Jackson remains to be seen. My plea to Phil Robertson is that he please, please, please not surrender. Do not on bended knee kiss Jackson's ring and beg for forgiveness.comment:
This isn't going to affect Robertson. Jackson is going after the people who are scared of him, and that is A&E and Cracker Barrel. There's nothing that they can threaten Robertson with.
Robertson doesn't need the money. He doesn't need their approval.
It would be quite puzzling if Roberston behaved the way this article fears that he might. It seems to me that he knows what he is doing. He can just keep on doing it. Remember that there have been a lot worse things than this in history. It's not like they can throw him to the lions or anything.
Instead, he can forgive THEM just as Christianity teaches. If he did that, it might send them into another tizzy, but they are powerless against him. Thus, they will be forced to concentrate on these others, not him. I mean, what can they do to him? He doesn't need them for anything.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
White privilege, says Jackson
politico
Unfreaking believable.
So, does Roberston or any other white person have to get permission from Jackson before speaking? Is that what this means?
He demands a meeting with A&E. I guess it's shakedown time!
Unfreaking believable.
“Robertson’s statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.’”
So, does Roberston or any other white person have to get permission from Jackson before speaking? Is that what this means?
He demands a meeting with A&E. I guess it's shakedown time!
Eight Ways to Opt Out of Obamacare
breitbart
I'm putting up this link in order to remember it.
Update:
Here's another which confirms that people aren't the way that they are being portrayed. 73% believe in virgin birth of Jesus.
I'm putting up this link in order to remember it.
Update:
Here's another which confirms that people aren't the way that they are being portrayed. 73% believe in virgin birth of Jesus.
That figures, almost
There's a quiz here that you can take that identifies your dialect.
The results that I got show a dialect most like the way people talk in Alabama. That's strange. I've lived in Texas all my life.
It figures that they got me down as a Southern Redneck. New York Times quiz, you see.
The results that I got show a dialect most like the way people talk in Alabama. That's strange. I've lived in Texas all my life.
It figures that they got me down as a Southern Redneck. New York Times quiz, you see.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Repost: "Barnett: 'Federalism marries liberty in the DOMA decision'"
Note:
This issue was recently decided in the Supreme Court earlier this year. Now that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage has been overturned, it would seem that the Court's formulation given below would indicate a restoration of Utah's right to define its own institutions. Unless, of course, they find some reason to deny the state this right which they apparently affirmed.
If the Utah law isn't reinstated, it would appear that the Court is becoming capricious.
The original post immediately follows below:
scotusblog.com
quote:
Doesn't look like a sweeping endorsement for the right of same sex marriage. But note that liberals are going to get what they wanted anyway. It's a matter of time before they impose this upon the nation the same way they did for abortion.
This issue was recently decided in the Supreme Court earlier this year. Now that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage has been overturned, it would seem that the Court's formulation given below would indicate a restoration of Utah's right to define its own institutions. Unless, of course, they find some reason to deny the state this right which they apparently affirmed.
If the Utah law isn't reinstated, it would appear that the Court is becoming capricious.
The original post immediately follows below:
scotusblog.com
quote:
States are free to define marriage as they wish (subject to Equal Protection and Due Process clause restraints), and the fight over “gay marriage” will continue in the states for yearscomment:
Doesn't look like a sweeping endorsement for the right of same sex marriage. But note that liberals are going to get what they wanted anyway. It's a matter of time before they impose this upon the nation the same way they did for abortion.
The Curse of the Lottery » RobertRinger.com
The Curse of the Lottery » RobertRinger.com
I wish I could be so cursed. I'm sure I can find a good use for the money. Actually I played the lottery several times with the thought of using the winnings, if such were obtained, to do some of the kind of stuff I write about here.
I can be hard assed enough to say "no" to "friends" that appeared out of nowhere.
I wish I could be so cursed. I'm sure I can find a good use for the money. Actually I played the lottery several times with the thought of using the winnings, if such were obtained, to do some of the kind of stuff I write about here.
I can be hard assed enough to say "no" to "friends" that appeared out of nowhere.
On Free Speech, Sarah Palin and Mark Steyn are Right
nro via transterrestrial musings
quote:
Well, then. This pretty much shows you who your real friends are. If the "Christian ministry" won't unite against the evildoers, then what good are they?
I can relate to this lack of support from people that you would expect support. But the story is too personal, so I won't tell it. It's how the bad guy wins, when the good guys do nothing.
quote:
Did the conservative community rally around them? Some did, but the Georgia Tech chapter of a nationally known Christian ministry threatened to join the Left in protest against them if they didn’t retract the lawsuit. Why? Because they wanted to “maintain relationships” with the very people threatening their friends.comment:
Well, then. This pretty much shows you who your real friends are. If the "Christian ministry" won't unite against the evildoers, then what good are they?
I can relate to this lack of support from people that you would expect support. But the story is too personal, so I won't tell it. It's how the bad guy wins, when the good guys do nothing.
John Denver's Christmas in Aspen (1988) Part 1 of 4
From the description section on Youtube:
Uploaded on Dec 18, 2010
John Denver hosts this Christmas special taped in Aspen, Colorado and featuring performances by Denver and his guests of new and traditional music. The program also celebrates the people of the scenic and historic community of Aspen.
This has never been published and I've had it in my private collection and felt that everyone should have access to it so I hope you enjoy! Merry Christmas!
It’s a Very Merry Christmas for Washington’s Parasite Class
Townhall Finance via Behind the Black
Introducing the First Theorem of Government:
It also reminds me of what I read about the Soviet Union. In those days, if you wanted to be anybody, or have anything in the Soviet Union, you had to be a member of the Communist Party. Looks very similar to what is developing in Washington DC.
It also explains the hostility of the Washington insiders towards the Tea Party. So much so, they have abused their power in sending the IRS after them. It may even explain the NSA spying. They are so afraid that the people will catch on and revolt against their abuses.
Washington DC is thriving, the rest of the country is languishing. This ought to be an issue in a political campaign. But you will have to find the right kind of leader that will be able to unite the country class that will throw these bums out.
Introducing the First Theorem of Government:
Above all else, the public sector is a racket for the enrichment of insiders, cronies, bureaucrats, and interest groups.This theorem works hand in hand with Angelo Codevilla's thesis of ruling class versus the country class.
It also reminds me of what I read about the Soviet Union. In those days, if you wanted to be anybody, or have anything in the Soviet Union, you had to be a member of the Communist Party. Looks very similar to what is developing in Washington DC.
It also explains the hostility of the Washington insiders towards the Tea Party. So much so, they have abused their power in sending the IRS after them. It may even explain the NSA spying. They are so afraid that the people will catch on and revolt against their abuses.
Washington DC is thriving, the rest of the country is languishing. This ought to be an issue in a political campaign. But you will have to find the right kind of leader that will be able to unite the country class that will throw these bums out.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
People, lighten up
That's one of Rush Limbaugh's sayings from the time when I first listened to his show. What was true then is true today. I'm referring to the Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson flap. It seems that people are just wound up as tight as a spring and are ready to spring on the slightest perceived grievance.
It seems like a tempest in a teapot, or should be.
Here are a few observations and questions that I gleaned from reading a Wikipedia Entry on the controversy:
If this administration so chose, which obviously they don't, they could proceed with a suit against A&E for the violation of Robertson's civil rights.
As for the organization called "GLAAD", they could face criminal charges. What makes their behavior any different from a cross burning?
Anyway, his remarks on the interview with GQ were rather mild and unremarkable. The reaction is way the hell overwrought. Especially from these so-called LGBT types.
Update:
I read the entire interview and I am amazed at how they made a big shitstorm out of this. Maybe if people got a little curious and read it for themselves, they might be surprised too. There's nothing to it.
It seems like a tempest in a teapot, or should be.
Here are a few observations and questions that I gleaned from reading a Wikipedia Entry on the controversy:
- Why are people so upset when A&E says that they are "strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community"---- I mean, what do you expect from A&E anyway.
- Being that they are strong supporters of so-called "LGBT" community, what they hell are you doing patronizing their products?
- What the hell is Phil Robertson doing there anyway?
- What business is it of A&E that Phil Robertson has opinions of his own? Do they get the right to censor his beliefs and to punish him if he dares express them?
If this administration so chose, which obviously they don't, they could proceed with a suit against A&E for the violation of Robertson's civil rights.
As for the organization called "GLAAD", they could face criminal charges. What makes their behavior any different from a cross burning?
Anyway, his remarks on the interview with GQ were rather mild and unremarkable. The reaction is way the hell overwrought. Especially from these so-called LGBT types.
