Been working all day. Took time off to retool for the next run ( maybe).
One thing I'm figuring out about this little experiment. It's not working all that well. What else is new anymore? Nothing seems to work worth a damn. That is, unless you are a crook.
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, August 15, 2015
Friday, August 14, 2015
Home again, 8/14/15
Been checking out the portable toilets. There's a 5 gallon model that can empty in an RV dump station. Some of the reviews are negative, but it does appear to be functional for most people.
The reason I'm interested in it is that it seems cheap and it is a bit more like home than what I used out there in April. You can probably use it for at least a couple days, perhaps more. Don't know for sure, as the descriptions really don't say. You can kinda figure that at 5 gallons, it doesn't do a whole lot of flushes.
This won't go into the series because there's not a whole lot of info here.
What I'm trying to do is to simulate a system that I can use in order to make use of the land, but not stay on it full time. That way, I can still produce food so that it helps keep expenses down. Moreover, to live on it for several days in a week will cut my expenses down. The rest of the time will be spent at an RV spot.
That system might be cheaper than living in an apartment, but it is far from being dirt cheap, which is what I originally sought to achieve.
The reason I'm interested in it is that it seems cheap and it is a bit more like home than what I used out there in April. You can probably use it for at least a couple days, perhaps more. Don't know for sure, as the descriptions really don't say. You can kinda figure that at 5 gallons, it doesn't do a whole lot of flushes.
This won't go into the series because there's not a whole lot of info here.
What I'm trying to do is to simulate a system that I can use in order to make use of the land, but not stay on it full time. That way, I can still produce food so that it helps keep expenses down. Moreover, to live on it for several days in a week will cut my expenses down. The rest of the time will be spent at an RV spot.
That system might be cheaper than living in an apartment, but it is far from being dirt cheap, which is what I originally sought to achieve.
Quick thought, 8/14/15
Considering what Barnhardt said about politicians generally being unworthy characters, is it possible then, for people to be self-governing? That is to say, are humans so depraved that they cannot be trusted to govern themselves?
The United States was something new at the time of its creation. Most of the world was ruled by Kings and despots of one kind or another. A government like the one that was created in 1776, was an unusual thing in the world. Maybe the Swiss had a democracy, but not many others were around at that time.
The Constitution was written in order to restrain governments and politicians. If this weren't so, then why the checks and balances? If the Constitution is inadequate to deal with the natural tendencies of humans to self-destruct, then what can replace it? Anything?
With respect to the nature of Man, my take is that we are obliged to make it work, and if it doesn't, then we go extinct ( for you atheists), or there will be a Second Coming ( for you apocalyptic types ).
If there is to be a Second Coming, you won't know when that will be. Then you default to the former ( for all practical purposes) as opposed to the latter.
The United States was something new at the time of its creation. Most of the world was ruled by Kings and despots of one kind or another. A government like the one that was created in 1776, was an unusual thing in the world. Maybe the Swiss had a democracy, but not many others were around at that time.
The Constitution was written in order to restrain governments and politicians. If this weren't so, then why the checks and balances? If the Constitution is inadequate to deal with the natural tendencies of humans to self-destruct, then what can replace it? Anything?
With respect to the nature of Man, my take is that we are obliged to make it work, and if it doesn't, then we go extinct ( for you atheists), or there will be a Second Coming ( for you apocalyptic types ).
If there is to be a Second Coming, you won't know when that will be. Then you default to the former ( for all practical purposes) as opposed to the latter.
Obligatory, 8/14/15 ( van to RV conversion )
There hasn't been a lot of posts on the subject of a move out West, lately. Still pondering on that decision, because it isn't necessarily the cheapest way, as far as I can tell.
Still, the ideas keep coming. Here's the latest idea: Put cargo racks on my van, and then place a camper shell on top of the racks. Use this set up for a sleeper, and use the bottom half of the van for other stuff. The advantage of this is that it gives more room. The disadvantage is that it doesn't allow for anybody to stand up straight. For me, that sucks.
This one goes into the construction subseries of the off the grid posts.
Prev Next
Still, the ideas keep coming. Here's the latest idea: Put cargo racks on my van, and then place a camper shell on top of the racks. Use this set up for a sleeper, and use the bottom half of the van for other stuff. The advantage of this is that it gives more room. The disadvantage is that it doesn't allow for anybody to stand up straight. For me, that sucks.
