New category label started, which is called Sugar Observations--- the sugar part means it's short and sweet.
Life can get crazy, so always look on the bright side of life. What the hell, huh?
Lots of craziness chronicled this last week. Seems like it's all crazy, but what the hell.
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, May 10, 2014
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life (from Monty Python)
Like the man said, "if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't be living."
Presidential politics for 2016
It's way too early to be speculating on this. Lots of things can still happen between now and then.
I watched a lot of the debates for 2012 and so I was more hip than what is usually the case. There's some talk out there, so here goes. Dick Morris had something on one of his lunch alerts that discussed the early going. He pointed out that the GOP likes to give the nomination to candidates who lost the nomination fight in the past. If this pattern holds, Rand Paul is not likely to do well, as he is the new kid on the block. New guys don't do well in getting the nod for the GOP. Who fits that bill? Santorum and Gingrich from 2012, and Huckabee from 2008. Bush may get the nod for being well known.
If Bush jumps in, he'll be the favorite. That's really not much to get excited about. As for Santorum and Gingrich, I think they should have teamed up in 2012 when they had the chance. Santorum at the top of the ticket and Gingrich at the bottom. Could this ticket win? A lot depends on what happens between now and then. However, the GOP doesn't have much of a track record lately, so probably not.
I watched a lot of the debates for 2012 and so I was more hip than what is usually the case. There's some talk out there, so here goes. Dick Morris had something on one of his lunch alerts that discussed the early going. He pointed out that the GOP likes to give the nomination to candidates who lost the nomination fight in the past. If this pattern holds, Rand Paul is not likely to do well, as he is the new kid on the block. New guys don't do well in getting the nod for the GOP. Who fits that bill? Santorum and Gingrich from 2012, and Huckabee from 2008. Bush may get the nod for being well known.
If Bush jumps in, he'll be the favorite. That's really not much to get excited about. As for Santorum and Gingrich, I think they should have teamed up in 2012 when they had the chance. Santorum at the top of the ticket and Gingrich at the bottom. Could this ticket win? A lot depends on what happens between now and then. However, the GOP doesn't have much of a track record lately, so probably not.
FOCUS FUSION: emPOWERtheWORLD ( crowdfunding effort )
If I had the money, I'd give them the $200k myself just to see if they could make this work. I realize that is easy to say, but much harder to do. I'll probably contribute something, but it will be a modest amount.
On knowing when to shut up, and when to say something
Sometimes a thing is just what it is, and it doesn't require explanation. Just a decision to believe or not believe. Seems to me that's what Ann is saying here. In response to this, and with respect to Ann Barnhardt's posts, for example on the subject of the Eucharist, I choose to believe even though I'm not a Catholic. I choose to believe based upon my own thoughts on the matter plus what I've read on her blog.
Now, the Meadows family that I grew up in likes to argue everything, so I want to argue about Barnhardt's posts, but I have a strong tendency to talk out my ass about subjects I don't know much about, so maybe I should shut up already.
A sister-in-law knows this tendency all too well. Once upon a time in the long ago past, when an argument was quivering on the horizon, she intervened to no avail something-to-the-effect to "shut up already": Just sit down, shut up and listen. But keeping my mouth shut isn't what I do all the time. But I can be pretty quiet most of the time. Maybe it's a matter of knowing when to shut up and when to speak up.
I once believe that I was an atheist. In a classroom discussion the teacher asked me if I believed that there was such a thing as a spirit, and I said yes. Then the teacher said that made me an agnostic, not an atheist. How do I account for that? Maybe the thing that I heard and saw on the subject of religion did not do it for me; it turned out to be not the message, but the messengers that I rejected. Once I read the Gospels, I started to respect it and believe in it. But I tend to overreact to things, so I overdid it for awhile. The feeling died down and I didn't return until recently when I read Barnhardt's posts.
Now she seems to be saying with respect to the faith: are all of you ashamed to say it? No, I just-don't-know is the reason for my reticence. But I can open my big mouth sometimes and say some shocking things.
An example was one time on jury duty. I said something that made enough people gasp that you could hear it--- got jury duty again on June 3rd. Will I open my big mouth again, or just shut up? Who knows?
A scene in the movie Jurassic Park comes to mind when Ellie tells John Hammond that he has to feel his way through, you can't think your way through it. I'm feeling my way though, not thinking my way through. All my life, I was like Hammond--- I wanted to think my way through. But you don't connect that way with people. There has to be an emotional connection somehow. A thought has to make its way from your head to your heart. It has to light your fire and the fire has to spread to another person, otherwise it dies. Love is like that--- it can die like a flower dies that isn't nurtured into full blossom. Faith can be like that too, or so I suppose. Without the passion, it dies out.
Ann Barnhardt isn't crazy. She passionate about what she believes. But she is fearful, I suspect, that something is dying. It is making her appear crazy to those who don't understand. I think I understand. She is a lot like the way a lot of women, let's say almost all the women in the 1920's--- said and felt. It is almost like she was transported from that time to this and is horrified at what we've become. I believe that any woman transported from that time to this time would have had the same reactions she is having. She only appears crazy to some, because it seems out of place, but it wouldn't have been out of place back then. Why is it out of place now? Are we crazy instead? You look closely at what's happening, and perhaps that slow realization may creep in on you and say --- could be.
Any audible gasps in the audience? Maybe I said too much? Or is it too little?
Another thing I like to do, besides arguing, is to illustrate my point from movie scenes, as shown above. There's a scene from Jerry Maguire when the football player is trying to get Jerry to "feel him". "Are you feeling me Jerry?" It is quite a good scene there. I recommend it for this point. You have to feel it in your heart. It can't be something in your head, or gets repeated ritualistically going through the motions. You have to feel your way through. And you have to say it loud and with passion--- Show me the MONEY!!!!!!
It doesn't have to be money. It is whatever it takes to float your boat, or the boat of somebody or something that you care about deeply.
Now, the Meadows family that I grew up in likes to argue everything, so I want to argue about Barnhardt's posts, but I have a strong tendency to talk out my ass about subjects I don't know much about, so maybe I should shut up already.
