Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Dick Morris thinks shutdown is suicide for GOP
This is a bit dated because I don't check my emails often enough. This is a reaction to an email from Morris' website.
Anyway, Morris thinks that a shut down over ObamaCare would be political suicide for the GOP.
Maybe. But I don't agree for two reasons
1. There doesn't have to be a shut down and
2. People can be persuaded to change their minds if a person shows conviction.
As for #2, it is largely a philosophical bet on human nature. As Osama bin Laden said, you see and strong horse and a weak horse, of course you take the strong horse.
If the GOP acts like a weak horse, they will lose the battle plain and simple. No chance. There's a chance if the GOP acts like the strong horse, and especially if they really are the strong horse. What if they aren't the strong horse? You can try to bluff your way through a problem, and it might work, but if you are weaker, you probably shouldn't try it.
The GOP should assess its strength, and then go with the best strategy. The polls indicate they may have an opening, but they must sell that to the public. If they are afraid of the media, they may as well fold now. You are the weak horse when you are scared. You have to be confident of what you are doing and that confidence will be projected as strength. The people will follow strength. They will not follow weakness.
Does the GOP favor freedom or not? If you can't favor freedom, then what good are you? If not, you may as well quit now. You can still "win" a "victory" of sorts, but it is only for your own selves. You aren't helping anybody else. This isn't going to fool anybody.
Personally, I'd rather lose over freedom than to "win" on the terms of surrender. Freedom should not be on the bargaining table.
Fighting ObamaCare is about freedom. Either you will support that, or you won't.
Anyway, Morris thinks that a shut down over ObamaCare would be political suicide for the GOP.
Maybe. But I don't agree for two reasons
1. There doesn't have to be a shut down and
2. People can be persuaded to change their minds if a person shows conviction.
As for #2, it is largely a philosophical bet on human nature. As Osama bin Laden said, you see and strong horse and a weak horse, of course you take the strong horse.
If the GOP acts like a weak horse, they will lose the battle plain and simple. No chance. There's a chance if the GOP acts like the strong horse, and especially if they really are the strong horse. What if they aren't the strong horse? You can try to bluff your way through a problem, and it might work, but if you are weaker, you probably shouldn't try it.
The GOP should assess its strength, and then go with the best strategy. The polls indicate they may have an opening, but they must sell that to the public. If they are afraid of the media, they may as well fold now. You are the weak horse when you are scared. You have to be confident of what you are doing and that confidence will be projected as strength. The people will follow strength. They will not follow weakness.
Does the GOP favor freedom or not? If you can't favor freedom, then what good are you? If not, you may as well quit now. You can still "win" a "victory" of sorts, but it is only for your own selves. You aren't helping anybody else. This isn't going to fool anybody.
Personally, I'd rather lose over freedom than to "win" on the terms of surrender. Freedom should not be on the bargaining table.
Fighting ObamaCare is about freedom. Either you will support that, or you won't.
Soviet style of bargaining
I am reminded of Herb Cohen's description of the Soviet negotiation style. It is a win at all costs style. The Soviet style will stick a knife in your back while smiling in your face.
Here we have the Democrats employing Soviet tactics. Getting emotional. Making extreme demands. Using time like they have no deadlines.
What happens is that you begin to bargain with yourself. If what I see is correct, that's what Boner is doing. He's going to fund the government until Dec 15th and ensure that the military gets paid. But ObamaCare would be delayed for a year. That's bargaining with yourself. You haven't gotten one thing out the opponent. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Boner should go. This proves his weakness. Before it's said and done, Obummer will get all of what he wants. Just like the last time they did this.
But Boner was retained earlier this year. The GOP may have sealed its own doom with this mistake.
Here we have the Democrats employing Soviet tactics. Getting emotional. Making extreme demands. Using time like they have no deadlines.
What happens is that you begin to bargain with yourself. If what I see is correct, that's what Boner is doing. He's going to fund the government until Dec 15th and ensure that the military gets paid. But ObamaCare would be delayed for a year. That's bargaining with yourself. You haven't gotten one thing out the opponent. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Boner should go. This proves his weakness. Before it's said and done, Obummer will get all of what he wants. Just like the last time they did this.
But Boner was retained earlier this year. The GOP may have sealed its own doom with this mistake.
Theft by government
Behind The Black blog
Quote:
Comment:
The rest of the story is frightening. Some folks out there cannot afford for the government to steal their money like that. What do they do? They keep low, they keep quiet. They avoid bringing themselves to the attention of these bureaucrats who literally have your financial life in their hands. They can ruin you whenever they want.
So, the IRS was not supposed to be this way. But power corrupts, so what prevents them to start doing this whenever it suits them in some way? Like if they don't like your politics or something like that?
Now, after considering this, why in the world would you want the government to have even more power? Like the power over your health care? That's literally life and death power over you. That's what ObamaCare is. Why would you want this? For a freebie or two? It ain't worth it.
Quote:
A store owner’s entire bank account was seized by the IRS
Comment:
The rest of the story is frightening. Some folks out there cannot afford for the government to steal their money like that. What do they do? They keep low, they keep quiet. They avoid bringing themselves to the attention of these bureaucrats who literally have your financial life in their hands. They can ruin you whenever they want.
So, the IRS was not supposed to be this way. But power corrupts, so what prevents them to start doing this whenever it suits them in some way? Like if they don't like your politics or something like that?
Now, after considering this, why in the world would you want the government to have even more power? Like the power over your health care? That's literally life and death power over you. That's what ObamaCare is. Why would you want this? For a freebie or two? It ain't worth it.
Al Gore: Government Shutdown Threat is Political Terrorism
Comment:
Awwwwwwwww!!!
I'm so, so, so very impressed! I'm so, so, so shocked at the despicable behavior of the GOP. I just want to slit my wrists, I'm so ashamed!!!! /sarc
What a freakin' joke this man is.
By the way, he has lost some weight. Does he have some plans in mind???????????
The Dow 30 Is Being Injected With Steroids – Yet Again!
Kitco Commentary
Quote:
A sign of the times. There's no honesty here. Just more of the same hanky pank.
Quote:
The replacement of Hewlett Packard, Bank of America and Alcoa as constituents in the Dow 30 with Goldman Sachs, Nike and Visa has put the index on steroids which more or less assures greater appreciation of the Dow than would otherwise have been possible.Comment:
A sign of the times. There's no honesty here. Just more of the same hanky pank.
Fuel Cells – The Better Batteries? A Conversation With Power & Energy Inc.
Kitco Commentary
Quote:
I guess that includes the Tesla automobile. You know, I think Elon Musk is a smart guy, but I don't really understand the interest in batteries. Perhaps battery tech will improve, but it doesn't seem to making much progress very fast.
I'm not a fan of the Tesla. I do support fuel cell automobiles, and I think they are within reach now, if we wanted them. Evidently not. By the way, when I say "we", I mean the powers-that-be. Perhaps I should say "they", not "we". They don't seem to have our best interests at heart.
There's something else I want to mention about this article. It has some ads at the bottom. One was about cancer. I clicked through and watched the video linked to on the page. In that video, it was mentioned that war on cancer is not being won, it is being lost. Why? The story is a familiar one that I've documented on this blog. It seems all too familiar.