This one goes into the construction subseries of the off the grid posts.
Prev Next
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Home again, 8/13/15
I thought my error had something to do with the energy per pound of water, but that one is okay as far as I know. I double checked the weight of the oceans and it checked out. The amount of energy striking the surface of the Earth looks right. The rest should be okay, then.
This got me to thinking about the Gulf Stream. How does so much water get so warm and stay so warm for so long? This one is a bit strange, I must admit. There must be an explanation for it, but it is hard to believe that it has anything to do with solar heating.
Of course, there's something I could still be wrong about, but the weight and the energy numbers should check out.
This got me to thinking about the Gulf Stream. How does so much water get so warm and stay so warm for so long? This one is a bit strange, I must admit. There must be an explanation for it, but it is hard to believe that it has anything to do with solar heating.
Of course, there's something I could still be wrong about, but the weight and the energy numbers should check out.
Correction: Ocean mass v atmospheric mass closer than what I wrote
It is a major and embarrassing goof. Looks like I read "pounds" where it said "tons". That's 3 orders of magnitude difference.
Still, the weight difference is significant. Especially between carbon dioxide and water.
There is more likely than not far more water in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Also, water is said to be a greenhouse gas and definitely has greater heat capacity than carbon dioxide.
Goes to show you how a bias can lead to mistakes. I'll own up to mine.
Still, the weight difference is significant. Especially between carbon dioxide and water.
There is more likely than not far more water in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Also, water is said to be a greenhouse gas and definitely has greater heat capacity than carbon dioxide.
Goes to show you how a bias can lead to mistakes. I'll own up to mine.
Why do conservatives fear confrontation?
The left doesn't. They are heavily into this "Black Lives Matter" business, and are becoming disruptive in political campaigns. They are now getting into so-called conservative audiences in political rallies---Jeb Bush's campaign has been affected now.
This is how the left operates. But with the so-called "right", there is a fear of doing anything at all.
The aggressors set the agenda.
This is how the left operates. But with the so-called "right", there is a fear of doing anything at all.
The aggressors set the agenda.
Obligatory, 8/13/15
As you may have noticed, this blog has tilted towards a strong criticism of AGW. But this has not always been the case here, as I have argued that there doesn't need to be an argument, just focus in on the potential solutions. Interesting to note, there is something of a discussion on Ace as to whether or not to take a full head on charge or to finesse the issue. As far as this blog is concerned, both approaches have been taken, and neither has gained much traction in terms of getting an audience here.
What is it, then? Do people just don't want to listen to a different viewpoint?
Fine. If you take that position, you cannot be said to be scientific. These people act as if their religion is being attacked, which is the point. It isn't based on science, logic, and reason. It is simply based upon emotion.
As for the left, they are not so restrained. The left has attacked across a broad front, and are being quite aggressive. The so-called right is mostly in reactive mode, and doesn't really know what to do about this, hence the Ace commentary.
On the one hand, the left favors post-modernism, which denies that there is any truth. Then it claims to embrace science, which cannot exist without the search for truth. Both cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, unless the point is to undermine the basis of the civilization that has honored truth up to this point, and thus has provided the basis so that science can exist. The point is that civilization itself is being attacked by a hostile force. It is necessary to organize and repel the attack.
Perhaps the blog hasn't gained any traction on solutions because the solutions are not what is being sought. If solutions are found to these problems that are said to exist, it undermines their very existence. Therefore, they cannot be about solutions because it is a threat to themselves.
Pat Buchanan was right in his observation that there's a culture war going on. The right hasn't even begun to fight it because a large number on the so-called right don't even want to acknowledge its existence. Or, they are afraid that by doing so, they will have to engage the left on this conflict, which they do not wish to do.
If you don't fight back, you lose by default. You may lose a head on struggle, but it is the only way you have a chance to win.
What is it, then? Do people just don't want to listen to a different viewpoint?
Fine. If you take that position, you cannot be said to be scientific. These people act as if their religion is being attacked, which is the point. It isn't based on science, logic, and reason. It is simply based upon emotion.
As for the left, they are not so restrained. The left has attacked across a broad front, and are being quite aggressive. The so-called right is mostly in reactive mode, and doesn't really know what to do about this, hence the Ace commentary.