A sister-in-law knows this tendency all too well. Once upon a time in the long ago past, when an argument was quivering on the horizon, she intervened to no avail something-to-the-effect to "shut up already": Just sit down, shut up and listen. But keeping my mouth shut isn't what I do all the time. But I can be pretty quiet most of the time. Maybe it's a matter of knowing when to shut up and when to speak up.
I once believe that I was an atheist. In a classroom discussion the teacher asked me if I believed that there was such a thing as a spirit, and I said yes. Then the teacher said that made me an agnostic, not an atheist. How do I account for that? Maybe the thing that I heard and saw on the subject of religion did not do it for me; it turned out to be not the message, but the messengers that I rejected. Once I read the Gospels, I started to respect it and believe in it. But I tend to overreact to things, so I overdid it for awhile. The feeling died down and I didn't return until recently when I read Barnhardt's posts.
Now she seems to be saying with respect to the faith: are all of you ashamed to say it? No, I just-don't-know is the reason for my reticence. But I can open my big mouth sometimes and say some shocking things.
An example was one time on jury duty. I said something that made enough people gasp that you could hear it--- got jury duty again on June 3rd. Will I open my big mouth again, or just shut up? Who knows?
A scene in the movie Jurassic Park comes to mind when Ellie tells John Hammond that he has to feel his way through, you can't think your way through it. I'm feeling my way though, not thinking my way through. All my life, I was like Hammond--- I wanted to think my way through. But you don't connect that way with people. There has to be an emotional connection somehow. A thought has to make its way from your head to your heart. It has to light your fire and the fire has to spread to another person, otherwise it dies. Love is like that--- it can die like a flower dies that isn't nurtured into full blossom. Faith can be like that too, or so I suppose. Without the passion, it dies out.
Ann Barnhardt isn't crazy. She passionate about what she believes. But she is fearful, I suspect, that something is dying. It is making her appear crazy to those who don't understand. I think I understand. She is a lot like the way a lot of women, let's say almost all the women in the 1920's--- said and felt. It is almost like she was transported from that time to this and is horrified at what we've become. I believe that any woman transported from that time to this time would have had the same reactions she is having. She only appears crazy to some, because it seems out of place, but it wouldn't have been out of place back then. Why is it out of place now? Are we crazy instead? You look closely at what's happening, and perhaps that slow realization may creep in on you and say --- could be.
Any audible gasps in the audience? Maybe I said too much? Or is it too little?
Another thing I like to do, besides arguing, is to illustrate my point from movie scenes, as shown above. There's a scene from Jerry Maguire when the football player is trying to get Jerry to "feel him". "Are you feeling me Jerry?" It is quite a good scene there. I recommend it for this point. You have to feel it in your heart. It can't be something in your head, or gets repeated ritualistically going through the motions. You have to feel your way through. And you have to say it loud and with passion--- Show me the MONEY!!!!!!
It doesn't have to be money. It is whatever it takes to float your boat, or the boat of somebody or something that you care about deeply.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Next Big Future: Time, Distance and Shielding and Radiation Protect...
Next Big Future: Time, Distance and Shielding and Radiation Protect...: Three basic concepts apply to all types of ionizing radiation radiation protection (time, distance and shielding). 150 meters of air halv...
How to do radioactive shielding in space? Looking at table in the article, I notice that the denser the material, the less mass is required. ( That will have to be double checked ) If I'm correct, then it would be advantageous, in terms of mass, to use the most dense element of them all for space shielding. It would not shield all forms of radiation, though. I'm thinking gammas, here. Besides those, the heavy cosmic rays may be shielded with an osmium shield, but I'm not sure about that.
How to do radioactive shielding in space? Looking at table in the article, I notice that the denser the material, the less mass is required. ( That will have to be double checked ) If I'm correct, then it would be advantageous, in terms of mass, to use the most dense element of them all for space shielding. It would not shield all forms of radiation, though. I'm thinking gammas, here. Besides those, the heavy cosmic rays may be shielded with an osmium shield, but I'm not sure about that.
Born that way, my ass
Stories like this confirm my suspicion that there's no such thing as being born "gay". Homosexuality is a moral issue. The excuse that they are born that way is just that--- an excuse.
Not that they may deserve some understanding and compassion.
The thing that may turn an individual towards this lifestyle is the way they were raised as they grew up. Nature v. Nuture--- not biology, folks.
A young man that gets this type of treatment undoubtedly internalizes the experience which becomes a part of his identity. Sure, there may be some temptation to do wrong, but moral training that is imparted from birth to adulthood will minimize this type of behavior. The training needs to be reinforced by social sanctions. I don't suppose that all homosexual behavior will be eliminated, but this type of sexual abuse against young men described in the article doesn't help with the moral issues at stake. The parents seeking aid from the local government got no help at all. That should tell you all you need to know about the attitude of the government. How can a young man hope to free of this moral disease when the government works against him?
I may have told this story before, but it is supportive of this story, so here I go again. There was a man who was the general manager of a chain of retail outlets for which I worked when I was in my early twenties. This man came to visit the store where I worked at that time. The man had very striking effeminate characteristics, but the man was married and had children. All the guys were talking about him and how he appeared "gay", but was married and had children. It turned out that he was raised by his aunts, so he lack male role models and so his behavior was influenced in a feminine way. But this had nothing to do with his sexual development. His aunts raised him right, it appears, and so he never became "gay".
Some may argue that he was in the closet. Maybe, but I doubt it. Sexual development and so forth doesn't always fit the stereotypes.
Consider the leader of the Brown Shirts in Nazi Germany. A really tough guy. But a homosexual nonetheless.
I don't buy the propaganda that homosexuals are born that way. They are trained that way and it starts at a young age.
Not that they may deserve some understanding and compassion.
The thing that may turn an individual towards this lifestyle is the way they were raised as they grew up. Nature v. Nuture--- not biology, folks.
A young man that gets this type of treatment undoubtedly internalizes the experience which becomes a part of his identity. Sure, there may be some temptation to do wrong, but moral training that is imparted from birth to adulthood will minimize this type of behavior. The training needs to be reinforced by social sanctions. I don't suppose that all homosexual behavior will be eliminated, but this type of sexual abuse against young men described in the article doesn't help with the moral issues at stake. The parents seeking aid from the local government got no help at all. That should tell you all you need to know about the attitude of the government. How can a young man hope to free of this moral disease when the government works against him?
