Those of you who do not live in Houston may not know who Bill White is. He was mayor of Houston for six years. Only six because Houston has term limits. Six years and you are out.
Well, Bill White was a complete unknown, at least to me. I suspect that he was a complete unknown to many more Houstonians. What Bill White needed was an endorsement that meant something. Not only that, but backing in the form of commercials. He got that from Ben Love, once a prominent Houstonian. Love did a number of TV commercials introducing Bill White to the people of Houston.
As a result, Bill White became mayor. Without it, he may still be an unknown. There were a few who wanted him to run for the Senate seat that Cornyn now holds. I suppose it could still happen.
Now for me to have any hope of success of being elected, I would have to duplicate what White did. It's a "moonshot", all right. I have no such connections whatsoever. Anyone who would do that would probably want to own me, but that ain't gonna happen. So, it ain't gonna happen. That's true unless there's a really prominent person with a real heart of gold out there.
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, March 8, 2014
Idea for campaign commercial
For my Senate run. It would require some bucks to do it. I won't spend the money myself. So, no bucks, no Buck Rogers for this "moon shot".
Anyway, I once compared Christine O'Donnell's candidacy as the un-Candidacy. That's because it was unconventional, in a way. Also, it received a lot of bad publicity. Well, the trick there is to turn that to advantage, like Terry Knight did with the rock group Grand Funk Railroad.
A commercial provides the idea, and so I may steal the "Un-Cola" commercial in a sense. I would dress up like that Caribbean man and pour a drink in a glass and smell the sweet smell of success. That's not an exact quote, but I probably should avoid a complete rip-off.
Anyway, I once compared Christine O'Donnell's candidacy as the un-Candidacy. That's because it was unconventional, in a way. Also, it received a lot of bad publicity. Well, the trick there is to turn that to advantage, like Terry Knight did with the rock group Grand Funk Railroad.
A commercial provides the idea, and so I may steal the "Un-Cola" commercial in a sense. I would dress up like that Caribbean man and pour a drink in a glass and smell the sweet smell of success. That's not an exact quote, but I probably should avoid a complete rip-off.
Sabre rattling continues
It's pretty much all over the place. You have this from Walter Russell Mead and this from former Sec State Condoleeza Rice.
It's all fashionable to beat the war drums these days, but all of this that's happening in Ukraine was baked into the cake years ago. It's a bit late to do anything about that now.
Obama has and is doing what he's always done. He's managing to fool the entire country into thinking he's being strong when he's the very opposite. That too was baked into the cake when he was elected. It should not come as any surprise what is happening now.
Of course, it would have helped the GOP if it would get its own act together and stop giving us weak candidates like McCain and Romney.
Bush wasn't exactly good either, to be honest about it.
It's all fashionable to beat the war drums these days, but all of this that's happening in Ukraine was baked into the cake years ago. It's a bit late to do anything about that now.
Obama has and is doing what he's always done. He's managing to fool the entire country into thinking he's being strong when he's the very opposite. That too was baked into the cake when he was elected. It should not come as any surprise what is happening now.
Of course, it would have helped the GOP if it would get its own act together and stop giving us weak candidates like McCain and Romney.
Bush wasn't exactly good either, to be honest about it.
McCain: My Good Friend Ted Cruz Should Apologize to My Other Good Friend Bob Dole
Free Republic via Ace of Spades
comment:
I'm now glad McCain lost the race as President of the United States. Something happened to the GOP which would nominate such a man to run. The thing that's wrong with what he just said was that Cruz was referring to principles, it wasn't personal. McCain just turned it into something personal. This is a Democrat type trick. Something that Bentsen did to Quayle. It has nothing to do with what Cruz said. It was a deliberate lie, an obfuscation, a fraud.
Not to mention that McCain is playing up to the left with this remark. They'll love this and he knows they'll love it. That's why he's doing it.
If McCain was interested in anybody but himself, he would not talk this way.
You see, that's what's missing here. We are fast approaching the type of society that worships the leaders and not the type of society in which the individuals are put first. When you worship the leaders, they serve themselves first, not the people who put them there. Thus, McCain is serving himself first. Not the country. He's a got a great schtick where he pretends to be serving the greater good, but in the end, it's all about John McCain.
Why would I run for Senate myself? The only thing I could bring to the table is my willingness to serve. I have no awards, medals, nor any qualifications. But I am not running to add this to my resume. I don't consider the office my reward, but my duty to my country. I wouldn't become someone like McCain. If I ever did that, I would leave. To someone like McCain, we are just another one of his awards. He does not serve us, nor represent us.
comment:
I'm now glad McCain lost the race as President of the United States. Something happened to the GOP which would nominate such a man to run. The thing that's wrong with what he just said was that Cruz was referring to principles, it wasn't personal. McCain just turned it into something personal. This is a Democrat type trick. Something that Bentsen did to Quayle. It has nothing to do with what Cruz said. It was a deliberate lie, an obfuscation, a fraud.
Not to mention that McCain is playing up to the left with this remark. They'll love this and he knows they'll love it. That's why he's doing it.
If McCain was interested in anybody but himself, he would not talk this way.
You see, that's what's missing here. We are fast approaching the type of society that worships the leaders and not the type of society in which the individuals are put first. When you worship the leaders, they serve themselves first, not the people who put them there. Thus, McCain is serving himself first. Not the country. He's a got a great schtick where he pretends to be serving the greater good, but in the end, it's all about John McCain.
Why would I run for Senate myself? The only thing I could bring to the table is my willingness to serve. I have no awards, medals, nor any qualifications. But I am not running to add this to my resume. I don't consider the office my reward, but my duty to my country. I wouldn't become someone like McCain. If I ever did that, I would leave. To someone like McCain, we are just another one of his awards. He does not serve us, nor represent us.
Thermal decomposition of methane using a LFTR? ( revisited ) psst special announcement at end of post
The original post was a follow up to the story about using solar power to strip away hydrogen from the carbon. I proposed in the original post that a LFTR could be used instead.
It turns out that a pdf file was produced that describes a similar process of using a thermal source to strip away the hydrogen. This paper was written in 2001.
The LFTR would supply the process heat that would be a good fit for temperature. The results would be pretty good and therefore cheap, as the process heat for a LFTR may be as low a 1 cent per kwh. Add that to the cost, and it wouldn't be much. It could produce ammonia to be shipped to the end user to be used in hydrogen fuel cell cars.
How to implement this? Someone in government would have to do that.
If you vote for me as US Senator from Texas, I would work to implement this as national policy.
Surely you jest, you say. Well, probably. Nobody pays attention to this blog. But maybe they'll pay attention to this. I'm looking up the possibility for filing for running for US Senator from Texas. If I can run, and if there aren't any barriers to entry that are too high, maybe I will. At this point, it kinda depends.
I suppose there wouldn't be any interest to this from this blog post. I'll put this out there and see who, if anybody, responds.
It turns out that a pdf file was produced that describes a similar process of using a thermal source to strip away the hydrogen. This paper was written in 2001.
The LFTR would supply the process heat that would be a good fit for temperature. The results would be pretty good and therefore cheap, as the process heat for a LFTR may be as low a 1 cent per kwh. Add that to the cost, and it wouldn't be much. It could produce ammonia to be shipped to the end user to be used in hydrogen fuel cell cars.
How to implement this? Someone in government would have to do that.
If you vote for me as US Senator from Texas, I would work to implement this as national policy.
Surely you jest, you say. Well, probably. Nobody pays attention to this blog. But maybe they'll pay attention to this. I'm looking up the possibility for filing for running for US Senator from Texas. If I can run, and if there aren't any barriers to entry that are too high, maybe I will. At this point, it kinda depends.
I suppose there wouldn't be any interest to this from this blog post. I'll put this out there and see who, if anybody, responds.
Mugged by reality
A simple phrase that has made the rounds in the culture. It was probably first used in reference to liberals who were actually mugged and decided that having a gun wasn't such a bad thing after all.
I googled that phrase and only came up with a lot of links that weren't very useful. But, I'll use couple anyway. Some of those fall into the genre of Dirty Harry. Literally, they fall into the Dirty Harry mold. But what is that? That a single guy with a gun can take a gang of bad guys, shoot them all down except one, who takes a hostage. To which, Dirty Harry says "go ahead, make my day". He makes the bad guy back down. What a guy! What a load of bull.