On the one hand, the left favors post-modernism, which denies that there is any truth. Then it claims to embrace science, which cannot exist without the search for truth. Both cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, unless the point is to undermine the basis of the civilization that has honored truth up to this point, and thus has provided the basis so that science can exist. The point is that civilization itself is being attacked by a hostile force. It is necessary to organize and repel the attack.
Perhaps the blog hasn't gained any traction on solutions because the solutions are not what is being sought. If solutions are found to these problems that are said to exist, it undermines their very existence. Therefore, they cannot be about solutions because it is a threat to themselves.
Pat Buchanan was right in his observation that there's a culture war going on. The right hasn't even begun to fight it because a large number on the so-called right don't even want to acknowledge its existence. Or, they are afraid that by doing so, they will have to engage the left on this conflict, which they do not wish to do.
If you don't fight back, you lose by default. You may lose a head on struggle, but it is the only way you have a chance to win.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Home again, 8/12/15
Some interesting calculations for your AGW fans out there. Bwah, hah, hah!
5280x5280 equals 5,575,680,000,000,000
5.6 e 15 square ft of earth surface, roughly 200 million square miles times the above number
5.6 e17 watts solar energy per earth's surface area, assuming 100 watts per sq ft
divided by 2, since half the earth is in the dark,
2.8 e 17 watts or joules strike the earth continually
in BTU, this is about 2.8 e 14 BTU
the weight of the oceans is 3.04E+21 pounds
the point? NOT MUCH SOLAR NRG!
3e21/2.8e14 BTU = 1 e7 lbs h20 per BTU solar nrg ( 10 million pounds ) yikes!!!
3e21/2.8e17 joules= 1 joule per 10000 lbs h20
It would take a mightly long time to heat all that up just 1 degree farenheit, kemosabe
since 1 BTU is equal to 1055 joules, and heats up 1
pound of water 1 degree farenheit,
then
it would take about 3 e24 watts to heat up the entire
mass of the oceans 1 degree per second, and
since 2.8 e17 watts hit the surface continually, and
since 3e24/2.8e17 = 1 e7, then
it would take about 1e7 seconds or about 115 days to
heat up all the mass of the oceans 1 degree farenheit.
But the 1lb mass of water heated to boiling lost heat at the rate of 140 BTU per hour.
In other words, it loses it faster than it can gain from the sun. ( by a large amount ) So, how can there be any Greenhouse Effect, grasshopper?
5280x5280 equals 5,575,680,000,000,000
5.6 e 15 square ft of earth surface, roughly 200 million square miles times the above number
5.6 e17 watts solar energy per earth's surface area, assuming 100 watts per sq ft
divided by 2, since half the earth is in the dark,
2.8 e 17 watts or joules strike the earth continually
in BTU, this is about 2.8 e 14 BTU
the weight of the oceans is 3.04E+21 pounds
the point? NOT MUCH SOLAR NRG!
3e21/2.8e14 BTU = 1 e7 lbs h20 per BTU solar nrg ( 10 million pounds ) yikes!!!
3e21/2.8e17 joules= 1 joule per 10000 lbs h20
It would take a mightly long time to heat all that up just 1 degree farenheit, kemosabe
since 1 BTU is equal to 1055 joules, and heats up 1
pound of water 1 degree farenheit,
then
it would take about 3 e24 watts to heat up the entire
mass of the oceans 1 degree per second, and
since 2.8 e17 watts hit the surface continually, and
since 3e24/2.8e17 = 1 e7, then
it would take about 1e7 seconds or about 115 days to
heat up all the mass of the oceans 1 degree farenheit.
But the 1lb mass of water heated to boiling lost heat at the rate of 140 BTU per hour.
In other words, it loses it faster than it can gain from the sun. ( by a large amount ) So, how can there be any Greenhouse Effect, grasshopper?
Obligatory, 8/12/15
Barnhardt comes down hard on Trump supporters. She repeats her self named rule that all politicians that seek office are unworthy. That may well be true, but somebody has got to do it.
If she is right, and I'm not arguing one way or another, then what do you do about it? If there's nobody worthy, then how do you replace them? How can you be assured that the ones replacing the unworthy ones are themselves worthy?
She's Catholic and Catholics have a means of choosing a pope. Does this work better? It doesn't appear to work any better according to her own commentary, as she doesn't approve of the current pope.
She once suggested a "junta" for this country. "Junta" sounds like a banana republic to me. I would never support such a thing because there's no guarantee we don't get something even worse. How well does an average junta work out?