Quote:
“Don’t look at the U.S.”, urged Leeson. “The U.S. isn’t leading in alternative vehicles. Period”.Comment:
I guess that includes the Tesla automobile. You know, I think Elon Musk is a smart guy, but I don't really understand the interest in batteries. Perhaps battery tech will improve, but it doesn't seem to making much progress very fast.
I'm not a fan of the Tesla. I do support fuel cell automobiles, and I think they are within reach now, if we wanted them. Evidently not. By the way, when I say "we", I mean the powers-that-be. Perhaps I should say "they", not "we". They don't seem to have our best interests at heart.
There's something else I want to mention about this article. It has some ads at the bottom. One was about cancer. I clicked through and watched the video linked to on the page. In that video, it was mentioned that war on cancer is not being won, it is being lost. Why? The story is a familiar one that I've documented on this blog. It seems all too familiar.
Debt ceiling hikes and gold prices ( repost )
Note:
There's another fight that the GOP says that they want to fight which is the debt limit fight. They surrendered in that fight too. Always best to go back to your best moments. /sarc
I put this up because the price of gold has fallen in the last two years even though the debt has increased. Something fishy about that. Now, try to imagine, when you view this chart, how the debt went up by two trillion, but the price of gold went down to the current price near $1300. Does that make sense? Totally disconnected....
On with the post
Something happened in the nineties, can you see it?
Back in that time, the gold price was below the debt limit line as plotted above. It looks like some time in 1997 that the line crossed under the debt limit line has been there since. It looks as if the price of gold has been increasing along with the debt, as if in a cause and effect.
By the way, the gold price doesn't seem to get out of control until 2006. Gold was said to be in a bull market prior to that, but it really doesn't look that way here until 2006. That would mean the bull market is only about 5 years old.
I think monetary policy has had a lot to do with the gold price lately. Since 2008, it has been ultra easy money. Monetary policy was starting to get tight at the 2006 time frame, as I recall. Fed funds were actually going into an inverted yield curve from 2006 to 2007. That only changed with the subsequent meltdown in the financial sector in 2008, which caused the Fed to aggressively combat the rapidly deteriorating situation.
The Fed ran out of room on interest rates, then switched to quantitative easing. That was gold bullish, without a doubt.
This was intended to show that the debt was driving gold prices, however, it may be more of a function of monetary policies, as Milton Friedman always said. The 2006 spike was probably related to the previous easy monetary policy, but didn't last. The financial meltdown is what has been driving the gold price since. The Fed has been aggressive in fighting the effects of the economic slowdown. The results are the higher gold prices.
Update ( repost )
I found the tail end of that graph that shows what it looked like over the last couple years. Evidently, gold is a bit undervalued at present. Not as much as I thought, though.
There's another fight that the GOP says that they want to fight which is the debt limit fight. They surrendered in that fight too. Always best to go back to your best moments. /sarc
I put this up because the price of gold has fallen in the last two years even though the debt has increased. Something fishy about that. Now, try to imagine, when you view this chart, how the debt went up by two trillion, but the price of gold went down to the current price near $1300. Does that make sense? Totally disconnected....
On with the post
Something happened in the nineties, can you see it?
Back in that time, the gold price was below the debt limit line as plotted above. It looks like some time in 1997 that the line crossed under the debt limit line has been there since. It looks as if the price of gold has been increasing along with the debt, as if in a cause and effect.
By the way, the gold price doesn't seem to get out of control until 2006. Gold was said to be in a bull market prior to that, but it really doesn't look that way here until 2006. That would mean the bull market is only about 5 years old.
I think monetary policy has had a lot to do with the gold price lately. Since 2008, it has been ultra easy money. Monetary policy was starting to get tight at the 2006 time frame, as I recall. Fed funds were actually going into an inverted yield curve from 2006 to 2007. That only changed with the subsequent meltdown in the financial sector in 2008, which caused the Fed to aggressively combat the rapidly deteriorating situation.
The Fed ran out of room on interest rates, then switched to quantitative easing. That was gold bullish, without a doubt.
This was intended to show that the debt was driving gold prices, however, it may be more of a function of monetary policies, as Milton Friedman always said. The 2006 spike was probably related to the previous easy monetary policy, but didn't last. The financial meltdown is what has been driving the gold price since. The Fed has been aggressive in fighting the effects of the economic slowdown. The results are the higher gold prices.
Update ( repost )
I found the tail end of that graph that shows what it looked like over the last couple years. Evidently, gold is a bit undervalued at present. Not as much as I thought, though.
 |
| Looks like the budget fights have done some good. |
Mark Levin interviews Dr Ghilarducci about nationalizing 401K's (Part 1) ( repost)
Note:
This repost is to show that there is a movement in this country to confiscate wealth. This is what they'll have to do when they start running out of money, which they will if they aren't stopped.
Uploaded by GlennJericho on Feb 15, 2009
part 2
Rush Limbaugh on the subject
This is Teresa G. in her own words
This repost is to show that there is a movement in this country to confiscate wealth. This is what they'll have to do when they start running out of money, which they will if they aren't stopped.
Uploaded by GlennJericho on Feb 15, 2009
part 2
Rush Limbaugh on the subject
This is Teresa G. in her own words
Kill Bill
Or should I say Kill the Bill. The Bill is ObamaCare.
I read yesterday that doctors are going to have to report about your sex life to the government.
Really?????
Why does the government need to know anything about what you talk about with your own doctor? That includes anything about your sex life.
The government will have an interest in it, or so they will say. They should not have this information. Information is power and power can be abused. The government is too powerful already. They don't need any more power.
Kill the Bill.
I read yesterday that doctors are going to have to report about your sex life to the government.
Really?????
Why does the government need to know anything about what you talk about with your own doctor? That includes anything about your sex life.
The government will have an interest in it, or so they will say. They should not have this information. Information is power and power can be abused. The government is too powerful already. They don't need any more power.
Kill the Bill.
If there's a default, it is all on the President
It cannot possibly be Congress. The law's already in the books. The law can't be changed very easily. The machinery is already there, it can't fail unless it is sabotaged. But the Congress is not in the position to do that.
Tax collections continue regardless of whether or not Congress passes a budget. Therefore, there's money coming in at all times. There's an obligation under the Constitution ( 14th Amendment) to honor debt:
We've already seen how this President will not follow the law sometimes. Therefore, if there's a default, it can only be because the President refuses to pay the interest on the debt. The money is there. The agencies are there to do it. All that is required is for them to do is to follow the law. If they don't, it is somebody's fault. Whoever that is is breaking the law and should be arrested. You keep doing that until somebody releases the damned funds. If this doesn't happen, it is the President's fault because the buck stops somewhere.
His talk of default or anybody's talk of default are just meant to scare people. If he carries through with a threat to default, it will have been an act of treason.
Just for good measure, the Congress could pass a resolution that all tax monies available should go to service the debt.
If there's any monkey business on this account, it won't be because of Congress.
Tax collections continue regardless of whether or not Congress passes a budget. Therefore, there's money coming in at all times. There's an obligation under the Constitution ( 14th Amendment) to honor debt:
Section 4.Clearly, the debt must be honored. Even if that means all other spending should be suspended until that debt is serviced. Only the President can stop this by refusing to follow the law.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
We've already seen how this President will not follow the law sometimes. Therefore, if there's a default, it can only be because the President refuses to pay the interest on the debt. The money is there. The agencies are there to do it. All that is required is for them to do is to follow the law. If they don't, it is somebody's fault. Whoever that is is breaking the law and should be arrested. You keep doing that until somebody releases the damned funds. If this doesn't happen, it is the President's fault because the buck stops somewhere.
