Saturday, March 19, 2016

More Philip DeFranco

Hulk Hogan really does have a ten inch Johnson, in case you were interested.  The trouble is that Hogan is a fictional character on a scripted TV show.  Only thing is that people don't know the difference between the actor and the character.  The actor's rights were violated, or so it seems.

Another thing to notice about the video is the power of the mob.  When the mob gets cranked up, all truth and justice goes out the window.  But the left wing's mobs never act like that.  Honestly.

Speaking of truth, if you are expecting more pics of the well endowed female here, you are sol.



Cam Newton traded ( corrected not traded )

As one sportscaster was oft in saying---oh my!

What if the Texans had made that deal?  Nope, they made another deal.  For a backup guy that they think can start.  This versus a guy that led his team to the Super Bowl.

Hey, I know it ain't on topic, but this is a big deal.  Arizona traded for him.

update:

This appears to be an old story that was a non story.  Never mind!!!!!  I didn't read the whole story.  It was an April fools joke.

yikes.



Obligatory, 3.19.16

Whatever the reason, this new computer doesn't want to work well with touch typing.  I'm not sure if it is my thumb touching the mouse pad or what it is, but the cursor jumps around, and then I'm typing on a different line than what I thought I was.  Very annoying.

Getting a new computer didn't help my output much, did it?  Must be blogger burnout.  Really, there are times when I don't know what to write about.

After writing about a Braveheart scene, I watched the movie again.  Must have watched this movie a hundred times.

Did you ever watch a movie and think up how it all could have gone differently?  Almost like doing an alternative history speculation.  For example, what if the Sir William character decided to go north to the Highlands instead of going south to sack York.  Then he wouldn't have met the future queen and got himself a new girlfriend and some royal "bass".  Longshanks may not have pursued him all the way north, and his noble antagonists wouldn't have conspired with Longshanks to capture him so that he could be executed.  None of that would have happened and it would have been a different story.  Probably a real suck fest of a movie too.

Another thing that I did in the wasting time category was to watch a lot of videos.  Every now and then, I manage to run into the "mojo" site that does top 10 lists.  This one that I watched was about annoying songs.  Three of the modern stars I recognized, but most of them I didn't.  One thing that I was able to confirm.  I recall some young star that I saw while waiting for air freight at the airport about a year ago.  She is Meghan Trainor.  Never heard of her before that air freight waiting area's television had her on one of the morning shows that they have these days.  She sang "Lips are moving" which seemed like a catchy little tune.  But this song didn't make the annoying list.  She seemed to use in that song the word "bass" in a way that puzzled me, but this other song confirmed my suspicion.  The other song that made the annoying list was called "All about the Bass".  My suspicion was that "Bass" meant something that rhymes with it.  Hint: not music but the fish. The annoying song confirmed that.

There you are.  A few hundred words about nothing, which is why I call it a Seinfeld post.



Friday, March 18, 2016

Two seemingly unrelated stories

1.  A woman shoots a burglar ( who is a black teen ) and the burglars family cries foul.

2.  Hillary beats Trump in the polls.

Now, tell me.  Have people really lost their minds enough to elect Hillary who will take away your gun rights so that you can do nothing, repeat, nothing about it?

Hillary cannot run as a liberal who is anti gun and expect to win if that issue is pounded upon relentlessly.

In other words, if a decent campaign is run against her, Trump should win.  I dare say, he should win in a cakewalk.  Even liberals understand property rights when it concerns their own property rights.

It's the same across the board.  Hillary has indefensible policy positions.  Not to mention that she is a crook.


Utah role in Presidential race

Much has been made of Trump's decision to drop out of the debate in Utah.  But it makes sense for Trump because it is rigged so that Trump can't win.

How?  By having a caucus as opposed to having a primary.  Even Romney criticized this.  Why would Trump participate in a debate in which  he could only risk losing, and is doomed to lose that state anyway?

He can use his time to win Arizona, which is having a primary.

It makes sense for Kasich to stay in, if the idea is to deny Cruz the winner take all threshold of 50%.  Kasich's outside chance is at a brokered convention.  This can occur if nobody reaches the majority of delegates.  A proportional race suits Kasich better in that sense.  Kasich is mathematically eliminated from the majority of delegates.

Cruz is running out of time.  He needs to get all of Utah's votes.  His chances don't appear to be good at the moment.  Each state contest in which he doesn't take all of the votes is one less opportunity for him to make up ground.  Big difference in not getting all as opposed to getting a handful more than Trump.