Sometimes there aren't any solutions, or one that everyone would prefer.
If she is right, and I'm not arguing one way or another, then what do you do about it? If there's nobody worthy, then how do you replace them? How can you be assured that the ones replacing the unworthy ones are themselves worthy?
She's Catholic and Catholics have a means of choosing a pope. Does this work better? It doesn't appear to work any better according to her own commentary, as she doesn't approve of the current pope.
She once suggested a "junta" for this country. "Junta" sounds like a banana republic to me. I would never support such a thing because there's no guarantee we don't get something even worse. How well does an average junta work out?
Sometimes there aren't any solutions, or one that everyone would prefer.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Home again, 8/11/15
A scorcher of a day. Over a hundred degrees. That's when it gets my attention fo' sho'.
Fortunately, I've been taking better care of myself lately, or maybe I don't make it through a day like this.
It could've been worse. I didn't come home one day many years ago.
Changing the subject a bit, I haven't discussed my work on the property lately. It's beginning to look like it may not work out. Just doesn't really make a whole lot of sense anymore.
Still, I like the idea of having something of my own, even if it isn't worth a damn, and I really can't afford it.
Update:
Why it doesn't make sense. Basically, I can do about the same thing for the same money if I did what my brother is doing. That and a lot less risk. The disadvantages of the place outweigh the advantages. I can't make the money numbers work unless I get a job, then the job is over a hundred miles away. The only way to make it work is to produce an income on the spot, and I don't know of a way to do that.
Fortunately, I've been taking better care of myself lately, or maybe I don't make it through a day like this.
It could've been worse. I didn't come home one day many years ago.
Changing the subject a bit, I haven't discussed my work on the property lately. It's beginning to look like it may not work out. Just doesn't really make a whole lot of sense anymore.
Still, I like the idea of having something of my own, even if it isn't worth a damn, and I really can't afford it.
Update:
Why it doesn't make sense. Basically, I can do about the same thing for the same money if I did what my brother is doing. That and a lot less risk. The disadvantages of the place outweigh the advantages. I can't make the money numbers work unless I get a job, then the job is over a hundred miles away. The only way to make it work is to produce an income on the spot, and I don't know of a way to do that.
Quick thought, 8/11/15
Trump may seem to have Teflon qualities. The "blood" comment hasn't croaked him, or so it seems. But there is something else that's out there that should be disquieting to GOPer's. If Trump gets the nomination, he has to overcome his negatives. Those aren't down by that much, and how does this latest thing help that?
"Texas is a pathetic state"
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Lois Lerner Emails Released: "Lincoln Should Have Let The South Go..."
By Tyler Durden
Created 08/10/2015 - 13:41
"He should [have] let the south go," Lerner wrote in response to a friend who disparaged Texas as a "pathetic" state. "We really do seem to have [two] different mind sets."
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-10/lois-lerner-emails-released-lincoln-should-have-let-south-go
Obligatory, 8/11/15
Well, I've made several arguments against AGW. None of them seem to attract any attention. Now, why do you suppose that is? Is it because I'm not a recognized authority on the subject? Or any subject for that matter?
The reason I wrote it the way I did was to encourage some independent thinking. The only argument for AGW is one from authority. So what if my argument isn't from authority. It doesn't have to be. Everything I cited can be verified independently. Now, isn't that what science is really supposed to be about?
This business about an argument from authority is anti-science, but it will be argued the opposite way. The reason they argue it differently is that they'll say that only peer reviewed scientists are allowed. Who's a peer? Why only the ones that the politicians can control with their money powers.
But the power is supposed to be in the people, not the politicians. If the people can verify the truth of a matter like this, then why is an authority necessary? Why are only they allowed to be scientists?
Science can be performed by anyone. You only need to be in a search for truth in order to be a scientist. You don't need a license for that, you just need some integrity. If you did need a license, that compromises it. If science is controlled that way, then it can no longer be science, for it is no longer free.
The reason I wrote it the way I did was to encourage some independent thinking. The only argument for AGW is one from authority. So what if my argument isn't from authority. It doesn't have to be. Everything I cited can be verified independently. Now, isn't that what science is really supposed to be about?
This business about an argument from authority is anti-science, but it will be argued the opposite way. The reason they argue it differently is that they'll say that only peer reviewed scientists are allowed. Who's a peer? Why only the ones that the politicians can control with their money powers.