His talk of default or anybody's talk of default are just meant to scare people. If he carries through with a threat to default, it will have been an act of treason.
Just for good measure, the Congress could pass a resolution that all tax monies available should go to service the debt.
If there's any monkey business on this account, it won't be because of Congress.
Keep in mind this when you watch the budget fight
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Cyprus-Style Wealth Confiscation Is Starting All Over The World
By Tyler Durden
Created 09/26/2013 - 15:10
Now that "bail-ins" have become accepted practice all over the planet, no bank account and no pension fund will ever be 100% safe again. In fact, Cyprus-style wealth confiscation is already starting to happen all around the world. As we warned two years ago, "the muddle through has failed... and there may only be painful ways out of this." [1]
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-26/cyprus-style-wealth-confiscation-starting-all-over-world
Links:
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/muddle-through-has-failed-bcg-says-there-may-be-only-painful-ways-out-crisis
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/muddle-through-has-failed-bcg-says-there-may-be-only-painful-ways-out-crisis
Obama to Republicans: 'I will not negotiate' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
The Hill's Blog Briefing Room ( Democrat Propaganda Warning )
The Hill is propagating propaganda. There's a few corrections needed here for everybody who may be interested in the truth. Who knows these days?
There's a straw man argument that could serve as a model for what a straw man argument is
There wasn't any attempt by this piece to present the other side.
The Hill is propagating propaganda. There's a few corrections needed here for everybody who may be interested in the truth. Who knows these days?
There's a straw man argument that could serve as a model for what a straw man argument is
- Obama said. “But I will not negotiate over Congress’ responsibility to pay the bills it has already racked up." [Correction: The Congress for a long time has not been paying the bills that it has already racked up. These are called "deficits". If the Congress has a "surplus", it could then pay down the debt, but that hasn't been happening for awhile, now has it? It wasn't happening when there was a so-called surplus in the nineties, either. The debt continued to rise then, as well. No debt has been paid down since before the Great Depression, most likely.
- federal government risks defaulting on its debt obligations for the first time in history [ Correction: There can't be a default unless the government stops paying interest on the debt, which has been shown above, has been continuing to rise for decades upon decades. There is not even a scintilla of a risk of this happening. Straw man argument, once again.]
- Republicans in Congress might choose to shut down the government and potentially damage the economy [ Correction: As we have seen above, there will be no damage to the credit worthiness of the government if the government shuts down. Besides, the threat of the shut down is not one that the GOP is making, anyway. As long as they approve the funds for the government, as they have indicated that they will do, the government will not shut down. This is a two fer. There will be no shut down, unless somebody wants one, and even if there is, the government's credit worthiness will not be affected. ]
- “The Affordable Care Act is one of the most important things we’ve done as a country in decades to strengthen economic security for the middle class" [ Correction: Now he just plain lying his ass off. The only thing this law has done has that it has empowered the government beyond all reason. It has stifled the economy and will explode the budget. It is a bad deal and it should be repealed immediately.]
There wasn't any attempt by this piece to present the other side.
Budget process argument
There is so much noise out there that it is a wonder if a person can know what is exactly going on.
This budget argument, what's it all about?
Sure, it is said to be about funding ObamaCare. But does that really explain it at all?
The current brouhaha is about a continuing resolution. The continuing resolution, it turns out, is the means by which the government is funded in the absence of a formal appropriations bill for the new budget year. The current budget year ends on October 1st. Evidently, there are no formal appropriations bills signed into law yet. Thus, the need for a continuing resolution.
There was some talk about a continuing resolution to substitute for each of the twelve formal appropriations bills that have not been signed into law. That is, if ObamaCare is wholly contained within a single appropriation bill, then eleven of the twelve could be passed evidently without controversy. That leaves one appropriation bill that has to be approved, or a continuing resolution bill, that will fund that portion of the government that includes ObamaCare.
If the money isn't made available either by the appropriations bills or continuing resolution (s), then the government must shut down. This can be a full shut down or a partial one. It looks like if the threat is carried out as mentioned, then there will be a partial shut down at the very least.
They can then break down that one bill into separate bills and vote on each in its turn. Perhaps then they can separate out ObamaCare and then fund only those parts of the government that don't include it.
Perhaps that's the plan. If that's the plan, what's the big fuss amongst the GOP? They should be happy to force the Democrats to keep funding an unpopular law.
This budget argument, what's it all about?
Sure, it is said to be about funding ObamaCare. But does that really explain it at all?
The current brouhaha is about a continuing resolution. The continuing resolution, it turns out, is the means by which the government is funded in the absence of a formal appropriations bill for the new budget year. The current budget year ends on October 1st. Evidently, there are no formal appropriations bills signed into law yet. Thus, the need for a continuing resolution.
There was some talk about a continuing resolution to substitute for each of the twelve formal appropriations bills that have not been signed into law. That is, if ObamaCare is wholly contained within a single appropriation bill, then eleven of the twelve could be passed evidently without controversy. That leaves one appropriation bill that has to be approved, or a continuing resolution bill, that will fund that portion of the government that includes ObamaCare.
If the money isn't made available either by the appropriations bills or continuing resolution (s), then the government must shut down. This can be a full shut down or a partial one. It looks like if the threat is carried out as mentioned, then there will be a partial shut down at the very least.
They can then break down that one bill into separate bills and vote on each in its turn. Perhaps then they can separate out ObamaCare and then fund only those parts of the government that don't include it.
Perhaps that's the plan. If that's the plan, what's the big fuss amongst the GOP? They should be happy to force the Democrats to keep funding an unpopular law.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Obamacare wasn't meant to solve a problem, but to create one
The so-called Affordable Care Act doesn't do what it is billed. Costs are higher.
I think this reveals the true intent of the law---to wreck the private insurance business. The result will be a single payer system.
That's one reason Obamacare must go. The left wants a public option, but the real story is that they want no option at all except public.
Obamacare wasn't meant to solve OUR problems, but a Democrat political problem. Their problem is that they want a single party system, but the GOP stands in their way. The GOP shouldn't be helping them do that. The should get the hell in the way----big time.
I think this reveals the true intent of the law---to wreck the private insurance business. The result will be a single payer system.
That's one reason Obamacare must go. The left wants a public option, but the real story is that they want no option at all except public.
Obamacare wasn't meant to solve OUR problems, but a Democrat political problem. Their problem is that they want a single party system, but the GOP stands in their way. The GOP shouldn't be helping them do that. The should get the hell in the way----big time.
The other side of the Obamacare struggle
As Cruz leads the battle to defund Obamacare, there are those who object who are making an argument to let it go ahead and let it be funded. So, I've read them and here's what I think.
It seems that their argument is that Obamacare will fall on its own. That Obama is already falling in the polls. That the fight distracts from the scandals.
That all may be true, but if you don't do this now, you may never do it at all. In life, you have to make choices. What we have here is a choice of what strategy to follow. Either fight it now, or hope if collapses later. If it doesn't collapse, it is with us forever. If we can't defund it now, we risk losing it all, with a permanent Democrat majority.