Another was the Charles Bronson film in which he plays the husband and father of a couple women who were killed in New York, which had a strong tendency to let the police do the policing, but regularly failed. He became the Vigilante, who got his revenge and control over his life. The point is that the films are made as a kind of "jerk-off" fantasy for gun-nuts. I suppose that's the point of the films, to discredit self-defense.
I could give a personal example of how that all could go; but that story is rather complex. Besides, you wouldn't believe it, and I don't want to tell it. Not to mention, in my telling it, would serve no purpose. But the point is that having a gun may definitely save your life. The bad guys will definitely back off if they think that you can and will fight. I KNOW.
A better example might have been the film, The Godfather. Michael Corleone knows that his father's enemies are going to go to the hospital and finish him off. He stages a bit of deception, in which fools the gang into thinking he and his companion were armed and willing to fight in order to protect him. They drive off and bring in the crooked police Captain in order to get rid of him so that they can do their evil deed.
Enzo is scared shitless. Yep, very true. But he did his job and his duty. That's all that's needed sometimes.
I googled that phrase and only came up with a lot of links that weren't very useful. But, I'll use couple anyway. Some of those fall into the genre of Dirty Harry. Literally, they fall into the Dirty Harry mold. But what is that? That a single guy with a gun can take a gang of bad guys, shoot them all down except one, who takes a hostage. To which, Dirty Harry says "go ahead, make my day". He makes the bad guy back down. What a guy! What a load of bull.
Another was the Charles Bronson film in which he plays the husband and father of a couple women who were killed in New York, which had a strong tendency to let the police do the policing, but regularly failed. He became the Vigilante, who got his revenge and control over his life. The point is that the films are made as a kind of "jerk-off" fantasy for gun-nuts. I suppose that's the point of the films, to discredit self-defense.
I could give a personal example of how that all could go; but that story is rather complex. Besides, you wouldn't believe it, and I don't want to tell it. Not to mention, in my telling it, would serve no purpose. But the point is that having a gun may definitely save your life. The bad guys will definitely back off if they think that you can and will fight. I KNOW.
A better example might have been the film, The Godfather. Michael Corleone knows that his father's enemies are going to go to the hospital and finish him off. He stages a bit of deception, in which fools the gang into thinking he and his companion were armed and willing to fight in order to protect him. They drive off and bring in the crooked police Captain in order to get rid of him so that they can do their evil deed.
Enzo is scared shitless. Yep, very true. But he did his job and his duty. That's all that's needed sometimes.
The recent election in Texas was a sham
Yeah, and it probably is greeted with shrugged shoulders as if to say, "so what"?
Even if nobody cares, I think I can tell you enough here that you may do more than just shrug your shoulders.
There was LOTS of candidates that ran UNOPPOSED in this primary. That may not surprise you. Also, when reporting the results, the Houston Chronicle did not post the results of those races in which the candidate ran unopposed. So, the thought occurred to me: what if the results were embarrassing to publish? Or even worse than that---what if the unopposed candidates received hardly any votes AT ALL! Or even more: What if they received NO VOTES at all. Legally, that would require a runoff, as nobody got a majority. But since nobody ran against them, there could be no runoff.
The fact that the outcome of an election could be so scandalous that it cannot be published is another example of scandal. We should be scandalized by this, by nobody cares.
As I wrote before: The Roman Empire fell because nobody cared enough to defend it. So the same fate shall befall us as it did with the Romans.
Even if nobody cares, I think I can tell you enough here that you may do more than just shrug your shoulders.
There was LOTS of candidates that ran UNOPPOSED in this primary. That may not surprise you. Also, when reporting the results, the Houston Chronicle did not post the results of those races in which the candidate ran unopposed. So, the thought occurred to me: what if the results were embarrassing to publish? Or even worse than that---what if the unopposed candidates received hardly any votes AT ALL! Or even more: What if they received NO VOTES at all. Legally, that would require a runoff, as nobody got a majority. But since nobody ran against them, there could be no runoff.
The fact that the outcome of an election could be so scandalous that it cannot be published is another example of scandal. We should be scandalized by this, by nobody cares.
As I wrote before: The Roman Empire fell because nobody cared enough to defend it. So the same fate shall befall us as it did with the Romans.
The hollowed out society
There was a post on Barnhardt's site that I wanted to respond to, but time didn't permit it. Well, it wasn't just the lack of time, it was a rather complex subject that required some thinking and some preparation. Preparation is difficult, owing to circumstances, but not that difficult. In the end, it was just laziness, I suppose.
That's part of the problem. I take the easy way out all too often. So, I wonder---do we all do that as a matter of course? Is that why our society is drifting towards annihilation?
Let's face it, people by and large, are sheep. They follow, rather than lead. They submit, rather than resist. It is the easiest thing to do, as most people probably follow the path of least resistance. Life is easier that way, and people all too often take the easy way out. I do it, and so does everyone else. That includes Barnhardt herself.
Why include Barnhardt? Well, she had a claim in there that people are curling up there in fetal positions and sucking their thumbs. But isn't that what she's doing? She has retreated from the world rather than to engage it. She has taken the easy way out.
But I don't want to be too hard on Barnhardt, because she has also done a good thing. She has "taken one for the team", so to speak. She has sacrificed her successful business for a greater purpose. But she can do better.
We should all strive to do better. It is all too easy to take a rigid stand and declare one's own righteousness and withdraw from the wicked world. Barnhardt is mostly accusing people, she is not being constructive. She is not proposing how one can successfully resist being dragged into the maw of this insatiable monster called Big Government and the popular culture indoctrination that sucks us all into it's service.
I tell you, I wanted to argue with her when she wrote that piece. But then I saw that she had some good points. Those points, by the way, aren't really new. During the Reagan administration, there was a white paper entitled "A Nation At Risk", that addressed the issues of poor and declining educational standards in this country. So, what she says isn't new. It's an old theme, and the story is much further along, alas. Reagan's initiative failed, unfortunately. We are not better off in this department. Things have gotten much worse.
A question arises as to how to resist this monster and not get destroyed by it. It hardly does you or anyone else any good to be devoured by this beast. Also, it hardly does any good to oppose it and not really get anywhere with your opposition. That's my particular problem. This entire blog is a kind of protest against the beast, but the protest is going largely unheard. Quite frustrating.
There was an sham election here in Texas this past week. Yet, over 40% of the GOP electorate who bothered to vote opposed the status quo monster called Cornyn. That's a good sign, but not good enough. Just a little more push, and we may gotten a better result.
Cornyn seems to be another subject, but not really. I wondered yesterday if I was too hard on him. No, he is exactly what Barnhardt was talking about. He is fake. He has a "great" record of being conservative. But when the time came to actually put something into practice, he was nowhere to be found. It's not enough to be right, you have to follow it up with action. Barnhardt said that action was needed, and she was right. Unfortunately, what can't be agreed upon is what kind of action? Barnhardt rejects the electoral means of change and suggests violence or the threat thereof.
In my opinion, violence isn't necessary. It could also be counter productive.
But you have to have numbers, for that's what counts in the electoral game and the game of warfare as well. A single man or woman has no chance against the beast. We must unite on some common principles. Hang together or hang separately, it was once said. Question is, can we unite? Or will we forever be divided against each other and ruled?
That's part of the problem. I take the easy way out all too often. So, I wonder---do we all do that as a matter of course? Is that why our society is drifting towards annihilation?
Let's face it, people by and large, are sheep. They follow, rather than lead. They submit, rather than resist. It is the easiest thing to do, as most people probably follow the path of least resistance. Life is easier that way, and people all too often take the easy way out. I do it, and so does everyone else. That includes Barnhardt herself.
Why include Barnhardt? Well, she had a claim in there that people are curling up there in fetal positions and sucking their thumbs. But isn't that what she's doing? She has retreated from the world rather than to engage it. She has taken the easy way out.
But I don't want to be too hard on Barnhardt, because she has also done a good thing. She has "taken one for the team", so to speak. She has sacrificed her successful business for a greater purpose. But she can do better.