Update:
I read the entire interview and I am amazed at how they made a big shitstorm out of this. Maybe if people got a little curious and read it for themselves, they might be surprised too. There's nothing to it.
When is a lie a lie?
To speak falsely is not necessarily a lie. What?! Yes. Here's why: You can only lie about what you know to be true and not true. The intention of the liar is to divert away from the truth, which implies that the liar knows what the truth is, and wishes to prevent its discovery.
Therefore, you cannot lie about something if you believe what you say is true, even though it isn't. In that case, you are making an honest mistake. You are proceeding in good faith in believing something to be true, even though it isn't. Once proven, however, it starts becoming dishonest if the person adhering to it refuses to accept what it is. Until that point, it isn't a lie.
The reason for this post is the kind of fuzzy thinking I sometimes see out there. Take the Bush lied, people died accusation. Bush couldn't have lied about WMD because NOBODY KNEW. If those who are accusing him of lying knew themselves, why were they silent before the invasion of Iraq? I don't recall hearing anybody saying that they positively knew that there was no WMD. The reason nobody said anything is that they didn't know. Those who claimed to know were probably lying. If you cannot produce the proof of your assertions, as these people did not have any such proof, and insist the contrary is a lie, then that has to be a lie in itself. If you don't know any better, then perhaps it isn't dishonesty, but something else.
I could go on with more examples, but this one is the best known, so I'll leave it at that.
I'd be wary of anybody who claims to know the absolute truth about anything. Again, I can name names, but I won't.
Therefore, you cannot lie about something if you believe what you say is true, even though it isn't. In that case, you are making an honest mistake. You are proceeding in good faith in believing something to be true, even though it isn't. Once proven, however, it starts becoming dishonest if the person adhering to it refuses to accept what it is. Until that point, it isn't a lie.
The reason for this post is the kind of fuzzy thinking I sometimes see out there. Take the Bush lied, people died accusation. Bush couldn't have lied about WMD because NOBODY KNEW. If those who are accusing him of lying knew themselves, why were they silent before the invasion of Iraq? I don't recall hearing anybody saying that they positively knew that there was no WMD. The reason nobody said anything is that they didn't know. Those who claimed to know were probably lying. If you cannot produce the proof of your assertions, as these people did not have any such proof, and insist the contrary is a lie, then that has to be a lie in itself. If you don't know any better, then perhaps it isn't dishonesty, but something else.
I could go on with more examples, but this one is the best known, so I'll leave it at that.
I'd be wary of anybody who claims to know the absolute truth about anything. Again, I can name names, but I won't.
June 25th, 2012: Today Marks the 50th Anniversary of the Prayer Ban in Public Schools (& Here’s the History)
the blaze
The reason I'm citing this was the recent overturning of the Utah ban on same sex marriage. If there's a poll amongst the people of Utah, it would probably be fairly substantial majority against same sex marriage. Yet an Obama appointed liberal judge struck down the law of that state.
This is how it starts. An argument is made that seems plausible and then is backed up back coercive power of the state in opposition to public opinion. You can compare this Utah situation to what happened in Supreme Court decision in 1962, which banned prayer in public school, hence:
These kind of moves are what's being imposed upon us from the ruling class. They are not the majority.
The left is now getting into control of our culture, but even now, they have not won. They seek to win with moves like the one in Utah and in the Supreme Court 50 years ago.
They do it with plausible arguments and coercion. But the arguments, while plausible, are not necessarily correct. In any event, if they are imposed upon an unwilling populace, you have to ask the question of what kind of government permits this? Whatever it is, it isn't democratic.
The left can make some tricky arguments. Ace discusses how one of those are being made in the Duck Dynasty flap. But the left's arguments, like everything they do, are always self-serving. The left exists for self-aggrandizement. We are the ones who end up paying for it. You can't trust the left, their seemingly plausible arguments notwithstanding. Their arguments may seem to be based upon principle, but the left is generally not interested in principles---but rather, their own advantage. The Duck Dynasty flap, plus history shows why and how.
The reason I'm citing this was the recent overturning of the Utah ban on same sex marriage. If there's a poll amongst the people of Utah, it would probably be fairly substantial majority against same sex marriage. Yet an Obama appointed liberal judge struck down the law of that state.
This is how it starts. An argument is made that seems plausible and then is backed up back coercive power of the state in opposition to public opinion. You can compare this Utah situation to what happened in Supreme Court decision in 1962, which banned prayer in public school, hence:
The decision, the first in which the Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional public school sponsorship of religion, was unpopular with a broad segment of the American public.
These kind of moves are what's being imposed upon us from the ruling class. They are not the majority.
The left is now getting into control of our culture, but even now, they have not won. They seek to win with moves like the one in Utah and in the Supreme Court 50 years ago.
They do it with plausible arguments and coercion. But the arguments, while plausible, are not necessarily correct. In any event, if they are imposed upon an unwilling populace, you have to ask the question of what kind of government permits this? Whatever it is, it isn't democratic.
The left can make some tricky arguments. Ace discusses how one of those are being made in the Duck Dynasty flap. But the left's arguments, like everything they do, are always self-serving. The left exists for self-aggrandizement. We are the ones who end up paying for it. You can't trust the left, their seemingly plausible arguments notwithstanding. Their arguments may seem to be based upon principle, but the left is generally not interested in principles---but rather, their own advantage. The Duck Dynasty flap, plus history shows why and how.
Gingrich: George Washington on Christmas Day
Sometimes Gingrich can deliver a fine speech. But those times were not enough in 2012. All the same, this was good.
Codevilla's thesis and Newt Gingrich
That is, of the ruling class and the country class, Gingrich seemed to be making the same kind of point. At least, it seems that he was formulating the kind of strategy that could work in defeating the ruling class and winning elections.
Gingrich said you need to identify 80% issues and organize around them. These will crush the opponent, which is the ruling class. I think this may be correct, because the ruling class is really not that big. They have influence far greater than their numbers. The reason they are so successful is their superior organization and unity. The country class is a disparate bunch and cannot unite. Gingrich's 80% idea was a way that could have done that. Now, if Gingrich could have practiced what he preached, he may have led the country class to victory over the ruling class ( with Obama at the head of it ) in 2012. Gingrich's singular failure was he could not do this.
The telling point is after Super Tuesday when Gingrich insisted upon staying in the race when it was clear he should get out and endorse Santorum. Could Santorum have won v Romney the rest of way? Perhaps not, but there was no chance as long as the not-Romney party remained divided. Romney appears to be a part of the ruling class. Most of the GOP didn't like him. There is a faction in the GOP that is part of the ruling class and is content with being the junior partner in that coalition. Most of the GOP is in the country class and didn't trust Romney. Confirming this theory, Romney's "beanbag" approach to the general election cemented the country class' loss once again to the ruling class. Thus, the failure to unite early enough in the contest so that the ruling class could be possibly defeated was a key point in the 2012 race. Gingrich simply failed to live up to the necessity of the moment.
Gingrich said you need to identify 80% issues and organize around them. These will crush the opponent, which is the ruling class. I think this may be correct, because the ruling class is really not that big. They have influence far greater than their numbers. The reason they are so successful is their superior organization and unity. The country class is a disparate bunch and cannot unite. Gingrich's 80% idea was a way that could have done that. Now, if Gingrich could have practiced what he preached, he may have led the country class to victory over the ruling class ( with Obama at the head of it ) in 2012. Gingrich's singular failure was he could not do this.
The telling point is after Super Tuesday when Gingrich insisted upon staying in the race when it was clear he should get out and endorse Santorum. Could Santorum have won v Romney the rest of way? Perhaps not, but there was no chance as long as the not-Romney party remained divided. Romney appears to be a part of the ruling class. Most of the GOP didn't like him. There is a faction in the GOP that is part of the ruling class and is content with being the junior partner in that coalition. Most of the GOP is in the country class and didn't trust Romney. Confirming this theory, Romney's "beanbag" approach to the general election cemented the country class' loss once again to the ruling class. Thus, the failure to unite early enough in the contest so that the ruling class could be possibly defeated was a key point in the 2012 race. Gingrich simply failed to live up to the necessity of the moment.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Slow motion coup d'état
You may have heard of Angelo Codevilla. He wrote an article about the ruling class that Rush Limbaugh refers to from time to time.
My impression, after reading the second time, is that the ruling class is overturning the rule of law and making themselves the law itself. Clearly in opposition to the Constitution, which is intended to be a government of law as opposed to a government of men, and thus overthrowing it as the Constitution is sovereign.