I don't want to take the risk that Obamacare survives. If it survives and so does the GOP, then what good is the GOP in that case? If the GOP can't kill it off now, when the news is bad, they may never be able to kill it. Make no mistake, Obamacare must die.
As for being blamed for the shutdown that may ensue, who cares? This government is spying on us. The IRS is trying to enforce a one-party state. Who cares if the government is denied money? I sure the hell don't.
The Cruz faction isn't even trying to shut down the government anyway. They can fund the government, one piece at a time. Make Harry Reid and the Democrats continue to vote on funding Obamacare. Make them do it again and again and again. Make them do it while jobs are being lost. Make them do it while this recovery remains the weakest on record. Make them do it with a burgeoning debt. Democrats are running away from this bill. Keep them on the run. You may get enough of them to override a veto from Obama.
We may never know if Cruz's opponents are right if we follow Cruz. But this law is 3 years old and it hasn't gone away yet. Maybe all it needs is a shove.
It seems that their argument is that Obamacare will fall on its own. That Obama is already falling in the polls. That the fight distracts from the scandals.
That all may be true, but if you don't do this now, you may never do it at all. In life, you have to make choices. What we have here is a choice of what strategy to follow. Either fight it now, or hope if collapses later. If it doesn't collapse, it is with us forever. If we can't defund it now, we risk losing it all, with a permanent Democrat majority.
I don't want to take the risk that Obamacare survives. If it survives and so does the GOP, then what good is the GOP in that case? If the GOP can't kill it off now, when the news is bad, they may never be able to kill it. Make no mistake, Obamacare must die.
As for being blamed for the shutdown that may ensue, who cares? This government is spying on us. The IRS is trying to enforce a one-party state. Who cares if the government is denied money? I sure the hell don't.
The Cruz faction isn't even trying to shut down the government anyway. They can fund the government, one piece at a time. Make Harry Reid and the Democrats continue to vote on funding Obamacare. Make them do it again and again and again. Make them do it while jobs are being lost. Make them do it while this recovery remains the weakest on record. Make them do it with a burgeoning debt. Democrats are running away from this bill. Keep them on the run. You may get enough of them to override a veto from Obama.
We may never know if Cruz's opponents are right if we follow Cruz. But this law is 3 years old and it hasn't gone away yet. Maybe all it needs is a shove.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
ObamaCare not worth fighting over?
I wrote something during the Zimmerman case to the effect that the issue wasn't worth fighting over. It wasn't. It was an open and shut self-defense issue that should never have been public knowledge.
The LEFT WAS WILLING TO MAKE IT AN ISSUE. Even though it only involved the death of one man, who frankly, probably had it coming. One way or another, Martin was going down. If it wasn't Zimmerman, it would have someone or something else. Martin was on the wrong track, heading for an early exit to this life.
Now, in contrast, we have this ObamaCare issue, which involves EVERY DAMNED BODY.
And here are these Republicans who don't think it matters enough to have an all out kick in the balls type fight over it. So, THEY WILL DO NOTHING.
I'm here to tell ya. If this wasn't worth fighting over, NOTHING THE FUCK IS. That's what it means for them to back down now. They will have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY after this, as far as I'm concerned.
The LEFT WAS WILLING TO MAKE IT AN ISSUE. Even though it only involved the death of one man, who frankly, probably had it coming. One way or another, Martin was going down. If it wasn't Zimmerman, it would have someone or something else. Martin was on the wrong track, heading for an early exit to this life.
Now, in contrast, we have this ObamaCare issue, which involves EVERY DAMNED BODY.
And here are these Republicans who don't think it matters enough to have an all out kick in the balls type fight over it. So, THEY WILL DO NOTHING.
I'm here to tell ya. If this wasn't worth fighting over, NOTHING THE FUCK IS. That's what it means for them to back down now. They will have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY after this, as far as I'm concerned.
Senator Cruz Continues the Filibuster on EIB
Rush Limbaugh Show
comment:
Don't have time to read it all. Just wanted to note that it is Cruz against the rest of the bunch.
There aren't too many willing to do what it takes to get something done. Cruz tried it and now he will pay for it. He got "uppity" and now the old boys will do their best to smack him down. In the end, that's what this was all about. The old boys want to punish Cruz, so he will be punished in some way. They will try to do to him what they did to Palin--- forever make him someone who won't be taken seriously. This can work only as long as there's people willing to follow the old boys and the old ways.
I said something has to give. Well, something is giving, but it is hard to say what it is yet. It's all in how the people in this country respond to this.
comment:
Don't have time to read it all. Just wanted to note that it is Cruz against the rest of the bunch.
There aren't too many willing to do what it takes to get something done. Cruz tried it and now he will pay for it. He got "uppity" and now the old boys will do their best to smack him down. In the end, that's what this was all about. The old boys want to punish Cruz, so he will be punished in some way. They will try to do to him what they did to Palin--- forever make him someone who won't be taken seriously. This can work only as long as there's people willing to follow the old boys and the old ways.
I said something has to give. Well, something is giving, but it is hard to say what it is yet. It's all in how the people in this country respond to this.
Obamacare, Ted Cruz, and the Line in the Sand
American Thinker
quote:
Exactly. It is a useless show vote which is intended to fool people. There is nothing meaningful about it. Anybody in the GOP who is a party to this does not deserve re-election. Anybody who is serious minded will not support these politicians after this stunt. There is no credibility left.
quote:
Though I'm certain that as a matter of political optics, McConnell and Cornyn will both be happy to vote against the bill with Reid's amendment to fund Obamacare once it is a useless show vote.[ emphasis added]comment:
Exactly. It is a useless show vote which is intended to fool people. There is nothing meaningful about it. Anybody in the GOP who is a party to this does not deserve re-election. Anybody who is serious minded will not support these politicians after this stunt. There is no credibility left.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
NASA Solar Sail mission
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/26/solar-sail-sunjammer
A bit dated, but what the heck.
$$$ Show Me the MONEY!!! $$$
"Congratulations, you're still my agent." Hey, GOP, are you feeling me? Support Ted Cruz, and I may still support you. If you don't....
Best uses for space solar power
A quick brainstorm here. It has occurred to me more than once that the most energy intensive thing you can do is to create kinetic energy. That is why getting a rocket to orbit is so hard. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Thus, to double one's speed will quadruple the energy requirement to do so. To go 10 times faster requires 100 times more energy. To go 17k mph... And so on.
Another thing to keep in mind is that to convert energy from one form to another imposes losses. For example, to change heat into electricity looses at least half of the energy. All energy conversions are going to cost you something, maybe a lot.
Batteries work pretty well in that they can convert chemical energy to electrical energy in the 90% range.
With that in mind, let's say that you dedicate a space solar facility to transportation needs. Beam the energy from space to separate charging stations on the ground. The energy losses would be kept to a minimum because of the use of batteries. You could have a lot of charging stations all around which may help with "range anxiety". Space solar could beam energy to any place on the surface. You don't have to truck large amounts of fuel across long distances.
Now, if you were to use space solar to make fuels, you lose in a number of ways. First, in the creation of the fuel. Then in its consumption. By the time you get useful power out of it, you will have lost almost all of it. Not efficient enough.
On the other hand, space solar requires one energy conversion to get the electricity and one more to store it and yet one more to use it. However, each of these is fairly efficient. You retain most of your energy.