But the power is supposed to be in the people, not the politicians. If the people can verify the truth of a matter like this, then why is an authority necessary? Why are only they allowed to be scientists?
Science can be performed by anyone. You only need to be in a search for truth in order to be a scientist. You don't need a license for that, you just need some integrity. If you did need a license, that compromises it. If science is controlled that way, then it can no longer be science, for it is no longer free.
Monday, August 10, 2015
More AGW discussion
I know you people love this. Bwah, hah, hah.
Spent a little time on the subject of heat capacity. Did you know that water has twice the heat capacity of carbon dioxide? Three fourths of the Earth's surface is covered by water, as opposed to the 1/25th of 1 percent of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide. ( 400 parts per million ) Kinda like comparing an elephant's weight to a feather's weight.
Did you know that a five gallon can of pure carbon dioxide has half of the heat capacity of 50 milliliters of water? ( rough guess by the way. These are molar numbers. One mole of carbon dioxide gas will fill the gas can, and 50 milliliters of water is maybe a tablespoon) Keep in mind that the atmosphere isn't pure carbon dioxide and that water is everywhere.
Keep in mind the little experiment I did earlier. A pound of water will boil ( on a 1kw burner) in 3 minutes and return to room temperature in an hour. That means that carbon dioxide will hold that much heat for about half as long. But since it is also subject to the gas laws, it will dissipate most of that heat in expansion, as gases expand a lot when heated.
So, the feather, which weighs almost nothing can move the elephant, which weighs several tons. Psst! I've got a bridge to sell ya! Cheap!
You can believe that an elephant can be supported by a feather if that pleases you, but that seems improbable to me.
Update:
By the way, I looked up the weight of the atmosphere and the weight of the oceans. The oceans weigh about a million times more than the atmosphere. And water is twice as good as holding heat. But we cannot regulate, nor tax the oceans.
Update:
A feather weighs about half a gram. Since the weight of the oceans is 1 million times that of the atmosphere, and of the atmosphere only 4/10000ths of that is carbon dioxide, and only half of that is from human activity, then that means that the ratio is about 2 billion to 1. So, two billion feathers weight about 1 billion grams, which is about 1 million kilograms, which is about 2.2 million pounds. About half the weight of the shuttle in comparison to a feather.
Update:
Correcting the math a bit, ya'll. It looks like it is more than the weight of a shuttle fully loaded up.
Another comment: the heat capacity of the carbon dioxide compared to oxygen is really not that much different. Keep in mind that burning fossil fuels replaces the oxygen with carbon dioxide. So, the measurement of heat retention is only that which exceeds what was already there. It's not very much.
Maybe that can now be adjusted to the whole fleet of shuttles. Any other adjustments would likely be of the same kind. You get the picture, doncha?
Update: 8/13/15
Looks like a mathematics goof. Forget about the shuttles and such, it is a much smaller number.
Spent a little time on the subject of heat capacity. Did you know that water has twice the heat capacity of carbon dioxide? Three fourths of the Earth's surface is covered by water, as opposed to the 1/25th of 1 percent of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide. ( 400 parts per million ) Kinda like comparing an elephant's weight to a feather's weight.
Did you know that a five gallon can of pure carbon dioxide has half of the heat capacity of 50 milliliters of water? ( rough guess by the way. These are molar numbers. One mole of carbon dioxide gas will fill the gas can, and 50 milliliters of water is maybe a tablespoon) Keep in mind that the atmosphere isn't pure carbon dioxide and that water is everywhere.
Keep in mind the little experiment I did earlier. A pound of water will boil ( on a 1kw burner) in 3 minutes and return to room temperature in an hour. That means that carbon dioxide will hold that much heat for about half as long. But since it is also subject to the gas laws, it will dissipate most of that heat in expansion, as gases expand a lot when heated.
So, the feather, which weighs almost nothing can move the elephant, which weighs several tons. Psst! I've got a bridge to sell ya! Cheap!
You can believe that an elephant can be supported by a feather if that pleases you, but that seems improbable to me.
Update:
By the way, I looked up the weight of the atmosphere and the weight of the oceans. The oceans weigh about a million times more than the atmosphere. And water is twice as good as holding heat. But we cannot regulate, nor tax the oceans.