They want to rule over us, not with our consent as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Note what they did in Utah.
They don't like us much either:
My impression, after reading the second time, is that the ruling class is overturning the rule of law and making themselves the law itself. Clearly in opposition to the Constitution, which is intended to be a government of law as opposed to a government of men, and thus overthrowing it as the Constitution is sovereign.
They want to rule over us, not with our consent as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Note what they did in Utah.
They don't like us much either:
In sum, our ruling class does not like the rest of America. Most of all does it dislike that so many Americans think America is substantially different from the rest of the world and like it that way.The rest of America is the "country class"
the country class is the other side of the ruling class's coin: its most distinguishing characteristics are marriage, children, and religious practice. While the country class, like the ruling class, includes the professionally accomplished and the mediocre, geniuses and dolts, it is different because of its non-orientation to government and its members' yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others.The ruling class is the minority, but they are organized and determined. The country class needs to unite, or it will be forever doomed to subservience to the ruling class. The safety is in the Constitution, which is being shredded on a daily basis, and it is no accident who is doing it, nor why. It's the ruling class. They are doing it for themselves regardless of what their rhetoric is to the contrary.
The wolf has shed its disguise
Why are liberals called liberals? The reason is that you couldn't call a liberal a communist, lest you be called a McCarthyite. To me, the so-called liberals are nothing more than just plain ol leftists. As Michael Moore pointed out, that euphemism won't be necessary for much longer. Another rich "liberal" has pointed out how their policies and strategies have worked. The corruption of America is nearly complete. Its destruction cannot be far behind.
Liberal argument: Shut up
When it comes to Duck Dynasty, the Liberal's ( leftist's) argument is shut up! Klavan was so, so right.
Big Money and Big Government combine forces to squash traditional America
That's what I think the Duck Dynasty is all about. All the guy did was read from Scripture and now the Big Money and the Big Government want to make an issue out of it. One of these days, quoting scripture will be against the law.
Meanwhile, a liberal judge appointed by Obama has ruled that Utah's ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. Utah is probably one of the most traditional states in the Union, I'd say. Something alien and foreign is being imposed upon them.
That's is how it is done. From banning prayer in schools to imposing same sex marriage to making the mere quoting of scripture against the law---that's what the Big Money and the Big Government is doing to us.
Update:
Also, the little guy has no friend in Washington despite what they say. They are only forging the links of the chains of slavery. When they create the dependence upon the government---such as food stamps and unemployment payments--- these are the links in the chain. An independent and self-reliant people are free people. The Big Money and Big Government types don't want you to have this. They intend to enslave the entire population and make us all subject to their whims.
Meanwhile, a liberal judge appointed by Obama has ruled that Utah's ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. Utah is probably one of the most traditional states in the Union, I'd say. Something alien and foreign is being imposed upon them.
That's is how it is done. From banning prayer in schools to imposing same sex marriage to making the mere quoting of scripture against the law---that's what the Big Money and the Big Government is doing to us.
Update:
Also, the little guy has no friend in Washington despite what they say. They are only forging the links of the chains of slavery. When they create the dependence upon the government---such as food stamps and unemployment payments--- these are the links in the chain. An independent and self-reliant people are free people. The Big Money and Big Government types don't want you to have this. They intend to enslave the entire population and make us all subject to their whims.
Tom Steyer may be liberals' answer to the Koch brothers
LA Times
Our government and culture is increasingly dominated by big money with LIBERAL causes, and they are worried about Koch.
For years, liberals have fretted about the power of ultrawealthy people determined to use their billions to advance their political views. Charles and David Koch, in particular, have ranked high in the demonology of the American left.Yeah, the poor little liberals are totally without funding and support even though that outnumber the conservatives and libertarians by a large number. Soros, anyone? Ted Turner? Al Gore?
Our government and culture is increasingly dominated by big money with LIBERAL causes, and they are worried about Koch.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
The Trade Deficit And Economic Growth Stats
Perhaps nobody is thinking of this, or I'm not seeing much of it out there. It pretty much confirms what I've thought for a long time now. The trade deficits do matter.
The most recent GDP number was revised up. Now, usually these numbers are revised downward because of the trade deficit. Since the trade deficit is actually improving, this may well be boosting the GDP numbers.
I got behind Newt Gingrich's "Drill Here, Drill Now, and Pay Less" campaign for this reason. I knew that the super large trade deficits being partly driven by $150 a barrel oil was a sure fire problem. Turns out that it was. In fact, the extremely high oil prices may have been decisive in causing the collapse.
Should Obama get credit for this latest economic news? No. He once said that we can't drill our way out of this. Well, we are drilling our way out of this. No thanks to him and no thanks to the radical environmentalists.
We could do even better if we develop molten salt reactors and get off oil completely. But I guess that is just asking too much. The environmentalists are even crazier about the nuclear energy issue. Things like this convince me that I'm right more often than not. That may be why I sound so cocky sometimes.
The most recent GDP number was revised up. Now, usually these numbers are revised downward because of the trade deficit. Since the trade deficit is actually improving, this may well be boosting the GDP numbers.
I got behind Newt Gingrich's "Drill Here, Drill Now, and Pay Less" campaign for this reason. I knew that the super large trade deficits being partly driven by $150 a barrel oil was a sure fire problem. Turns out that it was. In fact, the extremely high oil prices may have been decisive in causing the collapse.
Should Obama get credit for this latest economic news? No. He once said that we can't drill our way out of this. Well, we are drilling our way out of this. No thanks to him and no thanks to the radical environmentalists.
We could do even better if we develop molten salt reactors and get off oil completely. But I guess that is just asking too much. The environmentalists are even crazier about the nuclear energy issue. Things like this convince me that I'm right more often than not. That may be why I sound so cocky sometimes.
‘The curious case of Benjamin Mouse’: Aging reversal coming soon?
Hmm. The Fountain of Youth?
Perhaps the human race as we have known will cease to exist and be replaced by a super intelligent, super long living species.
Even the very thought of this may be seen as sacrilegious. I only observe what is out there.
Perhaps the human race as we have known will cease to exist and be replaced by a super intelligent, super long living species.
Even the very thought of this may be seen as sacrilegious. I only observe what is out there.
Why I Cannot Blame Russia and India for Taking on the Gays
American Thinker
Author is claiming that there is a possibility of being a "healthy gay".
What he says is welcome, but it is probably not quite good enough. Homosexuality is morally wrong. Nothing can be good enough until that is acknowledged.
there are real gay organizations in the West, who are engaging in real machinations to spread their sickness all over the globe.
Author is claiming that there is a possibility of being a "healthy gay".
What he says is welcome, but it is probably not quite good enough. Homosexuality is morally wrong. Nothing can be good enough until that is acknowledged.
Maduro survives first test in Venezuela local elections
yahoo
Another one I missed. I'm slipping up badly.
This outcome doesn't surprise me. Once these leftists get into power, they won't come out until they are dead. That's what it may take there.
As far as the US being a part of Venezuela's problems, they have a fellow traveler in the White House. Like Obama, Maduro is a big failure, but somehow manages to fool people into thinking his failures aren't his own.
Chavez and the left are loons. Chavez blamed a lifeless Mars on capitalism. There's only one way to deal with this lunacy. As you have to shoot a rabid dog, so might you have shoot a rabid leftist. Maybe you can reason with them, if you are lucky.
Another one I missed. I'm slipping up badly.
This outcome doesn't surprise me. Once these leftists get into power, they won't come out until they are dead. That's what it may take there.
As far as the US being a part of Venezuela's problems, they have a fellow traveler in the White House. Like Obama, Maduro is a big failure, but somehow manages to fool people into thinking his failures aren't his own.
Chavez and the left are loons. Chavez blamed a lifeless Mars on capitalism. There's only one way to deal with this lunacy. As you have to shoot a rabid dog, so might you have shoot a rabid leftist. Maybe you can reason with them, if you are lucky.
Senate approves budget, sends to Obama
communist news network / snark
It is rather disappointing to see GOP accepting the premises of the left. By the way, this was a Wednesday vote, and I missed it.
Looking at this article, something stood out:
Now you know why I added the snark.
It is rather disappointing to see GOP accepting the premises of the left. By the way, this was a Wednesday vote, and I missed it.
Looking at this article, something stood out:
Democrats insist on protecting the social safety net for the most vulnerable Americans, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.What they insist upon is continual growth of the government and the so-called safety net. The most recent infamous example is ObamaCare.
Now you know why I added the snark.