Even with space solar, you lose a lot. But by the time it gets to the ground, you can keep most of that.
Hmm. A little more thinking on the subject yields another idea. Beam the energy to highways which have recharging stations built into them. That is, if you are on the highway, you pass a recharger that can zap a capacitor with enough energy for you to keep going continuously. Perhaps it could be delivered to the capacitor by wireless technology. Capacitors may be even more efficient than batteries. But their range is short. You make up for lack of range by continuous recharging.
Another thing to keep in mind is that to convert energy from one form to another imposes losses. For example, to change heat into electricity looses at least half of the energy. All energy conversions are going to cost you something, maybe a lot.
Batteries work pretty well in that they can convert chemical energy to electrical energy in the 90% range.
With that in mind, let's say that you dedicate a space solar facility to transportation needs. Beam the energy from space to separate charging stations on the ground. The energy losses would be kept to a minimum because of the use of batteries. You could have a lot of charging stations all around which may help with "range anxiety". Space solar could beam energy to any place on the surface. You don't have to truck large amounts of fuel across long distances.
Now, if you were to use space solar to make fuels, you lose in a number of ways. First, in the creation of the fuel. Then in its consumption. By the time you get useful power out of it, you will have lost almost all of it. Not efficient enough.
On the other hand, space solar requires one energy conversion to get the electricity and one more to store it and yet one more to use it. However, each of these is fairly efficient. You retain most of your energy.
Even with space solar, you lose a lot. But by the time it gets to the ground, you can keep most of that.
Hmm. A little more thinking on the subject yields another idea. Beam the energy to highways which have recharging stations built into them. That is, if you are on the highway, you pass a recharger that can zap a capacitor with enough energy for you to keep going continuously. Perhaps it could be delivered to the capacitor by wireless technology. Capacitors may be even more efficient than batteries. But their range is short. You make up for lack of range by continuous recharging.
What recovery? If there's a recovery, "show me the money".
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
20 Ordinary Americans Take About Their Economic Despair
By Tyler Durden
Created 09/24/2013 - 20:07
Yesterday we highlighted the plight of Tom Palome and his cohorts [1] as they face a need to work well into once-thought-retirement age. However, there are hundreds of formerly prosperous communities all over America that are being steadily transformed into rotting, decaying hellholes. The good paying middle class jobs that once supported those communities are long gone, and they have been replaced with low paying service jobs if they have been replaced at all. When you visit those communities, it is almost as if all of the hope has been sucked right out of the air. The following are 20 quotes from ordinary Americans about the economic despair that is rapidly growing around them.
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-24/20-ordinary-americans-take-about-their-economic-despair
Links:
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-23/making-100000-then-flipping-burgers-may-be-your-future
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-23/making-100000-then-flipping-burgers-may-be-your-future
McCain’s Former Strategist Blasts Palin For Supporting Tea Party “Freakshow” In Defunding Obamacare
Free Republic
Summary:
Former McCain strategist runs to the left-wing stalwart Chris Matthews, and complains about Sarah Palin.
Comment:
Why do these guys go to the lefties with their complaints? Who cares what Matthews thinks? Only the lefties care about what he thinks.
Does that mean that the strategist is really a Democrat operative under cover?
Summary:
Former McCain strategist runs to the left-wing stalwart Chris Matthews, and complains about Sarah Palin.
Comment:
Why do these guys go to the lefties with their complaints? Who cares what Matthews thinks? Only the lefties care about what he thinks.
Does that mean that the strategist is really a Democrat operative under cover?
Incredible Technology: How Solar Sails Could Propel the First Starships.
instapundit
Comment:
Just when you start to get interested in something, everybody seems to want to talk about it. Is that just a coincidence?
Well, it does seem to be a good idea.
Comment:
Just when you start to get interested in something, everybody seems to want to talk about it. Is that just a coincidence?
Well, it does seem to be a good idea.
Are Robots Killing The Middle Class?
the Federalist via Instapundit
Summary:
An opposing view of the zeitgeist, which fears that innovation is killing jobs.
Comment:
I feel that fear too. Trouble is, what new jobs are being created? The piece doesn't answer this.
The new economy isn't paying anything. I give testimony to that with this blog. It hasn't paid off yet, and it may never do so.
Someone may say, "you need to find something else". Sure. But what? Jobs are going away. We need an answer for that, not slogans from the right or left. Frankly I need an answer for that.
All I see is that both parties are driving me to the poor house. FAST.
Summary:
An opposing view of the zeitgeist, which fears that innovation is killing jobs.
Comment:
I feel that fear too. Trouble is, what new jobs are being created? The piece doesn't answer this.
The new economy isn't paying anything. I give testimony to that with this blog. It hasn't paid off yet, and it may never do so.
Someone may say, "you need to find something else". Sure. But what? Jobs are going away. We need an answer for that, not slogans from the right or left. Frankly I need an answer for that.
All I see is that both parties are driving me to the poor house. FAST.
Russian parents group asks Putin to cancel Elton John concert: media
Reuters
Comment:
I hope Putin grants their wishes. Russia is doing the right thing. On the other hand, the West is committing suicide.
What can I say?
For someone like this to get knighted would have been considered to be controversial when I was a kid. Too bad we lost our way.
We won the Cold War for this?
Comment:
I hope Putin grants their wishes. Russia is doing the right thing. On the other hand, the West is committing suicide.
What can I say?
For someone like this to get knighted would have been considered to be controversial when I was a kid. Too bad we lost our way.
We won the Cold War for this?
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Eyes on the prize?
I had a tweet about that recently. Keep your eyes on the prize.
There are a lot of prizes to be had. Which prize?
Sometimes I feel pretty helpless about the way things are going. You can't make people do much of anything, unless you apply force. But having done so, it only works as long as the force can be applied.
In the end, it is all out of my hands and anybody else's.
There are a lot of prizes to be had. Which prize?
Sometimes I feel pretty helpless about the way things are going. You can't make people do much of anything, unless you apply force. But having done so, it only works as long as the force can be applied.
In the end, it is all out of my hands and anybody else's.
Everybody is subject to error
A lot of what's driving this blog is my conviction that technology can improve our lives. And so it has to a large extent.
But what happens when technology goes wrong? There's been a few books and movies on the subject. The Terminator films were an example. The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park were a couple others.
There was a line in the movie of Jurassic Park in which the rock star mathematician asked an important question that drives home the point. To paraphrase a bit, it goes something like this: just because you can do something, it doesn't mean that you should.
It seems that you have to strike a balance, somehow. For instance, I favor molten-salt reactors. There are those who are opposed to all nuclear energy. Those who favor nuclear energy may not take into consideration everything that could go wrong. However, those who opposed ignore the real benefits of nuclear energy and over hype the benefit of other forms of energy. But nothing is perfect. Nobody has ever come up with an idea that can solve all problems and not create new ones. Nuclear energy is like this. But so is so called renewables. Every form of energy has its downside. Every form has its upside.
I think the way to approach it is with a recognition of the risks and the willingness to take them in order to obtain the benefits. Sure, the risks may not be completely removed, but the benefits are worth it. If it is not worth it, we may as well resign ourselves to a bleak future. There is no perfection on this Earth, especially when people are involved.