Update:
A feather weighs about half a gram. Since the weight of the oceans is 1 million times that of the atmosphere, and of the atmosphere only 4/10000ths of that is carbon dioxide, and only half of that is from human activity, then that means that the ratio is about 2 billion to 1. So, two billion feathers weight about 1 billion grams, which is about 1 million kilograms, which is about 2.2 million pounds. About half the weight of the shuttle in comparison to a feather.
Update:
Correcting the math a bit, ya'll. It looks like it is more than the weight of a shuttle fully loaded up.
Another comment: the heat capacity of the carbon dioxide compared to oxygen is really not that much different. Keep in mind that burning fossil fuels replaces the oxygen with carbon dioxide. So, the measurement of heat retention is only that which exceeds what was already there. It's not very much.
Maybe that can now be adjusted to the whole fleet of shuttles. Any other adjustments would likely be of the same kind. You get the picture, doncha?
Update: 8/13/15
Looks like a mathematics goof. Forget about the shuttles and such, it is a much smaller number.
Obligatory, 8/10/15
The weekend went by so fast. Yesterday was kinda weird. You see unusual characters these days.
The heat was pretty bad, so I cut the day short. Seems like this is a bit too easy to do.
As usual, I seem to be pressed for time. Some of the reason for that is that I'm not all that productive anymore. Try to move it along, just the same.
By the way, my new phone and a cradle for it allows me to do hands free operation. That's good for more reason than one. Now, I can do video posts on the run, if I choose. Just a thought to make me more productive. Not enough stuff going up, I suppose.
As for the stuff...
Lately, I've been writing a bit about Trump. It seems that I may be wrong about his latest comments hurting him. Polls still have him on top. This reminds me to stop trying to predict such things. I don't necessarily get these kinds of things right. It's hard to figure what people want, so maybe Trump lasts after all. Just that he doesn't rate all that high with me anymore.
I think I was too optimistic about Trump. He seems to be a reflection of the culture, which is going down. Someone like him could not get elected in years past. Just like Bill Clinton couldn't get elected, but did anyway. Like Obama. Seems to be a pattern, doesn't it?
For a contrast, read about Lincoln and how he handled people. Lincoln was quite tactful in the way he treated the characters in his day. Trump is about as far from that as is imaginable. Like I was saying, it is a reflection upon the culture that we could make this guy the president.
The heat was pretty bad, so I cut the day short. Seems like this is a bit too easy to do.
As usual, I seem to be pressed for time. Some of the reason for that is that I'm not all that productive anymore. Try to move it along, just the same.
By the way, my new phone and a cradle for it allows me to do hands free operation. That's good for more reason than one. Now, I can do video posts on the run, if I choose. Just a thought to make me more productive. Not enough stuff going up, I suppose.
As for the stuff...
Lately, I've been writing a bit about Trump. It seems that I may be wrong about his latest comments hurting him. Polls still have him on top. This reminds me to stop trying to predict such things. I don't necessarily get these kinds of things right. It's hard to figure what people want, so maybe Trump lasts after all. Just that he doesn't rate all that high with me anymore.
I think I was too optimistic about Trump. He seems to be a reflection of the culture, which is going down. Someone like him could not get elected in years past. Just like Bill Clinton couldn't get elected, but did anyway. Like Obama. Seems to be a pattern, doesn't it?
For a contrast, read about Lincoln and how he handled people. Lincoln was quite tactful in the way he treated the characters in his day. Trump is about as far from that as is imaginable. Like I was saying, it is a reflection upon the culture that we could make this guy the president.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Marc Faber
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
"They'll Blame Physical Gold Holders For The Failure Of Monetary Policies" Marc Faber Explains Everything
By Tyler Durden
Created 08/09/2015 - 19:00
"The future is unknown and we are not dealing with markets that are free markets anymore...now we have government interventions everywhere. [But] in the last say twelve months, I have observed an increasing number of academics who are questioning monetary policies. That's why I think they will take the gold away and go back to some gold standard by revaluing the gold say from now $1000/oz to say $10,000 dollars. An individual should definitely own some physical gold. The bigger question is where should he store it? because... the failure of monetary policies will not be admitted by the professors that are at central banks, they will then go and blame someone else for it and then an easy target would be to blame it on people that own physical gold because - they can argue - well these are the ones that do take money out of circulation and then the velocity of money goes down - we have to take it away from them... That has happened in 1933 in the US."
