Saturday, December 28, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is this a possible way to deal with a "liberal f*&k"?
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
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.
Seems that way to me because lower courts are in conflict.
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.
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
Putin is just using Christianity, author says.
How does that jibe with their boy?
I don't see how this creates jobs.
Doctors may not see you if they are not getting paid.
“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!
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.