But what happens when technology goes wrong? There's been a few books and movies on the subject. The Terminator films were an example. The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park were a couple others.
There was a line in the movie of Jurassic Park in which the rock star mathematician asked an important question that drives home the point. To paraphrase a bit, it goes something like this: just because you can do something, it doesn't mean that you should.
It seems that you have to strike a balance, somehow. For instance, I favor molten-salt reactors. There are those who are opposed to all nuclear energy. Those who favor nuclear energy may not take into consideration everything that could go wrong. However, those who opposed ignore the real benefits of nuclear energy and over hype the benefit of other forms of energy. But nothing is perfect. Nobody has ever come up with an idea that can solve all problems and not create new ones. Nuclear energy is like this. But so is so called renewables. Every form of energy has its downside. Every form has its upside.
I think the way to approach it is with a recognition of the risks and the willingness to take them in order to obtain the benefits. Sure, the risks may not be completely removed, but the benefits are worth it. If it is not worth it, we may as well resign ourselves to a bleak future. There is no perfection on this Earth, especially when people are involved.
Ordered book about solar sailing
By Jerome Wright called Space Sailing.
I should have the book in less than a week.
The idea intrigues me. Especially in connection to the spider fab.
I should have the book in less than a week.
The idea intrigues me. Especially in connection to the spider fab.
Next Big Future: Google Moonshots : Radical Life Extension, Robotic...
Next Big Future: Google Moonshots : Radical Life Extension, Robotic...: Google or the Google Founders are making well funded attempts to conquer big technological challenges. Success in these major endeavors will...
Comment:
Here's a private company doing "moonshots". They are beginning to dwarf DARPA, which is supposed to be where all the sophisticated new stuff came from ( or so I thought). DARPA is a government agency, for crying out loud.
Robotic cars are not so good. I wish they wouldn't do that. Sergei Brin, founder of Google, says that they will be available in five years. Not good.
They are interested in renewable energy too. I think that is way over hyped. Renewable energy is like Don Quixote fighting the windmill. Too much of our culture is becoming that way. We need to be more sensible.
Here's another one ( NOT Google ) that is troubling to me --- commercial anti-matter. Anti-matter is very dangerous stuff. You could annihilate a city with a small amount of this stuff. What do they propose to do with this stuff?
Hmm. Seems that everything in the future is not going to be great, there's stuff that could lead to some really bad outcomes.
Comment:
Here's a private company doing "moonshots". They are beginning to dwarf DARPA, which is supposed to be where all the sophisticated new stuff came from ( or so I thought). DARPA is a government agency, for crying out loud.
Robotic cars are not so good. I wish they wouldn't do that. Sergei Brin, founder of Google, says that they will be available in five years. Not good.
They are interested in renewable energy too. I think that is way over hyped. Renewable energy is like Don Quixote fighting the windmill. Too much of our culture is becoming that way. We need to be more sensible.
Here's another one ( NOT Google ) that is troubling to me --- commercial anti-matter. Anti-matter is very dangerous stuff. You could annihilate a city with a small amount of this stuff. What do they propose to do with this stuff?
Hmm. Seems that everything in the future is not going to be great, there's stuff that could lead to some really bad outcomes.
Man Uses Spear to Save Girlfriend from Mountain Lion
Outdoorhub
Summary:
A mountain lion attacks a woman in her garden, and her boyfriend kills it with a spear.
Comment:
Judging from the comments, the article was euphemistically written to hide the fact that the mountain lion attacked the woman in order to EAT HER.
The problem seems to be over romanticizing wildlife. Why, they wouldn't EAT ANYBODY, would they? They are so cute and cuddly and everything.
Summary:
A mountain lion attacks a woman in her garden, and her boyfriend kills it with a spear.
Comment:
Judging from the comments, the article was euphemistically written to hide the fact that the mountain lion attacked the woman in order to EAT HER.
The problem seems to be over romanticizing wildlife. Why, they wouldn't EAT ANYBODY, would they? They are so cute and cuddly and everything.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Gun violence is your fault, says the left
What about gun free zones? Those did not stop these incidents.
Gun free zones don't work.
Fear memories can be overcome during sleep, researchers say
Washington Post via Drudge
quote:
Looks like great news. Hopefully, it isn't a flash in the pan.
Notice that Drudge reported. He isn't evil incarnate, you know. The Post did something right, too.
Not all news is bad. Just seems that way, sometimes.
quote:
“It’s novel. I think it’s a really clever idea,” said Phelps, who believes that the research could one day be used for clinical applications to help those with phobias and post-traumatic stress disorder.comment:
Looks like great news. Hopefully, it isn't a flash in the pan.
Notice that Drudge reported. He isn't evil incarnate, you know. The Post did something right, too.
Not all news is bad. Just seems that way, sometimes.
Who listens to this guy anymore?
Once again, I notice that the popular news item is about gun control. You know who steps right in there and lectures us all on the need for gun control.
I'm just burning with shame. This guy just got to me in the most personal way. I can hardly stand it anymore. Please, please, please take my gun. I'm so ashamed that all these people had to die because of my failure to care enough to change. /sarc
You see, we have to agree with the leftists who want our guns. If we don't agree with them, we are very, very, bad people you see. Very, very naughty.
Why does anybody listen to this drivel? It's not even worth getting upset about. The issue isn't trending Obama's way. Nobody is convinced with this type of emotional and empty rhetoric.
Sure, we are very grieved by the loss of life. But it wasn't because of anything we law abiding gun owners did. The people who were killed may have been saved if someone there was armed. But it is illegal to have a gun in DC. Somehow, it is all our fault that their policies don't work. We should be ashamed. Very ashamed that their policies didn't work yet again.
I'm just burning with shame. This guy just got to me in the most personal way. I can hardly stand it anymore. Please, please, please take my gun. I'm so ashamed that all these people had to die because of my failure to care enough to change. /sarc
You see, we have to agree with the leftists who want our guns. If we don't agree with them, we are very, very, bad people you see. Very, very naughty.
Why does anybody listen to this drivel? It's not even worth getting upset about. The issue isn't trending Obama's way. Nobody is convinced with this type of emotional and empty rhetoric.
Sure, we are very grieved by the loss of life. But it wasn't because of anything we law abiding gun owners did. The people who were killed may have been saved if someone there was armed. But it is illegal to have a gun in DC. Somehow, it is all our fault that their policies don't work. We should be ashamed. Very ashamed that their policies didn't work yet again.
How to fight terrorism?
Stop feeding the beast.
The Mid East would not be so important as it is if it weren't for the oil that is shipped out of there every day.
Buying their oil only empowers the terrorists. Taking that money away from them takes their power away. Where would they be without all that oil money?
We can do this by finding another source of energy. This can come from fracking, from our own oil deposits, nuclear power, and possibly space solar.
This government is only interested in perpetuating the status quo. They have no intention of changing in spite of all the rhetoric to the contrary. The rhetoric is employed only to deceive. We need more truth. Perhaps the government will get the message and start doing the right thing for once.
Windmills and solar power will not end the addiction to oil. They are too intermittent, as we need a constant source of energy. Thus, wind and power only serve the interests of the oil lobby, not the greater interests of the people and our civilization. These sources of power will never be sufficient to meet our needs.
Space solar could be different because the sun shines constantly in space and there's a lot of space in outer space. There's no unlimited space on the ground whee the windmills and the solar panels have to take up space that we can better use for other things.