Trump v. Fox News
This post compares it to a war. If this is a war, and the debate was a battle, then I'd say it is like the Battle of Midway, where his most valuable assets are dead in the water.
His candidacy is dead because he nows says he won't apologize. The way he did it is also instructive. Instead of just denying what he clearly implied, he gave a sharp rebuke to anyone who took it as the insult it really was. Trump's insulting rebuke, which was a legitimate and reasonable criticism, is also way over the top.
If Trump was so good, he should have been prepared for what happened at the debate. Instead, he got bushwacked ( no pun intended). That's not very good generalship, if you ask me.
His candidacy is dead because he nows says he won't apologize. The way he did it is also instructive. Instead of just denying what he clearly implied, he gave a sharp rebuke to anyone who took it as the insult it really was. Trump's insulting rebuke, which was a legitimate and reasonable criticism, is also way over the top.
If Trump was so good, he should have been prepared for what happened at the debate. Instead, he got bushwacked ( no pun intended). That's not very good generalship, if you ask me.
Patton and Trump
There are those who may still remember the movie Patton, in which it showed how Patton had to apologize for the slapping incident. He had to do it in public and in front of all the men who were present at the time, and all the men in the area at that time.
Patton may well have been the best combat general in the military during the Second World War. Yet, even he had to humble himself to an enlisted man. I think this was the correct thing to do. Why?
After studying the incident a bit, I figure that Patton was in the wrong. Actually, it was two men who were slapped, and both of them didn't do anything really wrong. One of the men was sent to the hospital, but not by his request. The other was definitely physically ill. Patton just lost his composure when he jumped to the conclusion that the men were shirking their duty due to cowardice. Slapping them and threatening to shoot them was definitely out of line. An apology was definitely required, or he couldn't continue his command.
So, what about Trump? Obviously Trump has something going for him. Like Patton, he is good at what he does. He is a successful businessman, and he may well be what the doctor ordered in terms of courage to face down an enemy. But to steamroller someone who is asking some legitimate questions is in no way acceptable if we are going to continue as a free society. There are no unfair questions to a politician, as far as I'm concerned. Trump has stepped out on that stage and must play by those rules.
Although there are no unfair questions to a politician, the way in which the questions are asked these days are indeed unfair. Democrats tend to get softball questions. Republicans get the tougher treatment. A complaint along those lines would be more acceptable. Going after Megyn Kelly for asking tough questions alone is bad enough. But to be insulting to her for being guilty of being a woman was is just way, way too much. Trump must apologize or he must get out of the race. He must do it the way Patton did it--- in front of the entire nation and in front of Megyn Kelly herself.
There is no other way to redeem himself. Our system requires that politicians be responsive to and subservient to the people. A man who considers that he is above it all is unworthy of being at the head of a free people.
Patton may well have been the best combat general in the military during the Second World War. Yet, even he had to humble himself to an enlisted man. I think this was the correct thing to do. Why?
After studying the incident a bit, I figure that Patton was in the wrong. Actually, it was two men who were slapped, and both of them didn't do anything really wrong. One of the men was sent to the hospital, but not by his request. The other was definitely physically ill. Patton just lost his composure when he jumped to the conclusion that the men were shirking their duty due to cowardice. Slapping them and threatening to shoot them was definitely out of line. An apology was definitely required, or he couldn't continue his command.
So, what about Trump? Obviously Trump has something going for him. Like Patton, he is good at what he does. He is a successful businessman, and he may well be what the doctor ordered in terms of courage to face down an enemy. But to steamroller someone who is asking some legitimate questions is in no way acceptable if we are going to continue as a free society. There are no unfair questions to a politician, as far as I'm concerned. Trump has stepped out on that stage and must play by those rules.
Although there are no unfair questions to a politician, the way in which the questions are asked these days are indeed unfair. Democrats tend to get softball questions. Republicans get the tougher treatment. A complaint along those lines would be more acceptable. Going after Megyn Kelly for asking tough questions alone is bad enough. But to be insulting to her for being guilty of being a woman was is just way, way too much. Trump must apologize or he must get out of the race. He must do it the way Patton did it--- in front of the entire nation and in front of Megyn Kelly herself.
There is no other way to redeem himself. Our system requires that politicians be responsive to and subservient to the people. A man who considers that he is above it all is unworthy of being at the head of a free people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)