I may have told this story before, but it is supportive of this story, so here I go again. There was a man who was the general manager of a chain of retail outlets for which I worked when I was in my early twenties. This man came to visit the store where I worked at that time. The man had very striking effeminate characteristics, but the man was married and had children. All the guys were talking about him and how he appeared "gay", but was married and had children. It turned out that he was raised by his aunts, so he lack male role models and so his behavior was influenced in a feminine way. But this had nothing to do with his sexual development. His aunts raised him right, it appears, and so he never became "gay".
Some may argue that he was in the closet. Maybe, but I doubt it. Sexual development and so forth doesn't always fit the stereotypes.
Consider the leader of the Brown Shirts in Nazi Germany. A really tough guy. But a homosexual nonetheless.
I don't buy the propaganda that homosexuals are born that way. They are trained that way and it starts at a young age.
“This is what the Fourth Amendment looks like?”
protein wisdom
Politics is like warfare, but at least there's no bullets flying. Which do you prefer, bullets or ballots? When the government suppresses the latter, the former must take its place, or its tyranny. That's what the Founding Fathers fought for--- the right of peaceable change.
The left is not just part of a two-party system operating within a constitutional republic. It is a radical, alien movement aimed at circumventing and otherwise overthrowing the US as, by design and intent, a constitutionally constrained representative republic. - Jeff GoldsteinYeah, and I tried to warn the knuckleheads out there back in 2008, but it didn't work. Now the warnings get louder and you have to wonder sometimes if people are just deaf, dumb, and blind?
Politics is like warfare, but at least there's no bullets flying. Which do you prefer, bullets or ballots? When the government suppresses the latter, the former must take its place, or its tyranny. That's what the Founding Fathers fought for--- the right of peaceable change.
Patience, Grasshopper
Very impressive. There will be another launch attempt and recovery this very weekend. Conditions are more favorable than last time, so they may get an intact rocket casing back for evaluation purposes. Spacex is on track to make this succeed. When it happens, it will be revolutionary.
House Republicans find 10% of tea party donors audited by IRS
Washington Times
There's a lot of bragging about a Gallup poll indicating a drop in support for the Tea Party. You have to consider whether or not the auditing may have something to do with that. While it may be true that the threat of an audit can intimidate some, those who are left just may be radicalized.
Then you've got Podesta saying some pretty hard core stuff about opposition being the equivalent of cults. The suppression of dissent by using the IRS could be the kind of thing that sparks a rebellion. If that happens, the administration cannot claim innocence. The political process is being short circuited. When that happens, something else can take its place.
Investigators last year reported that the IRS singled out tea party and other conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status and gave them special scrutiny, including asking inappropriate questions about their activities and membership. The request for donor lists was among the inappropriate activities.--- Stephen Dinan
There's a lot of bragging about a Gallup poll indicating a drop in support for the Tea Party. You have to consider whether or not the auditing may have something to do with that. While it may be true that the threat of an audit can intimidate some, those who are left just may be radicalized.
Then you've got Podesta saying some pretty hard core stuff about opposition being the equivalent of cults. The suppression of dissent by using the IRS could be the kind of thing that sparks a rebellion. If that happens, the administration cannot claim innocence. The political process is being short circuited. When that happens, something else can take its place.
Andrew Klavan: The Debate is Over
If the debate is over, the guns may do the talking. Seriously. If you don't talk, you must be assuming the other side of the argument will just wilt and go away. What happens if that doesn't happen?
There's not a whole lot of sense in taking this attitude. I think it was former Senator Bob Kerrey who once said that it was better to have the argument than not to have it for the reason given above. That was a sensible position to take, but nowadays, the sensible has given way to the opposite, as Klavan shows in this video. It's cave-in or else. But what if the other side says to this --- "make me"? Then what do you do, geniuses? Do you crack down with government force? And if there's a rebellion? Do you guys really want to go there, or are you counting on your opponent to roll over and play dead?
The left seems more and more willing to talk about force. I've seen it out there. Again, do they really want to go there? I think they are counting on something that may not pan out to be true.
There's not a whole lot of sense in taking this attitude. I think it was former Senator Bob Kerrey who once said that it was better to have the argument than not to have it for the reason given above. That was a sensible position to take, but nowadays, the sensible has given way to the opposite, as Klavan shows in this video. It's cave-in or else. But what if the other side says to this --- "make me"? Then what do you do, geniuses? Do you crack down with government force? And if there's a rebellion? Do you guys really want to go there, or are you counting on your opponent to roll over and play dead?
The left seems more and more willing to talk about force. I've seen it out there. Again, do they really want to go there? I think they are counting on something that may not pan out to be true.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Difference between wealth and money
Nice to note that somebody at Ace of Spades made the distinction between the two.
this is just another way of saying that the political left doesn't really understand basic economics, or the difference between wealth and money---"Monty"So, Obama says "spread the wealth around" and claims there's "a time when you've made enough money", and by doing so, shows his ignorance of the distinction.
Sugar Observation Number Two
I like this so much, I'm going back for second helpings.
Alright, let's get started with that Benghazi select committee. Just exactly what is the GOP trying to accomplish? Win an election. What exactly are the Democrats doing in response? Same thing. So, why should we care? Accountability. If the GOP is successful, the Democrats will be held accountable for Benghazi, and consequently will lose the election. The GOP may not really care about accountability, just look at how Romney handled Benghazi for the answer to that question. But they do care about winning elections. It just so happens that this is why we should care because the failure to hold the Democrats accountable for Benghazi is not the thing we should want. Better late than never, I say.
Alright, let's get started with that Benghazi select committee. Just exactly what is the GOP trying to accomplish? Win an election. What exactly are the Democrats doing in response? Same thing. So, why should we care? Accountability. If the GOP is successful, the Democrats will be held accountable for Benghazi, and consequently will lose the election. The GOP may not really care about accountability, just look at how Romney handled Benghazi for the answer to that question. But they do care about winning elections. It just so happens that this is why we should care because the failure to hold the Democrats accountable for Benghazi is not the thing we should want. Better late than never, I say.