About that Ann Barnhardt podcast
Yesterday, when I wrote about the Anti-Christ, it was in response to what she was saying on that podcast. Being rather absent minded, I forgot all about not having finished listening to all of it.
Truth be told, what she was saying was getting a bit too far. It is like Podesta in a way. The way to success, it seems, is to get the people who want the echo chambers. To listen to her after that point was to drink the kool aid and join the cult.
She has rather strong opinions, which is her right. What she says may be correct, too. In order to track it all down, I'd have to do some research. But you know, everything she says ain't gospel. She's been wrong before, and she could also be wrong again in some of the things she's saying.
She was referring to Pat Buchanan's piece that asked the question of whether or not Putin was one of us. No, Putin isn't one of us. He is a Russian nationalist. An equivalent on this side would be an American Nationalist. Nationalists in America are a rare beast. Putin may be a traditionalist, so a comparison there may be useful. Even so, he is not an American, so he can't be one of us.
The rest of what she wrote, I won't comment upon. You could see where Maha would point to Barnhardt as a typical representation of the GOP. Or of conservatism. No, I don't think so. She is an individual with her unique point of view. As for the GOP, one of these days they may figure out what they want to be when they grow up, but they aren't nationalists and they probably aren't traditionalists either.
People can go too far. Sometimes when you do that you cause a situation that may have no exit to it.
Somebody might get the idea that I am advocating moderation. No. I'm not a moderate. I am an extremist for truth, while recognizing that truth is a slippery thing.
Update:
I'm looking into this a bit further. Some of what she says checks out, but not all of it.
Okay, the thing that concerns me is that this may be a disinformation attack. There may not be any proof here, any hard proof of Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attack. Unless that is provided, we won't know. It is only a superficially plausible charge, just like a lot of the conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.
If Bush covered up anything, it looks really, really bad. However, the mere charge of it ( without proof ) also looks really, really bad. If there's no real proof of any involvement, it will end up being politically damaging. Just remember who benefits from that.
Update:
It should be pointed out that Obama seems to be giving the Saudis a cold shoulder. Why would he do that? Because of this? Or could it be because it is to his advantage politically to do this?
But what could be the end result? Pakistan has offered to sell nukes to Saudi Arabia. Do you realize what this could mean?
If the Saudis did this, there needs to be a response. But to play politics with it could be very grave. Washington has to get this right. At the moment, they don't inspire confidence.
It's too bad that Ann Barnhardt lent her voice to this. If she has anything real, she should have been out front with it.
Update:
One final remark upon this as I finally listened to it all.
She pointed out that our leaders in DC aren't very bright. She did have something up, if I am not mistaken, that illustrated how stupid some of these people in the House really are. Everybody should be careful, that just because some member of Congress says something, that it should be regarded as intelligent or competent.
I hope she's wrong about the overall quality of the leadership. But I'm a little worried about that at the moment.
Also, if you don't quit on the Lord, then don't quit on the people either. She seems to be.
Truth be told, what she was saying was getting a bit too far. It is like Podesta in a way. The way to success, it seems, is to get the people who want the echo chambers. To listen to her after that point was to drink the kool aid and join the cult.
She has rather strong opinions, which is her right. What she says may be correct, too. In order to track it all down, I'd have to do some research. But you know, everything she says ain't gospel. She's been wrong before, and she could also be wrong again in some of the things she's saying.
She was referring to Pat Buchanan's piece that asked the question of whether or not Putin was one of us. No, Putin isn't one of us. He is a Russian nationalist. An equivalent on this side would be an American Nationalist. Nationalists in America are a rare beast. Putin may be a traditionalist, so a comparison there may be useful. Even so, he is not an American, so he can't be one of us.
The rest of what she wrote, I won't comment upon. You could see where Maha would point to Barnhardt as a typical representation of the GOP. Or of conservatism. No, I don't think so. She is an individual with her unique point of view. As for the GOP, one of these days they may figure out what they want to be when they grow up, but they aren't nationalists and they probably aren't traditionalists either.
People can go too far. Sometimes when you do that you cause a situation that may have no exit to it.
Somebody might get the idea that I am advocating moderation. No. I'm not a moderate. I am an extremist for truth, while recognizing that truth is a slippery thing.
Update:
I'm looking into this a bit further. Some of what she says checks out, but not all of it.
Okay, the thing that concerns me is that this may be a disinformation attack. There may not be any proof here, any hard proof of Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attack. Unless that is provided, we won't know. It is only a superficially plausible charge, just like a lot of the conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.
If Bush covered up anything, it looks really, really bad. However, the mere charge of it ( without proof ) also looks really, really bad. If there's no real proof of any involvement, it will end up being politically damaging. Just remember who benefits from that.
Update:
It should be pointed out that Obama seems to be giving the Saudis a cold shoulder. Why would he do that? Because of this? Or could it be because it is to his advantage politically to do this?
But what could be the end result? Pakistan has offered to sell nukes to Saudi Arabia. Do you realize what this could mean?
If the Saudis did this, there needs to be a response. But to play politics with it could be very grave. Washington has to get this right. At the moment, they don't inspire confidence.
It's too bad that Ann Barnhardt lent her voice to this. If she has anything real, she should have been out front with it.
Update:
One final remark upon this as I finally listened to it all.
She pointed out that our leaders in DC aren't very bright. She did have something up, if I am not mistaken, that illustrated how stupid some of these people in the House really are. Everybody should be careful, that just because some member of Congress says something, that it should be regarded as intelligent or competent.
I hope she's wrong about the overall quality of the leadership. But I'm a little worried about that at the moment.
Also, if you don't quit on the Lord, then don't quit on the people either. She seems to be.
Here they go again...
You know, I was serious yesterday when I wrote that I don't want an echo chamber here on this blog.
You know why? I've told the story already. Several times. So, it is quite instructive, I think, to keep going back over that, just as a reminder.
The left just absolutely loves to portray themselves as tolerant and forgiving bunch. But they are nothing of the kind. So, here we have the Mahablog, and she writes something along the lines that it is only the right, the GOP, that are the big haters.
Well, bless her little biddy heart. All I know, is that I went there looking to dialogue with someone on the left, and I got booted for having a MINOR DISAGREEMENT. She won't tolerate dissent. Not for an instant. The loving and tolerant little angel cannot abide even the slightest give and take of an honest discussion. The thing you get is the Alinsky treatment. Insults and abuse. If you don't give in, well, she just writes you off.
If my experience was the exception, I'd say that I just had one bad experience. But you hear about this kind of thing all the time.
One problem I see in the country today is that everybody is retreating to their own echo chamber. The Mahablog is what I mean by an echo chamber. The people who go there are only interested in seeing what they already believe. It works for her. But does it work for this country?
You know why? I've told the story already. Several times. So, it is quite instructive, I think, to keep going back over that, just as a reminder.
The left just absolutely loves to portray themselves as tolerant and forgiving bunch. But they are nothing of the kind. So, here we have the Mahablog, and she writes something along the lines that it is only the right, the GOP, that are the big haters.
Well, bless her little biddy heart. All I know, is that I went there looking to dialogue with someone on the left, and I got booted for having a MINOR DISAGREEMENT. She won't tolerate dissent. Not for an instant. The loving and tolerant little angel cannot abide even the slightest give and take of an honest discussion. The thing you get is the Alinsky treatment. Insults and abuse. If you don't give in, well, she just writes you off.
If my experience was the exception, I'd say that I just had one bad experience. But you hear about this kind of thing all the time.
One problem I see in the country today is that everybody is retreating to their own echo chamber. The Mahablog is what I mean by an echo chamber. The people who go there are only interested in seeing what they already believe. It works for her. But does it work for this country?
Late start this morning
Excuse the tardiness.
Let's get on with it, shall we?
Friday night, I seemed so hellbent for leather to do some blogging, but when Saturday came around, I wasn't too productive. For some reason, not clear to me, I watched some religious type movies yesterday. I won't name them here.
If there's any reason for the religious stuff, maybe it was Podesta. That stuff he said seemed Satanic.
The course of the blog may turn to some rather large issues, but I'm not sure I want to go there.
Let's get on with it, shall we?
Friday night, I seemed so hellbent for leather to do some blogging, but when Saturday came around, I wasn't too productive. For some reason, not clear to me, I watched some religious type movies yesterday. I won't name them here.
If there's any reason for the religious stuff, maybe it was Podesta. That stuff he said seemed Satanic.
The course of the blog may turn to some rather large issues, but I'm not sure I want to go there.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Early returns: Top ten states for year-over-year job growth
Early returns: Top ten states for year-over-year job growth
Texas is number 2, as judged by percentage growth rate. In terms of absolute numbers, it is the grand daddy of them all, according to this article.