A bonus would be in stopping the specter of terrorism from growing any bigger than it is. Stop feeding the beast.
The Mid East would not be so important as it is if it weren't for the oil that is shipped out of there every day.
Buying their oil only empowers the terrorists. Taking that money away from them takes their power away. Where would they be without all that oil money?
We can do this by finding another source of energy. This can come from fracking, from our own oil deposits, nuclear power, and possibly space solar.
This government is only interested in perpetuating the status quo. They have no intention of changing in spite of all the rhetoric to the contrary. The rhetoric is employed only to deceive. We need more truth. Perhaps the government will get the message and start doing the right thing for once.
Windmills and solar power will not end the addiction to oil. They are too intermittent, as we need a constant source of energy. Thus, wind and power only serve the interests of the oil lobby, not the greater interests of the people and our civilization. These sources of power will never be sufficient to meet our needs.
Space solar could be different because the sun shines constantly in space and there's a lot of space in outer space. There's no unlimited space on the ground whee the windmills and the solar panels have to take up space that we can better use for other things.
A bonus would be in stopping the specter of terrorism from growing any bigger than it is. Stop feeding the beast.
Islamic Terror in Kenya? Not According to the BBC
Pj Media via Ace of Spades blog
Summary:
The article shows how the media is obfuscating the details about a terrorist attack by calling it a shoot out and burying the facts of the matter deep inside the story, which most people don't read. Most people only read the headlines and the first part of the story.
The media is lying. That's the point.
Comment:
I wrote yesterday that the terrorist attacks in Kenya aren't really relevant right now. But I'll make an exception here. The point is that the media is lying to us and it isn't confined to the US. It is world wide. A global phenomenon.
I'm tempted to blame oil money for this. Most of that oil money is generated in the Persian Gulf. Could it be that they are dominating the news and keeping the truth from the public? Could there be a outside entity that is doing this with a purpose in mind?
At any rate, it is very deceptive and duplicitous. Nobody should trust the media. Yet they do.
Try to keep this in mind when you read the "news" about the so-called government shutdown.
Summary:
The article shows how the media is obfuscating the details about a terrorist attack by calling it a shoot out and burying the facts of the matter deep inside the story, which most people don't read. Most people only read the headlines and the first part of the story.
The media is lying. That's the point.
Comment:
I wrote yesterday that the terrorist attacks in Kenya aren't really relevant right now. But I'll make an exception here. The point is that the media is lying to us and it isn't confined to the US. It is world wide. A global phenomenon.
I'm tempted to blame oil money for this. Most of that oil money is generated in the Persian Gulf. Could it be that they are dominating the news and keeping the truth from the public? Could there be a outside entity that is doing this with a purpose in mind?
At any rate, it is very deceptive and duplicitous. Nobody should trust the media. Yet they do.
Try to keep this in mind when you read the "news" about the so-called government shutdown.
Look at this chart
Message:
Corporate profits are way, way up. But jobs are going nowhere.
This is a trend which began with the stock market bubble bursting in 2000.
It coincides with the easy money policy that has been in effect since that time.
What would you wager that these profits has been mostly in the financial markets? In other words, the profits are just printed money from the Fed, and the job market is explains why there has been no real improvement in the economy for over a decade.
Corporate profits are way, way up. But jobs are going nowhere.
This is a trend which began with the stock market bubble bursting in 2000.
It coincides with the easy money policy that has been in effect since that time.
What would you wager that these profits has been mostly in the financial markets? In other words, the profits are just printed money from the Fed, and the job market is explains why there has been no real improvement in the economy for over a decade.
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Summing It All Up In One Cartoon
By Tyler Durden
Created 09/22/2013 - 15:56
"The new normal..."Sunday, September 22, 2013
Is Ted Cruz lying?
She's not persuasive. You don't know if you can be successful until you actually try it. Her argument is not to try because it can't be won without winning the White House. So, let's say they win the White House, but with only small majorities in the Congress, like Bush had. Then they'll say they can't win because they don't have large enough majorities in the Congress. There's always an excuse not to do something.
Try to do something and stay united on it and keep trying and let the damn chips fall where they may. You have to try to win the argument before you can have any hope of winning it. They won't even try.
Try to do something and stay united on it and keep trying and let the damn chips fall where they may. You have to try to win the argument before you can have any hope of winning it. They won't even try.
What's the most important issue?
I think this was pretty important and the most significant story of the ones I perused, yet judging from the the replies on Free Republic, it hardly registered a ripple.
We are losing our country and our freedom, but people are focused in on other things.
The most replied to stories
There are other examples, of course. Anyway, if the Obamacare fight ends in defeat, it will be because nobody understands what's going on. Nobody understands it because nobody is talking about it. It's largely about procedure, and the Obamacare supporters are hoping that they can confuse people long enough so that the Republicans just give up like they usually do.
Cruz explains the procedural battle ahead in the Senate. There are those who are trying to muddy the waters. The question is whether or not Reid will allow a majority vote on adding Obamacare back into the bill. Cruz says he wants to filibuster that. The rules says he can't, but that's not the point. Reid could allow votes on it, but he doesn't want to. He is protecting vulnerable red state Senators. He doesn't want them to have to vote either way on this bill and they won't if he gets his way.
What's suffering here is the truth. If some Senators had to express an honest opinion on this law, they'd be in trouble with their base. That's what Reid is trying to avoid. Aren't the voters in these states entitled to know where their Senators are on this issue? Reid is helping them avoid being honest about their positions.
It's stuff like this that leads to a slow erosion of liberty. It's now at a critical point.
We are losing our country and our freedom, but people are focused in on other things.
The most replied to stories
- MUSLIM TROPHY IN SYRIA: LIFELESS BODY OF DECAPITATED CHRISTIAN CHILD [ comment: not that this isn't significant, but it isn't here in our own country.]
- Obama accuses gun control opponents of fighting to allow ‘dangerous people’ to own guns [ comment: I don't see what Obama says as nearly as important as I see what we do or don't do about him. We have to win the ObamaCare battle coming up. Gun control is a dumb idea, sure, but isn't going anywhere in this Congress. It's a distraction.]
- Vanity: Why Is Drudge NOT Covering Kenya Slaughter? [ again: This is not in America. There's nothing for us in Kenya. Our problem is right here. ]
- Cruz Details Senate Strategy to Defund Obamacare [ well, okay. Not everybody is distracted ]
There are other examples, of course. Anyway, if the Obamacare fight ends in defeat, it will be because nobody understands what's going on. Nobody understands it because nobody is talking about it. It's largely about procedure, and the Obamacare supporters are hoping that they can confuse people long enough so that the Republicans just give up like they usually do.
Cruz explains the procedural battle ahead in the Senate. There are those who are trying to muddy the waters. The question is whether or not Reid will allow a majority vote on adding Obamacare back into the bill. Cruz says he wants to filibuster that. The rules says he can't, but that's not the point. Reid could allow votes on it, but he doesn't want to. He is protecting vulnerable red state Senators. He doesn't want them to have to vote either way on this bill and they won't if he gets his way.
What's suffering here is the truth. If some Senators had to express an honest opinion on this law, they'd be in trouble with their base. That's what Reid is trying to avoid. Aren't the voters in these states entitled to know where their Senators are on this issue? Reid is helping them avoid being honest about their positions.