Sugar observation
Today is the NFL draft. I thought it was yesterday. Woke up to see that it hadn't taken place. Funny how you can't get that information.
There was a coach who instituted what he called "sugar huddles". That's because they were short and sweet.
Okay, I'll steal the concept. A sugar observation that is short and sweet.
Putin delays action in Ukraine. The stock market rises 100+ points, gold falls 20 bucks. Cui bono? Obama because he is in deep doo-doo, kemosabe.
Could Putin be manipulating us? Naw! He wouldn't do anything like that!
There was a coach who instituted what he called "sugar huddles". That's because they were short and sweet.
Okay, I'll steal the concept. A sugar observation that is short and sweet.
Putin delays action in Ukraine. The stock market rises 100+ points, gold falls 20 bucks. Cui bono? Obama because he is in deep doo-doo, kemosabe.
Could Putin be manipulating us? Naw! He wouldn't do anything like that!
“Will Someone Please Represent Me?” Donald Sterling’s Looking for Lawyers
lawfuel via Free Republic
I guess the lawyers are trying to convince all of us of their most superior of superior moral fiber characters. They won't get their hands dirty on this one.
Yep. OJ Simpson could have no trouble whatsoever in finding legal representation, but some poor schmuck like this guy cannot find an attorney. I'm so, so impressed. /sarc
I guess the lawyers are trying to convince all of us of their most superior of superior moral fiber characters. They won't get their hands dirty on this one.
Yep. OJ Simpson could have no trouble whatsoever in finding legal representation, but some poor schmuck like this guy cannot find an attorney. I'm so, so impressed. /sarc
The True Story of the Black Sheep Squadron
Lazy this morning. Got up a bit later than I wanted and feel tired anyway. Usually, I like to vet something before I put it up. I didn't watch all of this video, but only the first few minutes.
Why put it up? I've tended to be a black sheep myself. I don't claim any heroism as is depicted in the video. Rather, it's because I'm just a natural born asshole. Whatever. I don't "fit in" as a rule. It's the way I roll.
Why put it up? I've tended to be a black sheep myself. I don't claim any heroism as is depicted in the video. Rather, it's because I'm just a natural born asshole. Whatever. I don't "fit in" as a rule. It's the way I roll.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
The Godfather
Bonasera kisses the hand of the Godfather. This scene is generally what I think of when I write "kiss the ring". The Godfather has the power and Bonasera has to "kiss the ring" so as to access that power that the Godfather can bring to bear on his situation.
Bonasera's daughter was viciously beaten and it destroyed her good looks. Evidently, Bonasera didn't think of what Michael Corleone thought of when he was hiding out in Sicily. He asks the blessing of the girl's father and agrees to the family supervision of the courtship. The possibility of something like what happened to Bonasera's daughter could not occur because of such supervision.
Bonasera's daughter was viciously beaten and it destroyed her good looks. Evidently, Bonasera didn't think of what Michael Corleone thought of when he was hiding out in Sicily. He asks the blessing of the girl's father and agrees to the family supervision of the courtship. The possibility of something like what happened to Bonasera's daughter could not occur because of such supervision.
Common sense has become uncommon
Having common sense was once considered to be an admirable trait. However, amongst the academics, which so many people these days seem to be listening to, common sense is just so--- well, common. Meaning, of course, that it is something to be avoided in favor of their viewpoint, which is supposedly better.
Given the unraveling of society, which we owe, in part to the leftist academia, amongst other culprits, perhaps the term should once again reign as a sign of respect. It is quite clear that there isn't a whole lot of that quality today, it is clearly like a rare gem or a precious metal. Something that should be guarded like the gold at Fort Knox. Assuming that Fort Knox has any gold left.
Given the unraveling of society, which we owe, in part to the leftist academia, amongst other culprits, perhaps the term should once again reign as a sign of respect. It is quite clear that there isn't a whole lot of that quality today, it is clearly like a rare gem or a precious metal. Something that should be guarded like the gold at Fort Knox. Assuming that Fort Knox has any gold left.
The 'Russian Cross' Is Continuing To Reverse
Free Republic ( Forbes article )
Article discusses how Russian's birth rates are improving. This is in conflict with the graphic that was mentioned in an earlier post. However, the mentioned graphic isn't wrong. There isn't a baby boom in Russia. There's no longer a catastrophic baby bust that they experienced in the 90's.
Russia still has big problems, mostly of their own making. Will Russia survive? Only if they stop aborting so many babies and if they increase economic opportunity. Is this likely? Probably not.
Article discusses how Russian's birth rates are improving. This is in conflict with the graphic that was mentioned in an earlier post. However, the mentioned graphic isn't wrong. There isn't a baby boom in Russia. There's no longer a catastrophic baby bust that they experienced in the 90's.
Russia still has big problems, mostly of their own making. Will Russia survive? Only if they stop aborting so many babies and if they increase economic opportunity. Is this likely? Probably not.
Must women “civilize” men?
The answer is "yes", not "no" like Salon tries to say. Yes, it may be the popular thing amongst the women today, but the right thing for themselves is to civilize the men. In the long run, when the women get old, they will be sorry that they don't have children to take care of them in their old age.
How to civilize the men?
Not having sex with them until marriage. That's how my mom did it! Make no mistake. The old ways are better than the new. The new ways are literally killing Western Civilization. Lead the women astray, and so go the men and the nation. You might get the impression that somebody is doing this deliberately in order to tear down Western Civilization.
Women don't have to compete with the men, they have to civilize them. If they don't, there won't be any future that's worth a damn.
How to civilize the men?
Not having sex with them until marriage. That's how my mom did it! Make no mistake. The old ways are better than the new. The new ways are literally killing Western Civilization. Lead the women astray, and so go the men and the nation. You might get the impression that somebody is doing this deliberately in order to tear down Western Civilization.
Women don't have to compete with the men, they have to civilize them. If they don't, there won't be any future that's worth a damn.
Ramblin Gamblin Man ( 1969 )
Yeah, I remember this song when it came out.
Who does this song remind me of? Why, my old man of course. He had nothing against getting drunk either.
Why does a man drink? We all assumed that it was the "ball and chain", but maybe he just liked it.
I think Bob Seger is in town, or will be soon. They were talking about him on the radio station yesterday.