I live in Texas and there's really not a boom here compares with the way the economy was in 2008. Still, it is better if it is growing than if it is not.
Texas is number 2, as judged by percentage growth rate. In terms of absolute numbers, it is the grand daddy of them all, according to this article.
I live in Texas and there's really not a boom here compares with the way the economy was in 2008. Still, it is better if it is growing than if it is not.
Why Elon Musk is a Poor Person’s Worst Nightmare
Santa Cruz Good Times
quote:
Tesla is a boondoggle. Hopefully, Spacex is not.
quote:
Musk, the chief executive officer (CEO) and chief technology officer (CTO) of SpaceX, the CEO of Tesla Motors, and chairman of the board of SolarCity, doesn’t care about the poor or middle-class and his business models prove it.Only one of his ideas looks really good to me. That's the reusable rocket concept. I think it should work, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Tesla is a boondoggle. Hopefully, Spacex is not.
Prediction: Anti-Christ will appear within 30 years
What the heck brought on this prediction? Well, I was listening to Ann Barnhardt's latest podcast, and she mentions that the Anti-Christ will be able to do this or that in order to fool the public.
Ann probably doesn't know that much about robotics and computers. In the next 30 years or so, the robotics and computer power will be such that it will force the appearance of an Anti-Christ because of the very fact of their existence, human life will not be the same. These robots and computers are going to be human like in almost every way. In my opinion, there is no way that the old ways can survive that.
If you want to argue it, the existence of robots and computers ARE manifestations of the Anti-Christ. I'm not arguing that proposition.
Whatever happens, the whole proposition of an Anti-Christ will be forced within the next 30 years due to robotics and computers.
Ann probably doesn't know that much about robotics and computers. In the next 30 years or so, the robotics and computer power will be such that it will force the appearance of an Anti-Christ because of the very fact of their existence, human life will not be the same. These robots and computers are going to be human like in almost every way. In my opinion, there is no way that the old ways can survive that.
If you want to argue it, the existence of robots and computers ARE manifestations of the Anti-Christ. I'm not arguing that proposition.
Whatever happens, the whole proposition of an Anti-Christ will be forced within the next 30 years due to robotics and computers.
Now, about the blog
I'm played out on the Podesta thing. Time to move on with my agenda for today. The next item is about the blog itself.
I've given this some thought. If you could summarize briefly what this blog is about, then this: What the f*^k is happening to this country? Secondly, what might be done about that situation. The goal of my blogging was to make money at writing this blog, but that is becoming something of a joke here. Furthermore, I've learned that the problems in this country are much bigger than I thought when I began this blog. When I began, I figured just a few tech fixes would set us right. It's a lot bigger and deeper than that, alas.
The blog has evolved to its current form after about a year of experimentation. I don't think I'll make any major changes from now on. Takes too much of my time. That's another thing that I've learned. I don't manage my time as well as I should. I spend too much time on things that irrelevant. I spread myself too thinly. It is reflected in this blog. I need to tighten it up.
Who's the audience? Who am I writing for? As usual, I didn't think about this in advance. The blog isn't a partisan blog. I tend to be conservative, but I won't follow a party line. This is an independent conservative blog, if it is anything.
Liberals are welcomed here, under certain conditions. One, there must be civility. Two, you are going to have tolerate criticism of your most cherished beliefs---namely that you are better than everybody else. I know all you liberals think you are very special little snow flakes, I am not about to buy any of your BS.
Conservatives are welcomed too. But just don't start imitating liberals. Criticizing you isn't treason. Let the liberals try to pull that off.
But does that answer the question? No, maybe not. Here's what you need to in order to come here and feel at home. You need an open mind. If you want an echo chamber, there are plenty of other bloggers out there who are willing and able to provide that for you. I won't.
I don't know the future is for this blog. If the past is any indication, it won't ever amount to much. But I suppose I can always get a break. We'll see.
I don't know if I offer anything unique here, but maybe this blog is unusal. It seems like people these days are more interested in their echo chambers. This blog is an alternative to the echo chambers. You have to have the courage to question what you believe to be true. Otherwise this blog will not be your kind of place.
I've given this some thought. If you could summarize briefly what this blog is about, then this: What the f*^k is happening to this country? Secondly, what might be done about that situation. The goal of my blogging was to make money at writing this blog, but that is becoming something of a joke here. Furthermore, I've learned that the problems in this country are much bigger than I thought when I began this blog. When I began, I figured just a few tech fixes would set us right. It's a lot bigger and deeper than that, alas.
The blog has evolved to its current form after about a year of experimentation. I don't think I'll make any major changes from now on. Takes too much of my time. That's another thing that I've learned. I don't manage my time as well as I should. I spend too much time on things that irrelevant. I spread myself too thinly. It is reflected in this blog. I need to tighten it up.
Who's the audience? Who am I writing for? As usual, I didn't think about this in advance. The blog isn't a partisan blog. I tend to be conservative, but I won't follow a party line. This is an independent conservative blog, if it is anything.
Liberals are welcomed here, under certain conditions. One, there must be civility. Two, you are going to have tolerate criticism of your most cherished beliefs---namely that you are better than everybody else. I know all you liberals think you are very special little snow flakes, I am not about to buy any of your BS.
Conservatives are welcomed too. But just don't start imitating liberals. Criticizing you isn't treason. Let the liberals try to pull that off.
But does that answer the question? No, maybe not. Here's what you need to in order to come here and feel at home. You need an open mind. If you want an echo chamber, there are plenty of other bloggers out there who are willing and able to provide that for you. I won't.
I don't know the future is for this blog. If the past is any indication, it won't ever amount to much. But I suppose I can always get a break. We'll see.
I don't know if I offer anything unique here, but maybe this blog is unusal. It seems like people these days are more interested in their echo chambers. This blog is an alternative to the echo chambers. You have to have the courage to question what you believe to be true. Otherwise this blog will not be your kind of place.
Podesta goes too far
Analysis of the Podesta outrage. Many levels of meaning. Could have been an attempt to warn opposition of what his intentions are. Those intentions may include a coup. Another possibility is that he wants to drive a wedge between the Republican factions. Podesta apologized to Boehner only. The point of this is to annoy the GOP factions with each other and thus split the Republican Party.
Update:
The above is what I could hack out with my smart phone yesterday. It looks rather meager.
This may be worthy of a more lengthy post because it represents something significant that needs to be addressed.
The significance was greater than the just the outrage of what Podesta said. He went further than that. The Townhall article linked from the original post said that Podesta wants Obama to govern by executive fiat. Townhall says:
Question:
So does this mean that this is the justification for the IRS harassment of Tea Party Groups? That they are a murderous cult that is worthy of suppression and that the president has this right to suppress this group? What clause in the constitution grants the authority to unilaterally make this determination and execute it as legitimate policy?
Update:
I'm trying to figure out what Podesta's logic for claiming that the President has the authority to suppress what claims to be a "cult". During the Civil War, the president at that time, Abraham Lincoln, suspended the writ of habeas corpus. What does the constitution has to say about that? There is a clause in there that addresses this issue: Article I, Section 9 says:
During the Civil War, the Southern block of states left the Union. Lincoln determined that this was illegal and that it was in effect, a rebellion against the authority of the United States. That theory, therefore, would hold. But what "rebellion" exists today? Does the mere presence of political opposition to the President now constitute rebellion? This has not be the case in the past. There has been tolerance for dissent, and that tolerance is the law of the land, as stated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
I suspect this president and his followers seemed to be confused about what is sovereign and what is not. The president, and any president is not sovereign. The president is not the law of the land, the constitution is the law of the land. Everybody in the government has to swear an oath to support and defend the constitution. Nobody is required to swear an oath to support any president nor any other politician. The president and all the people in this country are subject to the sovereign authority of the law. Obama is not the law. He is only an officer of the law, subject to that law just like everybody else.
Update:
So, who was the "someone" who should remind Podesta about Jim Jones? Evidently, that "someone" should be "someone" important. Evidently, nobody wants to step up to the plate and say something.
Randall Parker had something to say recently about Eloi, Proles, and Morlocks. The Eloi are the Democrats, the Proles are the Republicans, and the Morlocks are also Democrats. According to his sources, the GOP has to be trained first before they are allowed to govern. Parker says that the Eloi don't want to Proles to get ideas and try to implement them.