We should all strive to do better. It is all too easy to take a rigid stand and declare one's own righteousness and withdraw from the wicked world. Barnhardt is mostly accusing people, she is not being constructive. She is not proposing how one can successfully resist being dragged into the maw of this insatiable monster called Big Government and the popular culture indoctrination that sucks us all into it's service.
I tell you, I wanted to argue with her when she wrote that piece. But then I saw that she had some good points. Those points, by the way, aren't really new. During the Reagan administration, there was a white paper entitled "A Nation At Risk", that addressed the issues of poor and declining educational standards in this country. So, what she says isn't new. It's an old theme, and the story is much further along, alas. Reagan's initiative failed, unfortunately. We are not better off in this department. Things have gotten much worse.
A question arises as to how to resist this monster and not get destroyed by it. It hardly does you or anyone else any good to be devoured by this beast. Also, it hardly does any good to oppose it and not really get anywhere with your opposition. That's my particular problem. This entire blog is a kind of protest against the beast, but the protest is going largely unheard. Quite frustrating.
There was an sham election here in Texas this past week. Yet, over 40% of the GOP electorate who bothered to vote opposed the status quo monster called Cornyn. That's a good sign, but not good enough. Just a little more push, and we may gotten a better result.
Cornyn seems to be another subject, but not really. I wondered yesterday if I was too hard on him. No, he is exactly what Barnhardt was talking about. He is fake. He has a "great" record of being conservative. But when the time came to actually put something into practice, he was nowhere to be found. It's not enough to be right, you have to follow it up with action. Barnhardt said that action was needed, and she was right. Unfortunately, what can't be agreed upon is what kind of action? Barnhardt rejects the electoral means of change and suggests violence or the threat thereof.
In my opinion, violence isn't necessary. It could also be counter productive.
But you have to have numbers, for that's what counts in the electoral game and the game of warfare as well. A single man or woman has no chance against the beast. We must unite on some common principles. Hang together or hang separately, it was once said. Question is, can we unite? Or will we forever be divided against each other and ruled?
Friday, March 7, 2014
Learn from history, or be doomed to repeat it
That appears to be making the rounds with this Ukrainian situation. Comparisons are made with World War II and so forth. Are the comparisons apt?
I won't try to answer that now, as time is limited.
But I will try to make another comparison. That is this: today's politics and the politics of the Civil War.
What is similar? The thing that is similar is that there were hotheads in control in the South, and hotheads threatening to control the so-called right. During the Civil War Era, rather than try to work things out peacefully, the Southern hotheads decided that force was the answer. But, in using force, they lost everything they were fighting for.
The same can happen today. Rather than hotheadedly march off to war, hot or cold, we should recognize that a war runs the risk of losing it all. Unless the situation is such that requires such a grave risk be taken, it is better to avoid such risks.
But some risks are necessary. Such as being opposed to those who are too timid and won't take any risks at all---like John Cornyn. Do not misunderstand. I do not suggest playing a completely safe hand. Risks are necessary at times in order to have a chance at something better. Nothing much can be achieved by playing it safe all the time. But the South lost it all, and yet, it wasn't even necessary to take such risks. Lincoln only wanted to keep the Union together. He wasn't out to abolish slavery. Today, Cornyn claims he is against Obama, but his actions speak otherwise. His actions suggest too much timidity. A balance is necessary. We need boldness alright, but not rashness. We need a Sam Houston, not a John Cornyn.
In our own case, going off to war could lose the country---literally in a nuclear exchange. What could possibly be worth a risk like that? We shouldn't endorse Obama's overly timid approach. But we should respond in a meaningful way.
It is better to remove politicians who serve us poorly. If everybody got onboard and worked toward that end, success may be possible. But those who won't may lead us down a path that we should avoid.
I'm referring to Barnhardt here. Lots of people read her. Me too. But I do not like the idea of undermining the current order just because I don't like it. We have a system and need to let it work. Thus, I cannot endorse what she claims. She claims the republic is dead. But she is wrong, because if it were dead, then why does she need to kill it?
I won't try to answer that now, as time is limited.
But I will try to make another comparison. That is this: today's politics and the politics of the Civil War.
What is similar? The thing that is similar is that there were hotheads in control in the South, and hotheads threatening to control the so-called right. During the Civil War Era, rather than try to work things out peacefully, the Southern hotheads decided that force was the answer. But, in using force, they lost everything they were fighting for.
The same can happen today. Rather than hotheadedly march off to war, hot or cold, we should recognize that a war runs the risk of losing it all. Unless the situation is such that requires such a grave risk be taken, it is better to avoid such risks.
But some risks are necessary. Such as being opposed to those who are too timid and won't take any risks at all---like John Cornyn. Do not misunderstand. I do not suggest playing a completely safe hand. Risks are necessary at times in order to have a chance at something better. Nothing much can be achieved by playing it safe all the time. But the South lost it all, and yet, it wasn't even necessary to take such risks. Lincoln only wanted to keep the Union together. He wasn't out to abolish slavery. Today, Cornyn claims he is against Obama, but his actions speak otherwise. His actions suggest too much timidity. A balance is necessary. We need boldness alright, but not rashness. We need a Sam Houston, not a John Cornyn.
In our own case, going off to war could lose the country---literally in a nuclear exchange. What could possibly be worth a risk like that? We shouldn't endorse Obama's overly timid approach. But we should respond in a meaningful way.
It is better to remove politicians who serve us poorly. If everybody got onboard and worked toward that end, success may be possible. But those who won't may lead us down a path that we should avoid.
I'm referring to Barnhardt here. Lots of people read her. Me too. But I do not like the idea of undermining the current order just because I don't like it. We have a system and need to let it work. Thus, I cannot endorse what she claims. She claims the republic is dead. But she is wrong, because if it were dead, then why does she need to kill it?
About that deal to disarm Ukraine
Not to claim this has been thoroughly researched by moi, but only to relate what happened to Lugar. Lugar had teamed up with then Sen. Barack Obama to disarm Ukraine. Lugar was defeated in the 2012 GOP primary after had served for the longest tenure in the GOP.
Mourdock defeated Lugar, but was not a good candidate, so it appears. He had a history of losing campaigns, and said something questionable in a debate.
Now, would something like this had happened if Cornyn had been defeated? Possibly. However, the Democrats only had lightweights in the race too. None of them would have been a shoe-in if Cornyn had been booted. That fear was exaggerated, probably to serve Cornyn's interest.
No doubt, the Tea Party needs better candidates.
Keeping Lugar was really no win for the GOP. In other words, a small loss. If Texas was lost, that may have hurt, but Cornyn is no great shakes either.
Mourdock defeated Lugar, but was not a good candidate, so it appears. He had a history of losing campaigns, and said something questionable in a debate.
Now, would something like this had happened if Cornyn had been defeated? Possibly. However, the Democrats only had lightweights in the race too. None of them would have been a shoe-in if Cornyn had been booted. That fear was exaggerated, probably to serve Cornyn's interest.
No doubt, the Tea Party needs better candidates.
Keeping Lugar was really no win for the GOP. In other words, a small loss. If Texas was lost, that may have hurt, but Cornyn is no great shakes either.
Comparative punditry
As I wrote earlier, where do you go for truth? There's a lot of pundits out there. Which ones should you pay attention to? Why me, of course. Ha, ha
Seriously, everyone has to decide that for themselves. As for me, I tend to follow those that I've mentioned here from time to time. I put those on the sidebar. It may be time to revisit it, though. Besides, not everybody who could be on the sidebar is on the sidebar.
I've mentioned Barnhardt a lot. But she's not on the sidebar. Then there's Limbaugh. Limbaugh isn't on the sidebar either. I've mentioned Glenn Reynolds a lot, but he's not on the sidebar. Like he needs to be, huh? Dick Morris comes up a lot too.
Let's take them in order, starting with Barnhardt. She's self-describes as hard-core. Yep. I cannot endorse her, but she has useful things to say from time to time. She would probably scare the hell out of anybody that has any sense. She's a bit too hard-core, even for me. That's saying something.
Limbaugh is somebody I used to listen to a lot, but has lost it. I'm sorry all you Rush fans, but he is over the hill. He's yesterday. He blew it with all the lead up to Iraq, and he has no credibility. He's all rah, rah, sis boom bah for the GOP. But the GOP doesn't deserve that kind of idolatry. Actually, nobody does.