Who does this song remind me of? Why, my old man of course. He had nothing against getting drunk either.
Why does a man drink? We all assumed that it was the "ball and chain", but maybe he just liked it.
I think Bob Seger is in town, or will be soon. They were talking about him on the radio station yesterday.
Why so many abortions?
There was a graphic I saw last night, but I didn't comment upon it. It is really quite shocking to see. Abortion rates approach or even exceed 50% of the pregnancies in some areas of Europe. Also interesting is that not all of Europe has such high rates. Germany has one of the lowest rates.
This brings up the question: why so many abortions?
I could offer one theory, or maybe more than one:
Now, if I were to apply what my mother said about her days growing up on a farm during the Depression, she said that they didn't know that there was a Depression. They had everything they needed on the farm.
In the end, it's about the money. Funny thing is, that you don't even need the money. Perhaps some money is needed, but not as a sole means of support.
Update:
Whoops! I didn't look closely enough at the map. It is POLAND, not GERMANY. The contrast is even more significant, because Poland has a border with Ukraine, which has a very high abortion rate. Western Ukraine is where the anti-Russian sentiment is the highest.
This brings up the question: why so many abortions?
I could offer one theory, or maybe more than one:
- high rates of alcoholism in Russia
- no way to support the woman, economic want
Now, if I were to apply what my mother said about her days growing up on a farm during the Depression, she said that they didn't know that there was a Depression. They had everything they needed on the farm.
In the end, it's about the money. Funny thing is, that you don't even need the money. Perhaps some money is needed, but not as a sole means of support.
Update:
Whoops! I didn't look closely enough at the map. It is POLAND, not GERMANY. The contrast is even more significant, because Poland has a border with Ukraine, which has a very high abortion rate. Western Ukraine is where the anti-Russian sentiment is the highest.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
A Fistful of Dollars Theme (Ennio Morricone) - Classical Guitar by Luciano Renan
"A man's life can depend upon a mere scrap of information." I think that it is what the quote said.
Clint Eastwood was able to use these scraps to great advantage in the flick. But it is only a flick.
Clint Eastwood was able to use these scraps to great advantage in the flick. But it is only a flick.
Global warmism
You have to read deep into it to find that will take over 200 years to make an impact.
Can we dispense with the alarmism?
Arg! Running out of time again. A principle to remember before I forget
Have to make this fast because the thought just came in. The intermittent nature of wind and solar make are poor solutions for the grid because the grid require continuous power. Therein lies a principle, if you can extract it.
The principle ( this is temporary as I don't have time to evaluate it ) is that for purposes of generating power, if you need a continuous supply, the solution must also be continuous. If you want to use intermittent supplies, you must convert it to continuous, or it doesn't solve the problem that you claim that you want to solve. Hence, for the grid, the use of solar and wind will require that you use fossil fuels as a backup. This isn't solving the problem of emissions because the fossil fuels are still being used.
How do you make this work in the context of automotive solutions? Elon Musk's Tesla battery electric car purportedly solves the emission problem, but it doesn't really do that. That's true even if you use his other company, Solar City, in order to supply electricity for your Tesla. However, Solar City puts the electricity on the grid, and the supply is intermittent in nature. This means that Tesla is not really a solution to the emissions problem.
To solve that, you need to store the electricity on site and then use that electricity to recharge the batteries at night. That's because at night, while you are sleeping, the intermittency problem doesn't exist. As long as the car isn't moving, it can be supplied by an intermittent source, like store solar power in a capacitor or battery.
This requires more equipment though, and therefore may not be economical. That's a topic for another discussion.
By the way, glad to see that Market.org does support LFTR technology.
The principle ( this is temporary as I don't have time to evaluate it ) is that for purposes of generating power, if you need a continuous supply, the solution must also be continuous. If you want to use intermittent supplies, you must convert it to continuous, or it doesn't solve the problem that you claim that you want to solve. Hence, for the grid, the use of solar and wind will require that you use fossil fuels as a backup. This isn't solving the problem of emissions because the fossil fuels are still being used.
How do you make this work in the context of automotive solutions? Elon Musk's Tesla battery electric car purportedly solves the emission problem, but it doesn't really do that. That's true even if you use his other company, Solar City, in order to supply electricity for your Tesla. However, Solar City puts the electricity on the grid, and the supply is intermittent in nature. This means that Tesla is not really a solution to the emissions problem.
To solve that, you need to store the electricity on site and then use that electricity to recharge the batteries at night. That's because at night, while you are sleeping, the intermittency problem doesn't exist. As long as the car isn't moving, it can be supplied by an intermittent source, like store solar power in a capacitor or battery.
This requires more equipment though, and therefore may not be economical. That's a topic for another discussion.
By the way, glad to see that Market.org does support LFTR technology.
What the world coming to?
Now it's offensive to display the American Flag.
Has this country lost its mind?
Update:
That's shocking, but it shouldn't be. It's all a part of the same thinking that I've been writing about. The rich want the immigrants, they don't want Americans. The rich want same-sex marriage, so white people don't have babies. ( Sorry, but that's what it's about. White people are the problem, you see.)
All the while, I've been writing about this stuff in order that I might understand it. Now that I think I do, what the hell can you do about this? Nobody gives a damn.
I could give up this blog, but I'd have to make changes first. In the meantime, I'll keep chronicling this unfolding disaster.
Has this country lost its mind?
Update:
That's shocking, but it shouldn't be. It's all a part of the same thinking that I've been writing about. The rich want the immigrants, they don't want Americans. The rich want same-sex marriage, so white people don't have babies. ( Sorry, but that's what it's about. White people are the problem, you see.)
All the while, I've been writing about this stuff in order that I might understand it. Now that I think I do, what the hell can you do about this? Nobody gives a damn.
I could give up this blog, but I'd have to make changes first. In the meantime, I'll keep chronicling this unfolding disaster.
Control, control, you must learn control!
The illusion of control. Jurassic Park again. Life is chaos, but we try to control things anyway. Perhaps it is reassuring that we have control. But the control is limited.
Looking on the other side of the argument, can you can have control within the chaos? Yes? Well, maybe. Okay, you may not have much control at all, but you've got to do something, so you'll try to manage it.