What does this have to do with Podesta? Well, Democrats think they are holier than holy. Any attempt to go around them or through them will draw the most negative of negative responses. Any opposition to their holiest of holy decrees will be considered treason. There will be hell to pay. Such was the case with Bush.
Update:
The above is what I could hack out with my smart phone yesterday. It looks rather meager.
This may be worthy of a more lengthy post because it represents something significant that needs to be addressed.
The significance was greater than the just the outrage of what Podesta said. He went further than that. The Townhall article linked from the original post said that Podesta wants Obama to govern by executive fiat. Townhall says:
Whatever legislation you write with Democrats, and Obama signs into "law," will not be worth the paper it is printed on. Obama's new counselor believes Republicans are evil and therefore Obama ought to be empowered to do whatever he wants no matter what the law says.[emphasis added]It's noteworthy also that according to Ace that Podesta is claiming:
there's a clause in the Constitution that gives the executive plenary power to fight cultsWhich clause is that? The President is constrained by the Constitution, not empowered by it. He is constrained to be an officer of the Constitution, not the judge, jury, and executioner of his rivals and critics. Whatever happened to checks and balances? We heard about them during the Bush presidency, but that doesn't seem to apply anymore. It only applies to the GOP "cult", I suppose. It doesn't apply to the "Messiah". I suppose we are to feel guilty that Obama has become a victim of his own hype.
Question:
So does this mean that this is the justification for the IRS harassment of Tea Party Groups? That they are a murderous cult that is worthy of suppression and that the president has this right to suppress this group? What clause in the constitution grants the authority to unilaterally make this determination and execute it as legitimate policy?
Update:
I'm trying to figure out what Podesta's logic for claiming that the President has the authority to suppress what claims to be a "cult". During the Civil War, the president at that time, Abraham Lincoln, suspended the writ of habeas corpus. What does the constitution has to say about that? There is a clause in there that addresses this issue: Article I, Section 9 says:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
During the Civil War, the Southern block of states left the Union. Lincoln determined that this was illegal and that it was in effect, a rebellion against the authority of the United States. That theory, therefore, would hold. But what "rebellion" exists today? Does the mere presence of political opposition to the President now constitute rebellion? This has not be the case in the past. There has been tolerance for dissent, and that tolerance is the law of the land, as stated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
I suspect this president and his followers seemed to be confused about what is sovereign and what is not. The president, and any president is not sovereign. The president is not the law of the land, the constitution is the law of the land. Everybody in the government has to swear an oath to support and defend the constitution. Nobody is required to swear an oath to support any president nor any other politician. The president and all the people in this country are subject to the sovereign authority of the law. Obama is not the law. He is only an officer of the law, subject to that law just like everybody else.
Update:
So, who was the "someone" who should remind Podesta about Jim Jones? Evidently, that "someone" should be "someone" important. Evidently, nobody wants to step up to the plate and say something.
Randall Parker had something to say recently about Eloi, Proles, and Morlocks. The Eloi are the Democrats, the Proles are the Republicans, and the Morlocks are also Democrats. According to his sources, the GOP has to be trained first before they are allowed to govern. Parker says that the Eloi don't want to Proles to get ideas and try to implement them.
What does this have to do with Podesta? Well, Democrats think they are holier than holy. Any attempt to go around them or through them will draw the most negative of negative responses. Any opposition to their holiest of holy decrees will be considered treason. There will be hell to pay. Such was the case with Bush.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Home again
It's been a really long day. A really long week. Seems like I worked late almost every day this week. This stuff can wear you down.
Now I'm home and all's well. I'm happy to be doing what I want to do as opposed to doing what somebody else wants me to do.
No plans for tomorrow and no errands to run. That means I can blog to my heart's content. What to write about?
Now I'm home and all's well. I'm happy to be doing what I want to do as opposed to doing what somebody else wants me to do.
No plans for tomorrow and no errands to run. That means I can blog to my heart's content. What to write about?
- More about Podesta: been thinking about this a lot today.
- More thoughts on the blog --- how and why it got started and what I have learned---about myself, my approach to the blog, and my subject matter. How the blog has evolved over time.
- Perhaps I will do some housekeeping on the blog. It is a bit overdue. Ideas on improving the blog.
- Can this blog ever reach the next level? Has the blog gotten stale? What about the prospects for the future for this blog? Who's the audience? How to expand that? What does someone get here that they can't get anywhere else?
"Liberal anti gun carpet bagger" eyes Senate run in New Hampshire
Scott Brown couldn't make it in liberalstan Massachusetts, so he is moving to the live free or die state.
REPOSTED: Zomblog: Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years
NOTE:
I'm putting this post up again because there is a tendency amongst conservatives just to do nothing but talk. In Aesop's Fable, that's what the lamb did with the wolf. The lamb got eaten anyway, and the moral to the story was that force gets the better of an argument. It's not enough to be right. You have to back it up with something. All too often, the political right will not back up their arguments with something that is better than a plaintive "bah". I'm not suggesting violence, but a need for action instead of mere words.
the repost begins directly below:
published Wed, Aug 19, 2009
The point I am making is not that this is something new and shocking. Everybody knows this. The point is what to do about it? It isn't enough, evidently, to point it out. It seems that those who are pointing it out are like the lamb who gets into an argument with the wolf- an Aesop's fable. We all know who wins those kind of arguments.
Who owns the media? It isn't the poor, my friends. The Democrats like to claim that they are for the poor, but how can that be when they are not one of the poor themselves? Or, if they are slavishly serving the interests of the powerful? They lie to and deceive the poor, but do not serve them. You lie to and deceive your enemy, do you not? For the poor to listen to the media is like the lamb who takes advice from the wolf.
I'm putting this post up again because there is a tendency amongst conservatives just to do nothing but talk. In Aesop's Fable, that's what the lamb did with the wolf. The lamb got eaten anyway, and the moral to the story was that force gets the better of an argument. It's not enough to be right. You have to back it up with something. All too often, the political right will not back up their arguments with something that is better than a plaintive "bah". I'm not suggesting violence, but a need for action instead of mere words.
the repost begins directly below:
published Wed, Aug 19, 2009
- On Wednesday, August 12, a man holding a sign that said “Death to Obama” at a town hall meeting in Maryland was detained and turned over to the Secret Service which will likely soon charge him with threatening the president.
- Bush was threatened frequently — but no arrests
- "I’m not trying to claim that death threats against Bush in the past justify threats against Obama now."
- "No — I am not calling the Secret Service incompetent."
- "I contend that the media is aggressively reporting on, highlighting and pursuing any and all possible threats to President Obama — and even hints of threats — but they purposely glossed over, ignored or failed to report similar threats to President Bush."
- but part of it is almost certainly due to an increase in threats which get reported by the media and are therefore brought to the Secret Service’s attention.
- After scanning the pictures below of death threats against Bush, ask yourself: Holy cow — why was I never aware of these at the time? The reason: Because the media intentionally failed to report on them.
- The key question is: Were any protesters ever arrested or questioned for displaying threatening messages about President Bush at a protest? And the answer is: No
- The most famous case was that of Brett Bursey, who was arrested in 2002 outside a Bush speech. The media dishonestly implied that he was arrested simply for carrying a sign that said “No War For Oil”
- At last: The pictures
The point I am making is not that this is something new and shocking. Everybody knows this. The point is what to do about it? It isn't enough, evidently, to point it out. It seems that those who are pointing it out are like the lamb who gets into an argument with the wolf- an Aesop's fable. We all know who wins those kind of arguments.
Who owns the media? It isn't the poor, my friends. The Democrats like to claim that they are for the poor, but how can that be when they are not one of the poor themselves? Or, if they are slavishly serving the interests of the powerful? They lie to and deceive the poor, but do not serve them. You lie to and deceive your enemy, do you not? For the poor to listen to the media is like the lamb who takes advice from the wolf.
Someone Remind Podesta: Jim Jones Was a Democratic Vote Fraudster
nro via Instapundit
comment:
I'm trying.
quote:
comment:
It's the full Alinsky. There's that word again- "sad". Don't get sad, get mad. Too much passivity. The left is a minority, but they are highly organized and active. You don't counter this by being "sad".
comment:
I'm trying.
quote:
As a politically-connected partisan he had to have read about the Jim Jones cult’s connections to prominent Democrats. For him to drag out the Jonestown tragedy to smear Republicans actually took more than chutzpah. It was political malpractice of a high order, and, whether or not he apologizes, it’s sad to see the president’s new counselor so verbally reckless.
comment:
It's the full Alinsky. There's that word again- "sad". Don't get sad, get mad. Too much passivity. The left is a minority, but they are highly organized and active. You don't counter this by being "sad".