Glenn Reynolds is too trendy. He has useful things to say, but he is too conventional.
Dick Morris is looking good these days. He slips up from time to time, but he won't scare anybody. He may be a little too soft on the cultural issues, but even Morris is sounding too bellicose in the foreign policy issues these days. He is passing up Limbaugh, if his claims are correct. He is on the rise. Those who wish to succeed politically should pay close attention to what he says.
As for others, let's look at a few. Like Ace. He's a good writer. Has a bevy of writers working for him. Puts out a lot of material. But it isn't cutting edge.
American Thinker looks like a partisan GOP blog. They need to sharpen up a bit. They made a mistake on the energy issue a while back.
Behind the Black is a space blog with a touch of politics. I come across some good stuff there.
Coyote blog is worth a read.
Protein Wisdom is one in which I should check out more often. I neglect to go there all too often.
How do you rate them? I'd have to say that based upon my habits, I'm reading a lot of Barnhardt these days. I'm wondering if I am reading too much of her stuff. Morris is getting a lot of attention, too. They play off each other nicely. In fact, Morris may be just the kind of guy that drives Barnhardt crazy.
I'm going to have to update the sidebar. Look for that change soon.
Update:
Done. The sidebar is near the top. Maybe if nobody is interested in my stuff, they can read this.
I added Limbaugh and the Mahablog to the list. Not because I read a lot of them, but because they are mouthpieces of the respective parties. I strive to maintain an even keel!
Seriously, everyone has to decide that for themselves. As for me, I tend to follow those that I've mentioned here from time to time. I put those on the sidebar. It may be time to revisit it, though. Besides, not everybody who could be on the sidebar is on the sidebar.
I've mentioned Barnhardt a lot. But she's not on the sidebar. Then there's Limbaugh. Limbaugh isn't on the sidebar either. I've mentioned Glenn Reynolds a lot, but he's not on the sidebar. Like he needs to be, huh? Dick Morris comes up a lot too.
Let's take them in order, starting with Barnhardt. She's self-describes as hard-core. Yep. I cannot endorse her, but she has useful things to say from time to time. She would probably scare the hell out of anybody that has any sense. She's a bit too hard-core, even for me. That's saying something.
Limbaugh is somebody I used to listen to a lot, but has lost it. I'm sorry all you Rush fans, but he is over the hill. He's yesterday. He blew it with all the lead up to Iraq, and he has no credibility. He's all rah, rah, sis boom bah for the GOP. But the GOP doesn't deserve that kind of idolatry. Actually, nobody does.
Glenn Reynolds is too trendy. He has useful things to say, but he is too conventional.
Dick Morris is looking good these days. He slips up from time to time, but he won't scare anybody. He may be a little too soft on the cultural issues, but even Morris is sounding too bellicose in the foreign policy issues these days. He is passing up Limbaugh, if his claims are correct. He is on the rise. Those who wish to succeed politically should pay close attention to what he says.
As for others, let's look at a few. Like Ace. He's a good writer. Has a bevy of writers working for him. Puts out a lot of material. But it isn't cutting edge.
American Thinker looks like a partisan GOP blog. They need to sharpen up a bit. They made a mistake on the energy issue a while back.
Behind the Black is a space blog with a touch of politics. I come across some good stuff there.
Coyote blog is worth a read.
Protein Wisdom is one in which I should check out more often. I neglect to go there all too often.
How do you rate them? I'd have to say that based upon my habits, I'm reading a lot of Barnhardt these days. I'm wondering if I am reading too much of her stuff. Morris is getting a lot of attention, too. They play off each other nicely. In fact, Morris may be just the kind of guy that drives Barnhardt crazy.
I'm going to have to update the sidebar. Look for that change soon.
Update:
Done. The sidebar is near the top. Maybe if nobody is interested in my stuff, they can read this.
I added Limbaugh and the Mahablog to the list. Not because I read a lot of them, but because they are mouthpieces of the respective parties. I strive to maintain an even keel!
Thursday, March 6, 2014
President Nixon: Address to the Nation About National Energy Policy. (1973)
President Nixon: Address to the Nation About National Energy Policy.(1973)
comment:
What if Nixon had developed the molten-salt reactor at that time? It was recently ( in those times since it was the 70's) proven in the lab. The only thing left to do at that time was to commercialize the technology. What if he had proposed that instead of those comical proposals that he outlined in that speech? What if he didn't kill molten-salt technology, and had developed it instead?
It would be an entirely different world today. Much wealthier, cleaner, and safer.
It would cleaner because the technology would have enabled carbon free energy technology---without the byproducts of other pollutants that fossil fuels spread into the environment. Not to mention the need for mining the fossil fuels themselves.
The "wastes" of fission would actually be usable in many cases. Those that weren't could be stored in 300 years, and then they would be safe. Compare that with the thousands of years of storage required for wastes from today's reactor technology, which is technology that's mired in the 50's.
We would be wealthier because we wouldn't have imported TRILLIONS of dollars worth of oil into our country.
We would be safer because those imports finance hostile entities, like the ones who attacked us on 9-11-2001. The reliance on fossil fuels is what enables Russia to dominate Ukraine. It would free captive peoples.
The truth will set you free. Learn about the truth. Learn about molten-salt reactor technology. See if you would agree with what I write here that it would be a good thing to have for the good of all humanity.
comment:
What if Nixon had developed the molten-salt reactor at that time? It was recently ( in those times since it was the 70's) proven in the lab. The only thing left to do at that time was to commercialize the technology. What if he had proposed that instead of those comical proposals that he outlined in that speech? What if he didn't kill molten-salt technology, and had developed it instead?
It would be an entirely different world today. Much wealthier, cleaner, and safer.
It would cleaner because the technology would have enabled carbon free energy technology---without the byproducts of other pollutants that fossil fuels spread into the environment. Not to mention the need for mining the fossil fuels themselves.
The "wastes" of fission would actually be usable in many cases. Those that weren't could be stored in 300 years, and then they would be safe. Compare that with the thousands of years of storage required for wastes from today's reactor technology, which is technology that's mired in the 50's.
We would be wealthier because we wouldn't have imported TRILLIONS of dollars worth of oil into our country.
We would be safer because those imports finance hostile entities, like the ones who attacked us on 9-11-2001. The reliance on fossil fuels is what enables Russia to dominate Ukraine. It would free captive peoples.
The truth will set you free. Learn about the truth. Learn about molten-salt reactor technology. See if you would agree with what I write here that it would be a good thing to have for the good of all humanity.
Propaganda ain't truth, it's not intended to be
Obtained this video courtesy a link from the Barnhardt site.
Is Russia Today a Russian propaganda organization operating in the United States? Barnhardt thinks so. This video offers evidence in support of that. The RT anchorwoman quits and says that she respects truth, so she cannot continue her participation.
The media should inform, not propagandize. Unfortunately, we have way too much of that already in this country.
That's really the whole point of this blog. To get at the truth. The media doesn't provide it. Instead of reasonable and rational people meeting the challenges of the day, instead we get manipulated sheep who march to the orders of the propagandists.
That's how we get results like we got in the "election" we had yesterday in this state of Texas.
Is Russia Today a Russian propaganda organization operating in the United States? Barnhardt thinks so. This video offers evidence in support of that. The RT anchorwoman quits and says that she respects truth, so she cannot continue her participation.
The media should inform, not propagandize. Unfortunately, we have way too much of that already in this country.
That's really the whole point of this blog. To get at the truth. The media doesn't provide it. Instead of reasonable and rational people meeting the challenges of the day, instead we get manipulated sheep who march to the orders of the propagandists.
That's how we get results like we got in the "election" we had yesterday in this state of Texas.
Where do you go for truth?
Here's an observation based upon that last post. That last post was about Lerner's "testimony" that wasn't. Somebody is lying because there's no way that both can be right. So, who's lying? Issa or the Lerner camp?
I read something yesterday on Barnhardt's site that may make some sense in this---maybe they are both conniving to lie for the political theater of it all. Divide and conquer. They need to have us fighting each other so that they can rule over all of us. So, maybe both are lying in some way because they want this political theater in order to stoke mistrust amongst the followers of each political party.
That part of the Barnhardt's piece I can agree with because that is what I've posted many times here. It is usually categorized here on this blog as "politics schmolitics".