Everything has another side to it. If you look up, you can't see what's happening below. If you don't look up, you can't see what's happening above. Either way, you ability to control is limited by your own limitations. You can only focus on one thing at a time. You have to choose what your focus is.
The title is from Star Wars where Yoda is teaching young Skywalker the ways of the Force.
I might add that the Look Up thing reference came from Barnhardt, and from that I realized that I may need to change what I've been reading. Good stuff at the link she provided.
Looking on the other side of the argument, can you can have control within the chaos? Yes? Well, maybe. Okay, you may not have much control at all, but you've got to do something, so you'll try to manage it.
Everything has another side to it. If you look up, you can't see what's happening below. If you don't look up, you can't see what's happening above. Either way, you ability to control is limited by your own limitations. You can only focus on one thing at a time. You have to choose what your focus is.
The title is from Star Wars where Yoda is teaching young Skywalker the ways of the Force.
I might add that the Look Up thing reference came from Barnhardt, and from that I realized that I may need to change what I've been reading. Good stuff at the link she provided.
The chaos of existence
Anybody remember the movie Jurassic Park, where the Chaos Theory gets lots of discussion? It got even more discussion in the book.
I relate that the chaos of thoughts in my own my mind. Thinking shifts from topic to topic and thoughts get lost.
There's this sense of urgency, don't lose time. Time is precious, and time is a tyrant. I can relate that to another movie Castaway, where the main character played by Tom Hanks, discusses time. Time is important in the delivery business as I well know. Probably true in any business.
Time is always moving. You could miss something important, but in keeping up, you are using valuable time. It is part of the chaos of time. Thoughts and events and get lost in the shuffle of events and the passage of time. It is very distracting sometimes when you are trying to write for an effect. The effectiveness can be lost in the shuffle as thoughts get lost in the shuffle of the chaos.
Sometimes I get the feeling that I'm just going though the motions and not getting anywhere really. There is a goal for achievement, but somehow I don't arrive at the destination. There is a saying that may be escaping me at the moment. It may go something like this: If you want to make God laugh, make some plans.
Stuff happens. But the urgency is to "get on with it". Too many people, myself included, seem to go about with the attitude that they have all the time in the world, but that is not so. Time is short. Time is fleeting. We are here but for a short time.
Management of time becomes paramount. Always thinking of ways to better utilize time, yet in spite of all this, little seems to get done.
Shifting the thought pattern a bit, towards another train of thought. A topic I've covered before and that is "bad thinking". An example? Going around and around in circles is one. I note that I've covered things already, and I'm repeating myself too often. In the larger picture, there's the tendency to think that since there's progress now, that there will always be progress. History has shown otherwise. There can be setbacks. Western Civilization went into the Dark Ages for centuries and nearly went out completely. Without the heroic efforts of some, everything could have been lost forever. This is not a phenomenon restricted to the past. Molten-salt reactor technology was nearly lost forever. Due to heroic efforts, it has been revived. It's a warning that progress is not automatic. But, I've covered that already somewhere in this blog. To extend that thought, it looks sometimes like the commentariat spends too much time on the here and now and doesn't look often enough at the Big Picture.
Time management is a problem. But it is all a part of the chaos. Trying to control the chaos is a fool's errand. That's one of the themes in Jurassic Park. But you try to manage it anyway, which is one of the themes in Castaway. Good luck with that.
I relate that the chaos of thoughts in my own my mind. Thinking shifts from topic to topic and thoughts get lost.
There's this sense of urgency, don't lose time. Time is precious, and time is a tyrant. I can relate that to another movie Castaway, where the main character played by Tom Hanks, discusses time. Time is important in the delivery business as I well know. Probably true in any business.
Time is always moving. You could miss something important, but in keeping up, you are using valuable time. It is part of the chaos of time. Thoughts and events and get lost in the shuffle of events and the passage of time. It is very distracting sometimes when you are trying to write for an effect. The effectiveness can be lost in the shuffle as thoughts get lost in the shuffle of the chaos.
Sometimes I get the feeling that I'm just going though the motions and not getting anywhere really. There is a goal for achievement, but somehow I don't arrive at the destination. There is a saying that may be escaping me at the moment. It may go something like this: If you want to make God laugh, make some plans.
Stuff happens. But the urgency is to "get on with it". Too many people, myself included, seem to go about with the attitude that they have all the time in the world, but that is not so. Time is short. Time is fleeting. We are here but for a short time.
Management of time becomes paramount. Always thinking of ways to better utilize time, yet in spite of all this, little seems to get done.
Shifting the thought pattern a bit, towards another train of thought. A topic I've covered before and that is "bad thinking". An example? Going around and around in circles is one. I note that I've covered things already, and I'm repeating myself too often. In the larger picture, there's the tendency to think that since there's progress now, that there will always be progress. History has shown otherwise. There can be setbacks. Western Civilization went into the Dark Ages for centuries and nearly went out completely. Without the heroic efforts of some, everything could have been lost forever. This is not a phenomenon restricted to the past. Molten-salt reactor technology was nearly lost forever. Due to heroic efforts, it has been revived. It's a warning that progress is not automatic. But, I've covered that already somewhere in this blog. To extend that thought, it looks sometimes like the commentariat spends too much time on the here and now and doesn't look often enough at the Big Picture.
Time management is a problem. But it is all a part of the chaos. Trying to control the chaos is a fool's errand. That's one of the themes in Jurassic Park. But you try to manage it anyway, which is one of the themes in Castaway. Good luck with that.
Monday, May 5, 2014
New video on video bar
In case you haven't noticed, there's a new video that I made today. It is rather rough as it was made on the fly. I didn't anticipate that it would be displayed on the video bar. As long as it's up there, I'm going to leave it alone.
The reason for this post is not to belabor what could be obvious, but to expand a little upon what I said on the video. The question is this: how do you survive an EMP attack?
I've already mentioned it several times, but I suppose it can be repeated again. Our culture has become obsessed with money. Humankind lived for millenia without any money. Money isn't necessary for survival. It is only necessary in a highly complex and highly developed society like ours. But this kind of system is fragile. The more "primitive" system would take an EMP attack in stride. It may not even be noticed. But for a highly developed society, it could be a wipeout.