4 Reasons Why the Duck Dynasty Brouhaha Matters
pjtatler via Instapundit
quote:
comment:
"Rage quit" must mean unplugging your cable or turning off the TV. In my case, I'd have to turn it back on.
I stopped watching TV a long time ago. I only watch sports, and that is getting less frequent too. I notice that sports is getting polluted with the PC crap. It is nothing but propaganda and you're paying for it. I say make them pay to reach you. Don't give them money to indoctrinate yourself with their propaganda. Tune out. You have no obligation to listen to their garbage.
You may have to go underground. That may be good too. Stop supporting a society that is destroying itself. Don't send your kids into the military. Refuse to support them with your blood or treasure. You don't owe loyalty to these people. If nearly 1/2 of the population tunes these people out, it may get their attention.
Rage quitting is actually a good idea. Rage quitting is the same as a boycott. You should separate from wrong doers. Have nothing to do with them.
quote:
You Can’t Rage Quit the Culture Wars
comment:
"Rage quit" must mean unplugging your cable or turning off the TV. In my case, I'd have to turn it back on.
I stopped watching TV a long time ago. I only watch sports, and that is getting less frequent too. I notice that sports is getting polluted with the PC crap. It is nothing but propaganda and you're paying for it. I say make them pay to reach you. Don't give them money to indoctrinate yourself with their propaganda. Tune out. You have no obligation to listen to their garbage.
You may have to go underground. That may be good too. Stop supporting a society that is destroying itself. Don't send your kids into the military. Refuse to support them with your blood or treasure. You don't owe loyalty to these people. If nearly 1/2 of the population tunes these people out, it may get their attention.
Rage quitting is actually a good idea. Rage quitting is the same as a boycott. You should separate from wrong doers. Have nothing to do with them.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
U.S. foresees gas-powered vehicles dominating through 2040
detroit news
If that happens, it won't be true because of anything technical or economic that is preventing the change. Frankly, I think the article is a lot of poppycock. Give it 15 to 20 years, and there will be a sea change in how vehicles are powered. 78% my eye.
The agency predicts that in 2040, 78 percent of all cars and trucks will run on gasoline, down from 82 percent last year.
If that happens, it won't be true because of anything technical or economic that is preventing the change. Frankly, I think the article is a lot of poppycock. Give it 15 to 20 years, and there will be a sea change in how vehicles are powered. 78% my eye.
Computer security fail
http://m.tgdaily.com/security-brief/83251-miss-teen-usa-exposes-apple-macbook-camera-security-fail
Once again, I ask: what prevents someone from turning a robot into a weapon?
Gold slump
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304866904579267753420462942?mg=reno64-wsj
Any big move in the future will probably be related to a collapse. Gold will probably hold steady here.
Podesta Thinks Conservatives Are A Cult
Ace
Hmm. Seems like I wrote something about Death Cults. It wasn't about the GOP being one, though. Come to think of it, the so-called Reverend Jim Jones came from the land of fruits and nuts. Just sayin'.
It's called projection, in case you were wondering. Doctor Podesta, "heal thyself".
Update:
That's why a prayer is needed. A much higher power is necessary. We have certifiable wackos running this government. What can any single person do about this when more than half of the voters in this country put these wackos into power?
Hmm. Seems like I wrote something about Death Cults. It wasn't about the GOP being one, though. Come to think of it, the so-called Reverend Jim Jones came from the land of fruits and nuts. Just sayin'.
It's called projection, in case you were wondering. Doctor Podesta, "heal thyself".
Update:
That's why a prayer is needed. A much higher power is necessary. We have certifiable wackos running this government. What can any single person do about this when more than half of the voters in this country put these wackos into power?
Catching up on news
Whew!
Stocks up nearly 300 points yesterday. What a joke. So these bozos think the Fed announcement was a reason to buy like this?
The country is headed for a crack up and stocks are making record highs. Makes perfect sense to me!
Stocks up nearly 300 points yesterday. What a joke. So these bozos think the Fed announcement was a reason to buy like this?
The country is headed for a crack up and stocks are making record highs. Makes perfect sense to me!
A Prayer Tailor Made For Me
How? That is awfully grandiose of me. Screw it. It fits me perfectly, at least for the moment, and maybe for all my moments.
Look at my blog. It is about a million things. I spread myself way too thin. I need to prioritize.
The prayer goes something like this because I don't have the time to get it right or to attribute it
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
I need to start the day with this every day. Dammit.
Look at my blog. It is about a million things. I spread myself way too thin. I need to prioritize.
The prayer goes something like this because I don't have the time to get it right or to attribute it
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
I need to start the day with this every day. Dammit.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
View From The Porch: This country is nuts.
View From The Porch: This country is nuts.: You couldn't make up irony like this: The same week they planted Nelson Mandela, you can go to your very own Apartheid Santa in Los Ang...
comment:
Reminds me of a Three Stooges gag: "Trapped like rats!" "Speak for yourself."
comment:
Reminds me of a Three Stooges gag: "Trapped like rats!" "Speak for yourself."
DailyDirt: Tis The Season To Catch The Flu
techdirt link via Instapundit and Drudge
comment:
There's a bug in this area that has killed 4 people. Flu like symptoms. That makes me wonder what I just went through myself. Didn't check in with a doctor, but it sure was miserable. I probably didn't have it, but whatever I had was bad enough.
comment:
There's a bug in this area that has killed 4 people. Flu like symptoms. That makes me wonder what I just went through myself. Didn't check in with a doctor, but it sure was miserable. I probably didn't have it, but whatever I had was bad enough.
Infinia, Stirling Solar Startup, Files for Bankuptcy (September 25, 2013)
greentech media
Solar energy is just a pipe dream, but can there be another application for this tech?
I put this up since I was wondering about the really compact size of their dishes, and therefore, their Stirling Engines would also have to be small.
If you could just make these Stirling Engines small enough, they could work in a really small car, like the Urbee.
I was also thinking of cracking ammonia and burning the hydrogen. This would make a hotter flame ( I think ), and that could lead to a smaller Stirling Engine. The hotter the heat source, the more efficient a Stirling Engine can be.
Solar energy is just a pipe dream, but can there be another application for this tech?
I put this up since I was wondering about the really compact size of their dishes, and therefore, their Stirling Engines would also have to be small.
If you could just make these Stirling Engines small enough, they could work in a really small car, like the Urbee.
I was also thinking of cracking ammonia and burning the hydrogen. This would make a hotter flame ( I think ), and that could lead to a smaller Stirling Engine. The hotter the heat source, the more efficient a Stirling Engine can be.
Ametek acquires Sunpower---Thursday, January 03, 2013
ametec
There was a question I wanted to answer with a brief research this early morning. Is there a place that makes Stirling Engines for sale? It seems that I've been down this road before. It may have brought me to a dead end, so I don't know if this will be fruitful or not.
The links available from a google search were quite thin. I came up with Sunpower Incorporated. As shown in the title above, they were acquired early this year.
The link at the top takes you to a site where they might have an engine that would work in a car, but I'm not sure. I can continue this research later, I suppose. Anyway, this acquisition was of a company that had been making small Stirling engines. It is now a part of this larger company that is listed on the NYSE.
Another website, managed by amateurs, wants to develop a Stirling Engine on their own. This would be interesting except for one thing---it's re-inventing the wheel. Trouble is, you just don't see many companies out there making these kinds of engines.
There's a reason for this, I suppose. Perhaps it just isn't suitable for a car. Yet, Ford worked on this concept in the early 70's. The thought occurred to me that it could be used for a series electric hybrid that would run on ammonia. Such an engine could be carbon free. If it were to be combined with a design with the Urbee, the size of engine required could be minimized. Such an engine could be more efficient that the diesel engine that the Urbee uses. Even if not so, the Stirling Engine could be completely emission free. Any internal combustion engine, regardless of fuel used, will produce some emissions. Since the Stirling can be a sealed unit, the emissions just might be brought to all the way down to zero.
California did have a designation for such an auto, as I recall some time ago. There may be a market for it, provided that it could be produced.
There was a question I wanted to answer with a brief research this early morning. Is there a place that makes Stirling Engines for sale? It seems that I've been down this road before. It may have brought me to a dead end, so I don't know if this will be fruitful or not.
The links available from a google search were quite thin. I came up with Sunpower Incorporated. As shown in the title above, they were acquired early this year.
The link at the top takes you to a site where they might have an engine that would work in a car, but I'm not sure. I can continue this research later, I suppose. Anyway, this acquisition was of a company that had been making small Stirling engines. It is now a part of this larger company that is listed on the NYSE.