Another example? We were told that Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, but they did. Russia says they didn't, but it looks like they did. Besides that, back in 2005 or so, there was then Senator Barack Obama and Senator Lugar, who both acted to disarm Ukraine. Now, Obama is acting like a Cold Warrior. There something there that doesn't add up. Now that he is President, we are supposed to believe that he really wants to get tough with Russia? Well, I've already written a couple times that I'm suspicious. I've always been suspicious of Obama, truth be told.
Yet another example is this recently completed primary election, in which Cornyn is reelected. He is reelected because he has no serious Democrat opposition in November. The real election was yesterday. Cornyn will win reelection. Now, those who supported Cornyn offered the excuse that if Cornyn lost, the Democrats would pour money into Texas and possibly take the Senate race here. Well, they'd have to do some fancy footwork to do that. There's no serious competitor on the Democratic side either. Perhaps it would have made the race more competitive, but what would be wrong with that? The truth be told, nobody really wants to change anything even though they say that they do. "Cornball" is a big fake, and this excuse won't fly. Democrats really don't have much of a chance here unless the Establishment acted to defeat the nominee, which is possible. That's the only way that seat would have gone blue if Cornyn had lost.
What do you make of all this? I don't know, but with respect to Russia, somebody here in the US wants them to become the Soviet Union again. Sure looks that way.
The IRS thing I can't figure, but it looks like both sides want the theater in order to fire up the troops.
Phony baloney stuff that doesn't solve problems. That's politics schmolitics. What we could use is a little truth here, but don't count on that. The truth may set us free, but you have to seek it, because these people won't reveal it in a million years.
Is anybody really interested in the truth?
I read something yesterday on Barnhardt's site that may make some sense in this---maybe they are both conniving to lie for the political theater of it all. Divide and conquer. They need to have us fighting each other so that they can rule over all of us. So, maybe both are lying in some way because they want this political theater in order to stoke mistrust amongst the followers of each political party.
That part of the Barnhardt's piece I can agree with because that is what I've posted many times here. It is usually categorized here on this blog as "politics schmolitics".
Another example? We were told that Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, but they did. Russia says they didn't, but it looks like they did. Besides that, back in 2005 or so, there was then Senator Barack Obama and Senator Lugar, who both acted to disarm Ukraine. Now, Obama is acting like a Cold Warrior. There something there that doesn't add up. Now that he is President, we are supposed to believe that he really wants to get tough with Russia? Well, I've already written a couple times that I'm suspicious. I've always been suspicious of Obama, truth be told.
Yet another example is this recently completed primary election, in which Cornyn is reelected. He is reelected because he has no serious Democrat opposition in November. The real election was yesterday. Cornyn will win reelection. Now, those who supported Cornyn offered the excuse that if Cornyn lost, the Democrats would pour money into Texas and possibly take the Senate race here. Well, they'd have to do some fancy footwork to do that. There's no serious competitor on the Democratic side either. Perhaps it would have made the race more competitive, but what would be wrong with that? The truth be told, nobody really wants to change anything even though they say that they do. "Cornball" is a big fake, and this excuse won't fly. Democrats really don't have much of a chance here unless the Establishment acted to defeat the nominee, which is possible. That's the only way that seat would have gone blue if Cornyn had lost.
What do you make of all this? I don't know, but with respect to Russia, somebody here in the US wants them to become the Soviet Union again. Sure looks that way.
The IRS thing I can't figure, but it looks like both sides want the theater in order to fire up the troops.
Phony baloney stuff that doesn't solve problems. That's politics schmolitics. What we could use is a little truth here, but don't count on that. The truth may set us free, but you have to seek it, because these people won't reveal it in a million years.
Is anybody really interested in the truth?
Lois Lerner Takes the Fifth for the Second Time; Elijah Cummings Explodes, Calling the Proceedings "Unamerican;" Daryl Issa Cuts Off His Mike
Ace
That's as good of a description as any. Issa said earlier that Lerner would testify, but then she gets there and doesn't. Does this look like a setup to anybody out there, or is it just me?
Some Partisan Theater for your morning enjoyment. Video at the link (Mediaite), or below.---Ace
That's as good of a description as any. Issa said earlier that Lerner would testify, but then she gets there and doesn't. Does this look like a setup to anybody out there, or is it just me?
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Very bad day for Texas, Very bad day for America
Yesterday's primary here in Texas probably won't go down in history. If it did, maybe nobody will care anyway.
This country is swirling down the poop chute and this primary is one of the prime reasons why.
None of the big time media people would help the underdogs in this election. They lost because they lack credibility as candidates. More name recognition would have helped. With that, maybe more contributions.
Other polls claim that the American electorate are dissatisfied with incumbents. You wouldn't know it based upon what happened here yesterday.
What does the big media do: endorse Cornyn. Yep, The Big Media who reports that the people are dissatisfied with incumbents will also endorse the incumbents. I don't know about the Big Media in Houston because I don't watch it. But at least one so-called conservative commentator here in Houston endorsed Cornyn. That would be Ed Hendee at KSEV radio.
What if Hendee and the rest of the media would just introduce the candidates and honestly let them run for the office? Nope, can't let that happen. The code of silence because big money talks.
Now I have to wonder about Stockman. It was Stockman who was supposed to give Cornyn some competition. Was Stockman intended to be a stalking horse? Did he just get into the race in order draw votes from the others? Stockman did not appear to be serious.
This was a sham of an election. Pity is that it doesn't have to be that way.
This country is swirling down the poop chute and this primary is one of the prime reasons why.
- Too few voters
- Too little interest
- Big money and name recognition won, everybody and everything else lost BIG TIME
None of the big time media people would help the underdogs in this election. They lost because they lack credibility as candidates. More name recognition would have helped. With that, maybe more contributions.
Other polls claim that the American electorate are dissatisfied with incumbents. You wouldn't know it based upon what happened here yesterday.
What does the big media do: endorse Cornyn. Yep, The Big Media who reports that the people are dissatisfied with incumbents will also endorse the incumbents. I don't know about the Big Media in Houston because I don't watch it. But at least one so-called conservative commentator here in Houston endorsed Cornyn. That would be Ed Hendee at KSEV radio.
What if Hendee and the rest of the media would just introduce the candidates and honestly let them run for the office? Nope, can't let that happen. The code of silence because big money talks.
Now I have to wonder about Stockman. It was Stockman who was supposed to give Cornyn some competition. Was Stockman intended to be a stalking horse? Did he just get into the race in order draw votes from the others? Stockman did not appear to be serious.
This was a sham of an election. Pity is that it doesn't have to be that way.
Seen on a building site in cosmopolitan London…
A picture of graffiti on a wall, which insults Putin. The author then struck up a conversation with someone who sympathized with the insult. The thing that popped up in my mind is what does this guy think of Obama? Probably likes him. WTF.
Yeah, Obama gets to be a hero. Putin gets to be a villain. What's not to like? /sarc
Yeah, Obama gets to be a hero. Putin gets to be a villain. What's not to like? /sarc
Dick Draws Larger Cumulative Audience Than Rush Limbaugh On Radio In Philadelphia Last Month
Dick Morris
comment:
I can't tell if this says something good about Morris, or something bad about Limbaugh.
One thing that I'm getting sure of is that we aren't getting the information we need. However, I'm not that even if someone did provide the information, that people would listen. We are in heap big doo doo, kemosabe.
comment:
I can't tell if this says something good about Morris, or something bad about Limbaugh.
One thing that I'm getting sure of is that we aren't getting the information we need. However, I'm not that even if someone did provide the information, that people would listen. We are in heap big doo doo, kemosabe.
Next Big Future: Putin appears to be getting ready to backoff Crime...
Next Big Future: Putin appears to be getting ready to backoff Crime...: It appears that Putin is backing off Crimea and decided it was a mistake within Russia. Within Ukraine support for joining NATO went from ...
comment:
Okay, if Putin backs off, it still makes Obama look good.
comment:
Okay, if Putin backs off, it still makes Obama look good.
Conservatives way behind the curve
Yesterday, the weather was miserable. It kinda matches my mood. Over 90% of the Republicans who voted yesterday wanted to end ObamaCare. Yet they put Cornyn back into office. Cornyn just voted to give Obama a blank check to implement ObamaCare, and yet these people voted for him. What kind of sense does that make? It makes no sense at all. The only thing you can say about it is that these people DO NOT PAY ATTENTION.