Would the rich do better than the poor? The surprising answer could be no. Maybe more than just "could", but it might be "should". Remember Hank Williams Jr.'s song A Country Boy Can Survive?
Now, I've had deliveries to millionaire's palaces. What good would this palace be if the country's infrastructure has suddenly been destroyed? That palace probably won't have a farm on it. Too ugly. But this pretty mansion would be useless in an emergency. It would give no shelter nor sustenance.
The reason for this post is not to belabor what could be obvious, but to expand a little upon what I said on the video. The question is this: how do you survive an EMP attack?
I've already mentioned it several times, but I suppose it can be repeated again. Our culture has become obsessed with money. Humankind lived for millenia without any money. Money isn't necessary for survival. It is only necessary in a highly complex and highly developed society like ours. But this kind of system is fragile. The more "primitive" system would take an EMP attack in stride. It may not even be noticed. But for a highly developed society, it could be a wipeout.
Would the rich do better than the poor? The surprising answer could be no. Maybe more than just "could", but it might be "should". Remember Hank Williams Jr.'s song A Country Boy Can Survive?
Now, I've had deliveries to millionaire's palaces. What good would this palace be if the country's infrastructure has suddenly been destroyed? That palace probably won't have a farm on it. Too ugly. But this pretty mansion would be useless in an emergency. It would give no shelter nor sustenance.
Idiocracy - Trailer ( repost 4/12/12 )
A thought occurred to me just now. Does the fact that a person has no children provide evidence of his/her intelligence? Or is it evidence of something else?
Homosexuals can't have children. Does that make them smart?
If the tendency is toward dumber people, where does that leave us. This movie is a comedy of sorts, but the thing is too true to be funny.
The original post follows....
quote from Wikipedia entry on film
Homosexuals can't have children. Does that make them smart?
If the tendency is toward dumber people, where does that leave us. This movie is a comedy of sorts, but the thing is too true to be funny.
The original post follows....
quote from Wikipedia entry on film
Idiocracy was not screened for critics; its much-delayed release received virtually no publicity, and the film was initially distributed to only 130 screens. Despite this, the film received generally favorable reviews by critics.Maybe the powers that be decided that this movie was a little too close to the truth!
Quickie before I go to the salt mine
It looks like Jeb Bush is going to kiss the ring of the money power and run for President.
That led me to a quick slogan to use against him:
"Read my lips, Bush Klan, no new amnesties!"
That led me to a quick slogan to use against him:
"Read my lips, Bush Klan, no new amnesties!"
Short on time this morning
As I noted on Friday, I'll have to leave early today for a special assignment this week. Posting will be lighter than usual.
There was something on Instapundit about the use of the word "so". I use the word a lot, but it appears that the word is annoying to some, and the use of it isn't helpful. So, I won't use it. lol
Speaking of "So", that's the name of a Peter Gabriel album ( or whatever the kids call it today ). There was a song on it called Sledgehammer, which brings back some memories. Not so happy ones at that.
I noted some videos of the song, but the original is now old and outdated. I figured on a newer one that might be interesting to the modern taste. Something about it struck me though. It seemed, well, narcissistic.
That's probably one of the things wrong in this culture right now. It has become a culture of narcissism.
Yep, I'm the Sledgehammer all right. I'll cut you a new one every day. Have a nice day.
There was something on Instapundit about the use of the word "so". I use the word a lot, but it appears that the word is annoying to some, and the use of it isn't helpful. So, I won't use it. lol
Speaking of "So", that's the name of a Peter Gabriel album ( or whatever the kids call it today ). There was a song on it called Sledgehammer, which brings back some memories. Not so happy ones at that.
I noted some videos of the song, but the original is now old and outdated. I figured on a newer one that might be interesting to the modern taste. Something about it struck me though. It seemed, well, narcissistic.
That's probably one of the things wrong in this culture right now. It has become a culture of narcissism.
Yep, I'm the Sledgehammer all right. I'll cut you a new one every day. Have a nice day.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Did Romney take a dive in 2012?
It sure looked like he wasn't trying very hard to win. He should have been hitting the Benghazi angle really hard every day from the day that it happened until election day. But he didn't really.
When he backed off, he was basically giving up a possible winning issue in the campaign. This says at least two things
You get guys like Rush Limbaugh who blame it on the "low-information-voters". It's certainly true that not everybody is equally blessed with brainpower. But it is up to those who do have the grey matter upstairs to spoonfeed the public if that is what it takes. These guys decided to play it safe and peddle the "skewed polls" schtick, and consequently blew the best opportunity to win that election. This loss was on THEM, not the low-info crowd.
As for me, I was bitching long and loud over the lack of seriousness in that campaign. Not only in Romney, but in the commentariat. Here are some examples from my posts back then:
Instead they were all focused in on polls and were shocked when Romney lost. Perhaps, they shouldn't have been. Given the rather poor showing by Romney, it was probably fortunate to not having been worse than what it was.
This will be categorized as a politics wtf post. That category came into being after the election. You really have to wonder wtf is going on here, but everybody just keeps going along like somehow it's going to be fixed by itself.
They are doing the same old stuff all over again. The same thing is going to happen again unless you people wise up and wise up fast.
When he backed off, he was basically giving up a possible winning issue in the campaign. This says at least two things
- That he wasn't seriously interested in winning the election
- Those who backed him weren't serious about winning either.
You get guys like Rush Limbaugh who blame it on the "low-information-voters". It's certainly true that not everybody is equally blessed with brainpower. But it is up to those who do have the grey matter upstairs to spoonfeed the public if that is what it takes. These guys decided to play it safe and peddle the "skewed polls" schtick, and consequently blew the best opportunity to win that election. This loss was on THEM, not the low-info crowd.
As for me, I was bitching long and loud over the lack of seriousness in that campaign. Not only in Romney, but in the commentariat. Here are some examples from my posts back then:
- 9/15/12: Colonel: Hillary Made Decision Not to Post Marines at Benghazi
- 9/21/12: Obama, Clinton, in Ads Disavowing Anti Muslim Film
- 9/23/12: What good are polls?