Another website, managed by amateurs, wants to develop a Stirling Engine on their own. This would be interesting except for one thing---it's re-inventing the wheel. Trouble is, you just don't see many companies out there making these kinds of engines.
There's a reason for this, I suppose. Perhaps it just isn't suitable for a car. Yet, Ford worked on this concept in the early 70's. The thought occurred to me that it could be used for a series electric hybrid that would run on ammonia. Such an engine could be carbon free. If it were to be combined with a design with the Urbee, the size of engine required could be minimized. Such an engine could be more efficient that the diesel engine that the Urbee uses. Even if not so, the Stirling Engine could be completely emission free. Any internal combustion engine, regardless of fuel used, will produce some emissions. Since the Stirling can be a sealed unit, the emissions just might be brought to all the way down to zero.
California did have a designation for such an auto, as I recall some time ago. There may be a market for it, provided that it could be produced.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
(2008 story) Dean Kamen Creates Hybrid Th!nk City Car With Stirling Engine
Jalopnik
So, what happened? It all looks good, what went wrong?
Anyway, I thought of this idea today, with a following twist: burn ammonia instead of fossil fuels. This would make it carbon free, provided that you can make the ammonia without a carbon source. You could if you used nuclear energy.
his DEKA Revolt may be pointing to an interesting transportation option, a hybrid car with a Stirling engine.
So, what happened? It all looks good, what went wrong?
Anyway, I thought of this idea today, with a following twist: burn ammonia instead of fossil fuels. This would make it carbon free, provided that you can make the ammonia without a carbon source. You could if you used nuclear energy.
Machines cannot replace people
Another reason to dislike robots for everything. How can you be sure that the robot won't get stolen and hacked so that it could be used for criminal purposes? What's to prevent a terrorist from obtaining robot and using it to deliver a bomb? Even if you put a lot of software and hardware protection into the machine, that won't necessarily stop a successful hack. Cars get stolen, viruses get put in the machines, so what stops this?
Bush v Gore rightly decided
Why you don't make mixed ticket for election. Reason is that you could give one party a motive to assassinate the president, and put their own party into power. So, Sandra Day O'Connor thinks she did wrong thing in Bush vs Gore, but actually she did the right thing because all she would have done is setup a situation in which they would have a motivation for assassinating Bush.
Update: ( for clarification purposes )
I followed the 2000 election controversy, so I know what I'm talking about here. Let's say that the Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor. This still doesn't produce a victory for him, regardless of the outcome. That's because the recount controversy could have been dragged out over time until it passed the "safe-harbor" time limit that was fast approaching. No way the recount gets completed and certified in time to prevent a challenge in the House. It then gets thrown into the House, where Bush wins. If Gore would have followed this strategy in the first place, he might have had some opportunity to win., Having lost his bid by selective recounts, he forfeited his chances, in my opinion. This last gambit was a spiteful attempt to deprive Bush of his victory.
The best the Gore camp and the Democrats could have done is to put Lieberman in as vice-president. The Court stopped this, and rightly so. There was no point in damaging the incoming administration.
That O'Connor could change her mind like this shows why it's a good thing she left the court.
Update: ( for clarification purposes )
I followed the 2000 election controversy, so I know what I'm talking about here. Let's say that the Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor. This still doesn't produce a victory for him, regardless of the outcome. That's because the recount controversy could have been dragged out over time until it passed the "safe-harbor" time limit that was fast approaching. No way the recount gets completed and certified in time to prevent a challenge in the House. It then gets thrown into the House, where Bush wins. If Gore would have followed this strategy in the first place, he might have had some opportunity to win., Having lost his bid by selective recounts, he forfeited his chances, in my opinion. This last gambit was a spiteful attempt to deprive Bush of his victory.
The best the Gore camp and the Democrats could have done is to put Lieberman in as vice-president. The Court stopped this, and rightly so. There was no point in damaging the incoming administration.
That O'Connor could change her mind like this shows why it's a good thing she left the court.
Russia means to regain their empire
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/world/europe/russia-offers-ukraine-financial-lifeline.html
The Baltic States and Ukraine. The bear is back.
The bear is stirring
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304403804579262801346719832?mg=reno64-wsj
If Russia is so worried about Poland, then why are they helping Iran get the bomb?
Google search and destroy: The internet giant (motto: 'Don't be evil') has bought a pioneer of scary robot animals. Can its ethics survive?
independent uk
comment:
Scary indeed. This is a scary world that they are creating. Obviously, these guys don't think that there may be something wrong about what they are doing.
You can't rely upon robots for everything. There's got to be room for people.
But what can you do? People are hell bent for leather for this kind of thing.
comment:
Scary indeed. This is a scary world that they are creating. Obviously, these guys don't think that there may be something wrong about what they are doing.
You can't rely upon robots for everything. There's got to be room for people.
But what can you do? People are hell bent for leather for this kind of thing.
speech from the movie "Patton" given to the 3rd army
This speech pretty much says it all. "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." That was true then ( 1970 ), but is it true today? Somehow, to be an exceptional nation is no longer considered to be fashionable. If so, we'd all better prepare to "embrace the suck".
How to go from a winner to a loser in a very short time
Professional sports have interested me since I was a kid---as a spectator, that is. Growing up, I guess we were all dreaming about being the big league ballplayer. But those are rare. Most folks, including me, just aren't very good. But being a spectator does have its advantages. You can separate yourself from it all and watch and become somewhat expert spectator.
I'd like to think I can evaluate sports teams, and tell if they really have the right stuff to win. Now, take the Houston Texans. They've suffered a precipitous drop this year. From a 12-4 team all the way down to the bottom. Yet, they just seem to get worse as the season drags on.
I think I saw it all coming long ago. As late as 2010, I figured they'd have to fire Kubiak. What decided me then is how they lost a game to Denver 3 years ago. Teams that lose games that have no business losing are teams that are DOOMED. That game was such a game.
Limbaugh likes to say that there are life's lessons that can be observed in sports. What's the life lesson here? You can go from the top to the bottom very quickly. Secondly, you have to have the right leadership if you are going to get to the top and stay there.
If you project this observation out from sports to the national scene, maybe it just might scare some people into taking our problems a bit more seriously. The failure to develop energy independence is a game that we had no business losing, just as the Texans 3 years ago. For the last 40 years, we have had the capability to get off foreign oil. We could have done that and it wouldn't have hurt us in the least. In fact, we would have thrived. Yet we didn't do it. Now we have an economy that is dead in the water.
As with the Texans, could a major collapse be far behind?
I'd like to think I can evaluate sports teams, and tell if they really have the right stuff to win. Now, take the Houston Texans. They've suffered a precipitous drop this year. From a 12-4 team all the way down to the bottom. Yet, they just seem to get worse as the season drags on.
I think I saw it all coming long ago. As late as 2010, I figured they'd have to fire Kubiak. What decided me then is how they lost a game to Denver 3 years ago. Teams that lose games that have no business losing are teams that are DOOMED. That game was such a game.
Limbaugh likes to say that there are life's lessons that can be observed in sports. What's the life lesson here? You can go from the top to the bottom very quickly. Secondly, you have to have the right leadership if you are going to get to the top and stay there.
If you project this observation out from sports to the national scene, maybe it just might scare some people into taking our problems a bit more seriously. The failure to develop energy independence is a game that we had no business losing, just as the Texans 3 years ago. For the last 40 years, we have had the capability to get off foreign oil. We could have done that and it wouldn't have hurt us in the least. In fact, we would have thrived. Yet we didn't do it. Now we have an economy that is dead in the water.
As with the Texans, could a major collapse be far behind?
Robert Reich and the politics of envy
American Thinker
quote:
Robert Reich is such a man. snicker snicker
quote:
Megan McArdle once observed that in our public discourse, "very rich" is defined as "just above the level a top-notch journalist in a two-earner couple could be expected to pull down." There is no envy like the envy of a $250,000 man in a world of $250 million mencomment:
Robert Reich is such a man. snicker snicker
How Technology Could Reduce the Cold Weather Drain on EV Batteries
MIT Technology Review link via Instapundit
comment:
It appears that battery powered vehicles have a problem in the cold. It reduces the range. Range can only be made up for by making bigger batteries and they are already too big and heavy. Article confirms my reservations about batteries. Told ya.
comment:
It appears that battery powered vehicles have a problem in the cold. It reduces the range. Range can only be made up for by making bigger batteries and they are already too big and heavy. Article confirms my reservations about batteries. Told ya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)