And so it it is the same about Ukraine. Obama and the rest have been disarming Ukraine for years. Now that Ukraine is completely helpless, Putin will grab it just like a fruit falling from a tree. And there's not a damned thing we can do about it now. Meanwhile, they talk about increasing the defense budget after Iraq and all that. This makes Obama look good, I tell you. But no, they want to talk that line about Obama looking weak. We've got to build up our defenses! Yeah, that will sell. That's going to get you a lot of votes.
Oh yeah. And I've been bitching about them relying too much on the ObamaCare rollout. They screwing that up too. The rollout ain't as bad as they think. It may not generate the votes that they think it will.
All this points in the same direction. They react to events rather than foresee events. Events overtake them and then they wonder how it all happened. It happened like yesterday happened. Nobody pays attention and nobody does what it takes to change things.
So things get worse.
And so it it is the same about Ukraine. Obama and the rest have been disarming Ukraine for years. Now that Ukraine is completely helpless, Putin will grab it just like a fruit falling from a tree. And there's not a damned thing we can do about it now. Meanwhile, they talk about increasing the defense budget after Iraq and all that. This makes Obama look good, I tell you. But no, they want to talk that line about Obama looking weak. We've got to build up our defenses! Yeah, that will sell. That's going to get you a lot of votes.
Oh yeah. And I've been bitching about them relying too much on the ObamaCare rollout. They screwing that up too. The rollout ain't as bad as they think. It may not generate the votes that they think it will.
All this points in the same direction. They react to events rather than foresee events. Events overtake them and then they wonder how it all happened. It happened like yesterday happened. Nobody pays attention and nobody does what it takes to change things.
So things get worse.
Talking about the wrong things in Ukraine
I hear that the Administration is trying to disarm Ukraine. Then it lets other elements stir up trouble in Ukraine, and guess what? Russia invades. Here's the thing in a nutshell---they provoke a fight that they are trying like hell to lose. What does that mean? Obama is helping Putin. That's what they should be talking about. Instead, they make it look like they want America to intervene militarily. Crazy shit.
Dennis Kucinich Blames US Meddling for Russian Invasion
Newsmax via Free Republic
He didn't mention the Obama Administration. The US has got its hands in too many pies.
No, I'm not going lefty.
He didn't mention the Obama Administration. The US has got its hands in too many pies.
No, I'm not going lefty.
Texas Primary Results
The race I was most interested in wasn't even close. Cornball will be back. Read it and weep.
I wasn't the least bit impressed yesterday by the turnout, nor many other things that I won't mention here.
One other thing: People complain about incumbents, but they don't do anything about it. You have to vote the bums out, but nobody bothers to show up. When I voted, I was the only one there. Pathetic.
 |
| source: Houston Chronicle |
One other thing: People complain about incumbents, but they don't do anything about it. You have to vote the bums out, but nobody bothers to show up. When I voted, I was the only one there. Pathetic.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
The working man has no friend
I was too quick to praise the ObamaCare package I signed up for. I didn't read the fine print. Looks like if I wanted the coverage that I sought, I would have had to have paid about as much as I would have paid before ObamaCare and the subsidies. I should have said it is a great deal for the insurance companies and a lousy deal for everybody else.
If I were to have a heart attack or a stroke, emergency room services would not be covered under this plan unless I go to a networked hospital. In other words, I'd be shit out of luck. What kind of medical insurance plan is that?????
I may not pay the premium.
If the Democrats can come up with a POS plan like this, the working man truly has no friend in DC.
Update:
Maybe it isn't as bad as I thought. I spent a little time on the subject last night. ( the day after the post )
If I were to have a heart attack or a stroke, emergency room services would not be covered under this plan unless I go to a networked hospital. In other words, I'd be shit out of luck. What kind of medical insurance plan is that?????
I may not pay the premium.
If the Democrats can come up with a POS plan like this, the working man truly has no friend in DC.
Update:
Maybe it isn't as bad as I thought. I spent a little time on the subject last night. ( the day after the post )
An overlooked fact about the burning of fossil fuels
When you burn a fossil fuel, there is more than just carbon dioxide that is being produced. As some may point out, there are other pollutants, but that's not all. There is also water being produced in every instance for every fossil fuel in existence. So, why is water not a pollutant? Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant, but not water. Carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis. It is "plant food". So is water. Without these two ingredients in abundance, there can be no life as we know it on Earth.
I think the reason that water isn't considered as a pollutant is that nobody would believe it. People will believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, because you can't breathe it. But you can drink water. You can water your plants with it. You take baths in it. It rains on you. You can never convince people that water is a pollutant.
But water is more a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The thing that make the Earth hospitable is not its atmosphere, per se, but its oceans. The atmosphere makes the oceans possible, so don't underestimate the importance of the atmosphere. But as a factor in the climate, water is far more important.
I remember from my youth the properties of water. I used to swim a lot in my youth. When the sun went down, the water stayed warm for many hours afterward. Water retains heat very well. You can check it out yourself some time. On a warm day, wait until about 10 pm, then go out to a swimming pool and put your hand in. The air temperature will be much cooler than the water. Try it.
You know that there's a temperature differential because that's what make ocean breezes possible. The warm air displaces the cooler air. The warmer air comes from the land, which heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere will heat up faster than the water, so the air over the water is cooler. In the night time, the situation is reversed. The air over the water is warmer than the cooler air over the land. This creates a temperature differential that makes the wind blow. That is also how you know that the water is more important than the air, of which carbon dioxide is a part.
The important fact of water's importance should not be overlooked in the discussion about so-called climate change. For if you are going to regulate carbon dioxide, you may as well as regulate water. But if you aren't going to regulate water, then why regulate carbon dioxide?
I think the reason that water isn't considered as a pollutant is that nobody would believe it. People will believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, because you can't breathe it. But you can drink water. You can water your plants with it. You take baths in it. It rains on you. You can never convince people that water is a pollutant.
But water is more a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The thing that make the Earth hospitable is not its atmosphere, per se, but its oceans. The atmosphere makes the oceans possible, so don't underestimate the importance of the atmosphere. But as a factor in the climate, water is far more important.
I remember from my youth the properties of water. I used to swim a lot in my youth. When the sun went down, the water stayed warm for many hours afterward. Water retains heat very well. You can check it out yourself some time. On a warm day, wait until about 10 pm, then go out to a swimming pool and put your hand in. The air temperature will be much cooler than the water. Try it.
You know that there's a temperature differential because that's what make ocean breezes possible. The warm air displaces the cooler air. The warmer air comes from the land, which heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere will heat up faster than the water, so the air over the water is cooler. In the night time, the situation is reversed. The air over the water is warmer than the cooler air over the land. This creates a temperature differential that makes the wind blow. That is also how you know that the water is more important than the air, of which carbon dioxide is a part.
The important fact of water's importance should not be overlooked in the discussion about so-called climate change. For if you are going to regulate carbon dioxide, you may as well as regulate water. But if you aren't going to regulate water, then why regulate carbon dioxide?
Ted Cruz’s influence and the Texas primary
The Globe and Mail via Free Republic
“The state will not turn the blue of the Democrats in this election cycle,.but it is possible that if the Republican Party turns so far to the right with particular stances on immigration that it may hasten the day when that change comes”--- Sherri Greenberg, director of the Center for Politics and Governance at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of TexasA clear example of the rhetoric that the so-called right has not found an answer. The first was the label of "right" wing, and the other is racial identity politics. When the GOP concedes both of these, it is a sure-fire loser. Yet, the GOP can win on the immigration issue. Or at the very least, minimize their losses. For to do that, they'd actually have to place themselves in the shoes of the Hispanic population, who may not want unlimited immigration after all, because it damages their own economic interests. Immigration is not that popular with them from what I've read. But if immigration is allowed to become a racial issue, the Democrats can influence it so as to move the Hispanic electorate their way. As for the so-called "right" wing, it is really dumb for pundits and politicians to allow themselves to be so labeled. There is no upside to it.
Buchanan: Tune out the war party!