It's stuff like this that leads to a slow erosion of liberty. It's now at a critical point.
Obama: 'We're Not Some Banana Republic'
There was an $800 billion dollar stimulus. What have we got to show for it? He hasn't done what it takes to improve the situation. The money could have been better spent and would have gotten better results. We are much deeper in debt as a result of his failure, which he is trying to blame on the past. Thus, the debt is the issue. Giving the Democrats what they wanted did not get results. Why should they get more? We need to try a better way. A way that gets results.
ObamaCare does not work. His presidency has not worked. Now there are a lot of other people who have not worked. Whose fault is it? His or Bush's? Bush has been gone for over 4 years. Time to admit admit failure and move on.
Can the economics ever work for space?
The answer is that we may never know because there may never be the effort required to try.
Everything that has ever been done has at one time never been done before. That is where we are with the commercialization of space. No one has tried it. At least not in earnest. There are some satellites up there that are generating some profits for somebody.
It may forever more be nothing but a niche market with limited prospects.
Just in the past week, it has occurred to me that there may be a way to make energy in space and beam it back to Earth for profit. It isn't a new idea, as there has been talk about it before. So, what's new about this?
I'm not sure that there is anything new about it. I've been thinking about it though, and it may be nothing more than "re-inventing the wheel" to go back over old ground.
What could be different about this is the roundabout way of getting to the point where you can make money. The entire process would require enormous amount of preparation first. You can't just launch a satellite into orbit and expect it to make money from solar power. The launch costs are too high. The amount that can be lifted is limited. You will need very massive structures and we don't have any means to do this any time in the near future.
But something new may be possible.
This idea of bringing an asteroid back to EML-1 may be an enabling act that could kick it all off. But not just one asteroid, as I mentioned in an earlier post. You'll need a dozen or more of them. If you do it a dozen times and collect the mass and make a Moonstalk, then you'll have access to lunar materials. The significance of that is two fold. First, is that the Moon is a much easier gravity well to get out of than the Earth. Secondly, you may not need any propellant at all, or very little of it. That which you do need can come from the asteroid itself. Hence, everything you need for a continuing presence is there in place once you get it built. A continuing presence means an assembly line process can be started and that leads to economies of scale and to large scale projects like space solar.
What's more the process can be repeated elsewhere in the solar system. The potential market is friggin' huge.
Of course, the whole concept has to be proven sound and profitable. Before you can get there and see if it can be done, many billions of dollars will have to be spent. To collect just one asteroid will cost $2.6 billion. A dozen of them plus the rest of what's needed could push the bill to over 100 billion dollars. That's about what the US spent on the ISS.
But the ISS was never intended to be commercial. Well, this isn't either until you prove it can be commercialized. The Moonstalk will have to built first, thus it is an experiment. It will have to prove itself. That isn't guaranteed. The process that's required to get just one asteroid hasn't been done before. Then, assuming that works, you have to prove you can put several together into an anchor. And you'll have to prove that you can connect that to the lunar surface. Once you get to that point, you still have to prove you can operate the Moonstalk consistently and reliably.
The massive cost and risk cannot be borne by the private sector. It will have to involve the government and that requires someone to take the initiative and try it. It requires maintaining the political will over a period of time necessary to complete it. If that can be done, the rest may follow.
The political system maintained a consensus to do the Moon shots of the sixties and seventies. It managed the Shuttle. It managed the ISS. Perhaps this should be the next thing. It is comparable in costs and duration. Perhaps a decade or two or consistent effort will do the trick. At the end of that period, we will know if we can do it or not.
The justification is that we may never know that we can become a space faring species unless we can make the economics work. We need to find out. Our future depends upon it.
Everything that has ever been done has at one time never been done before. That is where we are with the commercialization of space. No one has tried it. At least not in earnest. There are some satellites up there that are generating some profits for somebody.
It may forever more be nothing but a niche market with limited prospects.
Just in the past week, it has occurred to me that there may be a way to make energy in space and beam it back to Earth for profit. It isn't a new idea, as there has been talk about it before. So, what's new about this?
I'm not sure that there is anything new about it. I've been thinking about it though, and it may be nothing more than "re-inventing the wheel" to go back over old ground.
What could be different about this is the roundabout way of getting to the point where you can make money. The entire process would require enormous amount of preparation first. You can't just launch a satellite into orbit and expect it to make money from solar power. The launch costs are too high. The amount that can be lifted is limited. You will need very massive structures and we don't have any means to do this any time in the near future.
But something new may be possible.
This idea of bringing an asteroid back to EML-1 may be an enabling act that could kick it all off. But not just one asteroid, as I mentioned in an earlier post. You'll need a dozen or more of them. If you do it a dozen times and collect the mass and make a Moonstalk, then you'll have access to lunar materials. The significance of that is two fold. First, is that the Moon is a much easier gravity well to get out of than the Earth. Secondly, you may not need any propellant at all, or very little of it. That which you do need can come from the asteroid itself. Hence, everything you need for a continuing presence is there in place once you get it built. A continuing presence means an assembly line process can be started and that leads to economies of scale and to large scale projects like space solar.
What's more the process can be repeated elsewhere in the solar system. The potential market is friggin' huge.
Of course, the whole concept has to be proven sound and profitable. Before you can get there and see if it can be done, many billions of dollars will have to be spent. To collect just one asteroid will cost $2.6 billion. A dozen of them plus the rest of what's needed could push the bill to over 100 billion dollars. That's about what the US spent on the ISS.
But the ISS was never intended to be commercial. Well, this isn't either until you prove it can be commercialized. The Moonstalk will have to built first, thus it is an experiment. It will have to prove itself. That isn't guaranteed. The process that's required to get just one asteroid hasn't been done before. Then, assuming that works, you have to prove you can put several together into an anchor. And you'll have to prove that you can connect that to the lunar surface. Once you get to that point, you still have to prove you can operate the Moonstalk consistently and reliably.
The massive cost and risk cannot be borne by the private sector. It will have to involve the government and that requires someone to take the initiative and try it. It requires maintaining the political will over a period of time necessary to complete it. If that can be done, the rest may follow.
The political system maintained a consensus to do the Moon shots of the sixties and seventies. It managed the Shuttle. It managed the ISS. Perhaps this should be the next thing. It is comparable in costs and duration. Perhaps a decade or two or consistent effort will do the trick. At the end of that period, we will know if we can do it or not.
The justification is that we may never know that we can become a space faring species unless we can make the economics work. We need to find out. Our future depends upon it.
The economy made simple
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
How The Economic Machine Works
By Tyler Durden
Created 09/21/2013 - 13:58
The economy is like a machine. At the most fundamental level, Bridgewater's Ray Dalio explains in this excellent video introduction, it is a relatively simple machine. But, he adds, many people don't understand it – or they don't agree on how it works – and this has led to a lot of needless economic suffering. The clip and article below shares his simple but practical economic template explaining how he believes it works. As he notes "my description of how the economy works is different from most economists'. It has worked better, allowing me to anticipate the great deleveragings and market changes that most others overlooked." The likely reason for this is because it is more practical. Simply put, Dalio notes, "This different way of looking at the economy and markets has allowed us to understand and anticipate economic booms and busts that others using more traditional approaches have missed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)