- 9/26/12: Obama: "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander Islam"
- 9/26/12: Why vote for Romney
Instead they were all focused in on polls and were shocked when Romney lost. Perhaps, they shouldn't have been. Given the rather poor showing by Romney, it was probably fortunate to not having been worse than what it was.
They are doing the same old stuff all over again. The same thing is going to happen again unless you people wise up and wise up fast.
Next Big Future: Seven minute video where Woodward explains Mach pr...
Next Big Future: Seven minute video where Woodward explains Mach pr...: Dr. James F. Woodward explains how to build faster-than-light warp drives and even stargates, based on Mach's principle which would allo...
As Spock would say, "Fascinating".
Update:
This book will go on the list of books to read.
As Spock would say, "Fascinating".
Update:
This book will go on the list of books to read.
Food Irradiation Can Save Thousands of Lives Each Year
ans nuclear cafe dot com via NBF
In other words, this can be a big help for public health, but is banned instead because of stupidity and ignorance peddled by the anti-nuke crowd.
If you read Trashing the Planet, by Dixie Lee Ray, you would have known all this for more than 20 years. I did. Rush Limbaugh recommended the book. Too bad the left has such a death grip on the public mind, it is literally killing people.
Because the elements used do not emit neutrons, they do not make anything around them radioactive. Electron beams, or e-beams, are a stream of high-energy electrons propelled out of an electron gun and have been used as medical sterilizers for at least 15 years. X-ray irradiation can also be used for food irradiation and is a more powerful version of the machines used in many hospitals and dental offices to take X-ray pictures.--- Lenka Kollar
In other words, this can be a big help for public health, but is banned instead because of stupidity and ignorance peddled by the anti-nuke crowd.
If you read Trashing the Planet, by Dixie Lee Ray, you would have known all this for more than 20 years. I did. Rush Limbaugh recommended the book. Too bad the left has such a death grip on the public mind, it is literally killing people.
Obama Benghazi cover-up.
American Thinker
Cover up? Yeah, they've been covering up all right. But what are they covering up? It's the $64k question.
At the very least, as of right now, they are covering up a cover up of a policy failure. The 4 deaths at the embassy were at the very least partially blamed upon the fact that they didn't have enough military staff at the location. This wasn't a funding problem, as they have claimed. The additional personnel could have been placed there if they had the diplomatic immunity, which SecDef and Secretary of State refused to okay. It isn't a money issue at all.
Now, the big question seems to be where POTUS was during the critical time period. There were military assets in the region. A response could have been made. So, why wasn't one made? An order to stand down had to have been given. Only POTUS can do that.
Cover up? Yeah, they've been covering up all right. But what are they covering up? It's the $64k question.
At the very least, as of right now, they are covering up a cover up of a policy failure. The 4 deaths at the embassy were at the very least partially blamed upon the fact that they didn't have enough military staff at the location. This wasn't a funding problem, as they have claimed. The additional personnel could have been placed there if they had the diplomatic immunity, which SecDef and Secretary of State refused to okay. It isn't a money issue at all.
Now, the big question seems to be where POTUS was during the critical time period. There were military assets in the region. A response could have been made. So, why wasn't one made? An order to stand down had to have been given. Only POTUS can do that.
Not so wonderful
I was just thinking that this entire country seems to be getting more like Potter than George Bailey.
More about money obsession
I got the idea from reading Ann Barnhardt's blog.
She mentioned that too many people love their money too much. After giving it some thought, I must have come up with this theory that aligns with what she said.
In support of that theory, consider this:
Somebody buys a house to do what? To support themselves as in the old days by having a garden that produces food? Or just have rows and rows of houses that only have lawns that cannot produce any food at all, and in fact, prohibits it? The entire point is to keep home values as high as possible. If chicken coops were allowed and gardens and what have you, the neighborhood's values would go down. The objective in not supporting oneself directly from what the land the house is on will produce, but to go after the capital gain, or monetary equivalent.
But monetary gain is not the same as food. What if you can't buy food someday? All the monetary gain in the world won't feed you and then you will starve.
That's why I got interested in urban homesteading. I'm getting a bit old, and I'm tired of driving for a living, too.
Another thing to consider is that if the crap hits the fan, you'll be able to feed yourself. If enough people did this, the society would be stronger and could absorb greater shocks. If there's an EMP attack, millions may die from starvation because they won't be able to get food and the government won't be able to get it to them.
She mentioned that too many people love their money too much. After giving it some thought, I must have come up with this theory that aligns with what she said.
In support of that theory, consider this:
Somebody buys a house to do what? To support themselves as in the old days by having a garden that produces food? Or just have rows and rows of houses that only have lawns that cannot produce any food at all, and in fact, prohibits it? The entire point is to keep home values as high as possible. If chicken coops were allowed and gardens and what have you, the neighborhood's values would go down. The objective in not supporting oneself directly from what the land the house is on will produce, but to go after the capital gain, or monetary equivalent.
But monetary gain is not the same as food. What if you can't buy food someday? All the monetary gain in the world won't feed you and then you will starve.
That's why I got interested in urban homesteading. I'm getting a bit old, and I'm tired of driving for a living, too.
Another thing to consider is that if the crap hits the fan, you'll be able to feed yourself. If enough people did this, the society would be stronger and could absorb greater shocks. If there's an EMP attack, millions may die from starvation because they won't be able to get food and the government won't be able to get it to them.
Inequality
is not a problem. It is a driver of progress.
Okay, but what about forced artificial scarcity? FARTS, for short, describes a lot of what is happening in this economy. There are those who think that artificial scarcity is a good thing because it holds prices higher. There would be too slim of a profit margin without the scarcity.
Things are being held back, in my opinion. That's how the socialists can then start complaining about inequality. They'll note that there isn't any progress, so we'd better start redistributing wealth. The trouble is, they are the ones obstructing progress, so they can profit off of it.
Okay, but what about forced artificial scarcity? FARTS, for short, describes a lot of what is happening in this economy. There are those who think that artificial scarcity is a good thing because it holds prices higher. There would be too slim of a profit margin without the scarcity.
Things are being held back, in my opinion. That's how the socialists can then start complaining about inequality. They'll note that there isn't any progress, so we'd better start redistributing wealth. The trouble is, they are the ones obstructing progress, so they can profit off of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)