WND
Well put. I think a lot of this hawkish rhetoric is said to act tough. They cannot possibly be serious about putting US forces in the region. That's insane. There's got to be a better way.
But as for the hawkish howls, to have Ukraine and Georgia brought into NATO, that would give these nations, deep inside Russia’s space, the kind of war guarantees the Kaiser gave Austria in 1914 and the Brits gave the Polish colonels in March 1939.---Pat Buchanan
Well put. I think a lot of this hawkish rhetoric is said to act tough. They cannot possibly be serious about putting US forces in the region. That's insane. There's got to be a better way.
Palin Blasts Obama’s ‘Weak Leadership’ on Russia: ‘Wears Mom Jeans and Equivocates’
Palin has a really serious look in this video.
Will she run for President in 2016? Could she win?
Once upon a time, I got into something of an argument about Palin with some dude on the internet. I said that she seems to be right a lot for somebody who is supposed to be dumb. Well, here she is, right again.
There was a clip where Romney is debating Obama and Obama throws in that 80's line that belittled Romney. We should be so lucky to have the 80's back. If Romney had said that, it may have made a difference. Instead of getting the 80's back, we are getting the 70's.
Will she run for President in 2016? Could she win?
Once upon a time, I got into something of an argument about Palin with some dude on the internet. I said that she seems to be right a lot for somebody who is supposed to be dumb. Well, here she is, right again.
There was a clip where Romney is debating Obama and Obama throws in that 80's line that belittled Romney. We should be so lucky to have the 80's back. If Romney had said that, it may have made a difference. Instead of getting the 80's back, we are getting the 70's.
The Eighties Called: Do We Want Their Foreign Policy Back?
Federalist via Free Republic
A little more like it. Reagan was careful not to get American forces involved. But what he did do was highly effective.
Reagan found plenty to do in Poland without using our military power. We imposed sanctions against the Polish regime and the Soviet Union, and throughout the 80s we gave Solidarity everything from moral support, to money, equipment, and training.---Robert Tracinski
A little more like it. Reagan was careful not to get American forces involved. But what he did do was highly effective.
Monday, March 3, 2014
What is it with these people?
Just watched Dick Morris' lunch alert about Ukraine. He's talking about putting American forces in there. Are you kidding me?! Yeah, he said we should match what Russia did.
I think these people are all getting together in their little talk groups and talking themselves into some major league groupthink.
He seems to think we have to stop Putin now like Europe needed to stop Hitler before WWII. Oh, yeah. He's making that comparison.
I don't think I have any illusions about Putin. But to go after him aggressively is not advisable on many levels. I don't know if these people understand how aggressive that that would look to others in the world. Even if not, we should not be doing somebody else's dirty work---if Europe wants Ukraine, let Europe fight for it. Besides, there are better ways to deal with Russian aggressiveness. In addition, we have to get our poop together in our own country. We can't go gallivanting around all over the world meddling in other people's business when our own business is left undone right here.
I tell you that they are making Obama look good. People in this country are not going to get herded into another Cold War, or even worse than that. It won't work politically. You have to be smarter than this, GOP.
I think these people are all getting together in their little talk groups and talking themselves into some major league groupthink.
He seems to think we have to stop Putin now like Europe needed to stop Hitler before WWII. Oh, yeah. He's making that comparison.
I don't think I have any illusions about Putin. But to go after him aggressively is not advisable on many levels. I don't know if these people understand how aggressive that that would look to others in the world. Even if not, we should not be doing somebody else's dirty work---if Europe wants Ukraine, let Europe fight for it. Besides, there are better ways to deal with Russian aggressiveness. In addition, we have to get our poop together in our own country. We can't go gallivanting around all over the world meddling in other people's business when our own business is left undone right here.
I tell you that they are making Obama look good. People in this country are not going to get herded into another Cold War, or even worse than that. It won't work politically. You have to be smarter than this, GOP.
They don't know why Reagan succeeded, so they will fail
Reagan managed to bring down the Soviet Union without a shot. He went after their oil and gas industry. Instead of doing that, the current miscalled leadership is helping the Russians rebuild their oil and gas industry and with it, their empire.
You can get back at the Russians by implementing the molten-salt reactor technology that should have been implemented in the 70's.
You can get back at the Russians by implementing the molten-salt reactor technology that should have been implemented in the 70's.
Could have Obama connived with Putin for the takeover of Ukraine?
Well, Obama took credit for the ouster of Yanukovich. Remember that? Now he is signaling weakness to Russia so that it Putin can have the excuse of invading the rest of Ukraine. The GOP, in its usual clownish way, is supporting the President by firing up hopes in the Ukrainians of a US intervention. By doing this, they make Obama look good as the peaceable dove who keeps us out of wars, while the GOP looks like irresponsible war hawks. But if Obama hadn't spurred on the protesters ( he took the credit for it, remember?) to take over the government of Ukraine, there may have been a better solution of the spectacle that may eventuate. That spectacle could be an all out Russian takeover of Ukraine. Maybe that is what Obama wanted after all, and so, he is helping Putin in that endeavor.
General feeling of malaise
On all fronts, it seems like virtue is losing to vice.
Take that last post, in my opinion, if our society didn't break down in 1968, we would have developed molten salt reactors. History would have taken a radically different turn. Instead of being placed over the oil barrel, we could be enjoying almost perfectly clean energy source, and enjoying even further the benefits of nuclear energy, such as fighting cancer. The vice is ignorance, which is fed by negligence. If people did their due diligence, they'd know these things.
Another example is the reaction to Ukraine. Those on the so-called right have the better arguments, but they ruin it with their dumb notions about going into Ukraine to help them there. This is none of our business. Do these people want to fight World War III? Are they nuts? So, their war-mongering gets them suspicions they deserve from the electorate, and locks them out of their better arguments on limited government. What we may end up with is a totalitarian leftist government, because there won't be anyone with the political strength to stop them. What's the vice here with Ukraine? Insanity?
But, I am barely scratching the surface with what's going wrong with the GOP. A bad mood is no way to enter the primary season. But these idiots can screw up a wet dream.
They claim that Obama is incompetent, but that is exceeded by their own. These guys make Obama look brilliant. Instead of talking about the economy, we are talking about Ukraine, which has nothing to do with us.
Vice wins because virtue is absent. Maybe Barnhardt is right after all.
Take that last post, in my opinion, if our society didn't break down in 1968, we would have developed molten salt reactors. History would have taken a radically different turn. Instead of being placed over the oil barrel, we could be enjoying almost perfectly clean energy source, and enjoying even further the benefits of nuclear energy, such as fighting cancer. The vice is ignorance, which is fed by negligence. If people did their due diligence, they'd know these things.
Another example is the reaction to Ukraine. Those on the so-called right have the better arguments, but they ruin it with their dumb notions about going into Ukraine to help them there. This is none of our business. Do these people want to fight World War III? Are they nuts? So, their war-mongering gets them suspicions they deserve from the electorate, and locks them out of their better arguments on limited government. What we may end up with is a totalitarian leftist government, because there won't be anyone with the political strength to stop them. What's the vice here with Ukraine? Insanity?
But, I am barely scratching the surface with what's going wrong with the GOP. A bad mood is no way to enter the primary season. But these idiots can screw up a wet dream.
They claim that Obama is incompetent, but that is exceeded by their own. These guys make Obama look brilliant. Instead of talking about the economy, we are talking about Ukraine, which has nothing to do with us.
Vice wins because virtue is absent. Maybe Barnhardt is right after all.
The Hydrogen Car Is Back—Again
Popular Mechanics , Instapundit
comment:
A pretty negative review of hydrogen fuel cell cars. These people are not very informed. That may surprise some folks for me to say this. But I've researched this deeper than these guys have.
In my opinion, the best system would include using nuclear power to synthesize ammonia and distribute it that way. At the point of sale, crack the ammonia, and then cryogenically store the hydrogen for sale to customers.
Infrastructure needed? Nothing much for the ammonia, since that already exists. You need nuke plants, and the best ones are molten salt reactors. Those can replace the conventional plants if anyone ever thinks of it. Thus, you wouldn't even need new nuke sites. The last part is the fueling stations themselves. Those aren't going to be as expensive as the PM article states. The PM article didn't even mention these alternatives.
comment:
A pretty negative review of hydrogen fuel cell cars. These people are not very informed. That may surprise some folks for me to say this. But I've researched this deeper than these guys have.
In my opinion, the best system would include using nuclear power to synthesize ammonia and distribute it that way. At the point of sale, crack the ammonia, and then cryogenically store the hydrogen for sale to customers.
Infrastructure needed? Nothing much for the ammonia, since that already exists. You need nuke plants, and the best ones are molten salt reactors. Those can replace the conventional plants if anyone ever thinks of it. Thus, you wouldn't even need new nuke sites. The last part is the fueling stations themselves. Those aren't going to be as expensive as the PM article states. The PM article didn't even mention these alternatives.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Rush Limbaugh could learn something from this guy
He does a fine job of debunking liberal talking points about inequality.
Michael Jackson Moonwalk
This looks almost inhuman. You look at this and you have to ask, how did he do that?!
Gas Electric comparison --- Green Trucker Post
What if I wanted to replace my van with a new one? Should I buy electric? The answer today is definitely no, but in a few years perhaps? Elon Musk says he can build a car for 35k, so maybe he can build a van suitable for deliveries for a similar price, yes? Probably, no.
For comparison purposes, I started with a basic van. Frankly, I didn't research the prices that closely. I got a price for some type of van from a Ford site, and this was what they wanted for a model that I am not familiar with. Maybe the models are going to change. How lovely.
I tried different combinations for the electric van starting at 35k. Once you are past 50k, I figure that you may as well forget about it. Elon Musk has his work cut out if he wants to crack this market.
The mpg for the gas vehicle was assumed to be about what I get for my E150. The gas price is currently about 3.10 in Houston. I added a dime to it, what the heck. Cost per mile comes out to 20 cents per mile for energy.
Then I looked at the longevity of the van. I figured in would work out in three different scenarios:
The results of dividing cost by miles gives a cents per mile number shown for the three scenarios. Adding the vehicle cost per mile and the fuel cost per mile gives the final costs for the three scenarios, for which you can compare with the electric variations. These start at column D and proceed to column K.
For example, in Column K, the electric vehicle cost is at 50k. The 3 final scenarios in green are .2042, .2875, and .3708. Now, compare that with the B column in which the numbers are .30, .35, and .40.
Looks like electric is a better deal, but hold on there, not so fast. We are comparing apples and oranges here. A gas powered vehicle can last 300k miles if you take care of it, but what about electric? There's probably not enough of a track record to determine that.
I'll compare it to what happens with alternators and starters. They don't generally last as long as the gas powered motor does. It may be preferable to compare it to say, 150k for an electric motor before it needs major servicing. The battery may need replacing sooner than that.
Look at it this way, at .2042 cents per mile at 300k miles, you have $30k dollars of cushion to work with. So, if Musk can meet the $50k price tag for a delivery van, he may have a winner. That's because a new electric motor and battery should not cost any more than that. In fact, it may cost a less. In fact, it had better.
The vans need not be completely comparable, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't talk for anybody but myself here. If he can build something like a Ford Transit for under 50k, that would be good enough for me to give it consideration. But, I probably won't be buying any new vans soon.
Cheaper to buy used!
For comparison purposes, I started with a basic van. Frankly, I didn't research the prices that closely. I got a price for some type of van from a Ford site, and this was what they wanted for a model that I am not familiar with. Maybe the models are going to change. How lovely.
I tried different combinations for the electric van starting at 35k. Once you are past 50k, I figure that you may as well forget about it. Elon Musk has his work cut out if he wants to crack this market.
The mpg for the gas vehicle was assumed to be about what I get for my E150. The gas price is currently about 3.10 in Houston. I added a dime to it, what the heck. Cost per mile comes out to 20 cents per mile for energy.
Then I looked at the longevity of the van. I figured in would work out in three different scenarios:
- long life of up to and beyond 300k miles. This isn't unreasonable in this business to get that many miles.
- medium life of up to 200k. I just thought of this--- I didn't include a category of between 200-300k miles. You can apply for your refund at the customer service counter. The check is in the mail.
- short life up to no more than 150 k miles. If you are pretty tough on your vehicle, it may wear out at this range. I've seen worse.
For example, in Column K, the electric vehicle cost is at 50k. The 3 final scenarios in green are .2042, .2875, and .3708. Now, compare that with the B column in which the numbers are .30, .35, and .40.
Looks like electric is a better deal, but hold on there, not so fast. We are comparing apples and oranges here. A gas powered vehicle can last 300k miles if you take care of it, but what about electric? There's probably not enough of a track record to determine that.
I'll compare it to what happens with alternators and starters. They don't generally last as long as the gas powered motor does. It may be preferable to compare it to say, 150k for an electric motor before it needs major servicing. The battery may need replacing sooner than that.
Look at it this way, at .2042 cents per mile at 300k miles, you have $30k dollars of cushion to work with. So, if Musk can meet the $50k price tag for a delivery van, he may have a winner. That's because a new electric motor and battery should not cost any more than that. In fact, it may cost a less. In fact, it had better.
The vans need not be completely comparable, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't talk for anybody but myself here. If he can build something like a Ford Transit for under 50k, that would be good enough for me to give it consideration. But, I probably won't be buying any new vans soon.
Cheaper to buy used!
Christine O’Donnell’s IRS case reveals more than just a ‘smidgen of corruption’
Another one that stinks to high heaven.
If the Democrats win in November, there will be no accountability for this. There may not be anyway, but there definitely won't be if the Dems win.
If you read this article, how do you fail to get concerned about this? Even Nixon didn't go this far.
If the Democrats win in November, there will be no accountability for this. There may not be anyway, but there definitely won't be if the Dems win.
If you read this article, how do you fail to get concerned about this? Even Nixon didn't go this far.
The stress on getting credentialed and the zero sum game in the economy
We really are getting rather "hunkered down" in this country. Lay low and take no chances is what I mean by that. I think it all started in 1968. It's part of the syndrome.
The syndrome is that there are so many good things, and thus you have to compete for those limited number of good things as opposed to creating new good things out of your own industry and drive. Not good for America, nor the world for that matter.
Ever fail at anything? If so, Glenn Reynolds tells you why it might be the best thing that ever happened to you. Hear more as blogger and author Megan McArdle discusses her new book "The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well is the Key to Success".
The syndrome is that there are so many good things, and thus you have to compete for those limited number of good things as opposed to creating new good things out of your own industry and drive. Not good for America, nor the world for that matter.
Corporations are not people
Well, duh!
It wasn't that big of a deal to me during the 2012 election when Romney claimed that corporations were people. In the last few months, it has become important to me. At best, they are artificial persons. Corporations do not bleed, nor do they feel. Their owners may, but the entity itself does not bleed.
The only reason to incorporate is to get an advantage of some kind. I knew of at least one advantage I learned about in accounting class-- limited liability.
In the markets, publicly held corporations have access to the investment funds of ordinary folks. That can really expand their power and influence. For these two reasons, some type of compensation must be obtained in exchange for these privileges. These privileges all too often find their way into the hands of too few people.
But, I've been over that. To repeat, higher taxes on publicly held corporations is okay by me. I think corporations are getting too powerful anyway. Real people should not be taxed, or taxed at the lowest possible rates. Corporations, and especially public held corporations, should be taxed out the wazoo. Any capital gains from holding these corporations should not receive any special tax treatment. They should be taxed at ordinary income levels.
It wasn't that big of a deal to me during the 2012 election when Romney claimed that corporations were people. In the last few months, it has become important to me. At best, they are artificial persons. Corporations do not bleed, nor do they feel. Their owners may, but the entity itself does not bleed.
The only reason to incorporate is to get an advantage of some kind. I knew of at least one advantage I learned about in accounting class-- limited liability.
In the markets, publicly held corporations have access to the investment funds of ordinary folks. That can really expand their power and influence. For these two reasons, some type of compensation must be obtained in exchange for these privileges. These privileges all too often find their way into the hands of too few people.
But, I've been over that. To repeat, higher taxes on publicly held corporations is okay by me. I think corporations are getting too powerful anyway. Real people should not be taxed, or taxed at the lowest possible rates. Corporations, and especially public held corporations, should be taxed out the wazoo. Any capital gains from holding these corporations should not receive any special tax treatment. They should be taxed at ordinary income levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)