Arizona is winner take all.

Update:

Cruz's strategy doesn't make sense to me.  If he is to win the nomination, he has to show that he can win these reliable red states.  If he cannot win the reliable red states, how can he make the case that he can win the general election?  In order to win the general election, he is going to have to flip some blue states.  How does he do that if he cannot hold the red?

In order to hold the red, he has to win all the delegates.  He needs the majority in Utah in order to win all their delegates.  Isn't his chances better if he goes to the public at large?  If he goes to the public at large, doesn't that pressure Trump in having a debate?  Doesn't that minimize the Kasich factor?  The Kasich factor works best with the 'insider baseball' tactics of a caucus, I suspect.

Why not go all out for a primary where he could use his supposed vaunted persuasive power to sway voters to come over to his side?

Cruz should be raising bloody hell about the caucus and ask for a primary.  Did he?  He seems to be playing into the hands of those who he calls the "cartel".   In other words, I think he may be a fake.


Thursday, March 17, 2016

Men don't follow titles, they follow courage

This video segment is loaded with great stuff.  Too bad that it goes over so many heads.

This people today should take this to their hearts, but they won't.  They are about the titles, not the courage.  The courage belongs to the Dems.  Our side is too wimpy to accomplish a thing.

Example?  The Democrats are willing to march against Trump for doing nothing but running for office.  What do the GOPers do?  If Hillary runs, they will submit to her rule.  Need I say more?

Perhaps a little.  Hillary has broken the law.  There is no doubt.  What has Trump done?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?






It's kind of sad arguing with a guy you used to trust

Perhaps there's something about Trump that rubs conservatives the wrong way.  Funny that it doesn't affect me that way.  I figure I am as conservative as many of them, maybe most of them.

Yeah, maybe Dick Morris is right about something, that this election shapes up as a major realigning election.

But it may not work out that way if Trump gets the nomination and loses.  What I suspect is that these guys are implicitly saying that Trump can win, but that they intend to stop him from doing that if they can.  They will stop him even if it means that Hillary will be the next president.  In such a scenario as that, then they figure that they will preserve the party.  They simply cannot have Trump as the head of the party.  They'd rather see Hillary in the Oval office than allow that.

So, if they get their way, the Dems win and so they "win".  I don't get that.

William Buckley said to vote for the most conservative one who can win.  Their arguments doesn't flow along the lines of who can win, but whether or not they are in agreement with him.  If they don't agree with him, then don't follow Buckley's advice, I guess.

But I can understand a person's dislike.  I dislike most of the GOP field anyway.  Only two were really acceptable to me.  Both of them are still there!  Only Kasich remains as one I don't like.  Cruz is marginally acceptable.  He worries me as  an accommodationalist.

I guess what separates me from the rest of the so called conservatives is that I prefer a man of action.  The so called conservatives are men of words, not deeds.  If I can get half a loaf, I'll take it.  These guys want the whole loaf, or they will throw it in the trash.  I don't get that.

Don't argue with me about principles.  If you believed in them, you would be with the Dems in the streets fighting Trump.   If you don't have a black eye and a bloody nose defending your sacred principles, then you don't have any in the first place.


Quote of the day

"Trump has all the right enemies."

This is in response to the planned massive civil disobedience being planned for the summer.  It is to protest Trump.

No plan to disrupt Cruz's rallies has been mentioned.


Don't believe the fear mongering about Trump

The reason it is overblown is that nobody is really doing anything about it.  One thing that they could do is to introduce a constitutional amendment that would limit presidential powers.  Since there isn't any talk of this, then I think their fears are greatly exaggerated.

It's as simple as that.  If somebody is wielding a weapon at you, and you are truly afraid, then you don't just stand there like a dummy.  You get into action and you do something about it.  If you can't or won't, then you don't belong in a leadership position anyway.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Can't Find My Way Home

"And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home..."



Primary discussion

Unless I am mistaken, Cruz didn't win a single state yesterday.  That shows considerable weakness, I'd say. 

Even Kasich, who was presumed politically dead, managed to win at least one.

I'd say Cruz is in a bit of trouble politically.  There may be a stubborn refusal to see the facts, though.  If you are conservative, and you can't win Southern states, then there's a problem.

Cruz already has a problem in the other states outside the red states.  I say he is unelectable, and I've been saying it all along.

If Cruz got out right now, he could stop the Establishment from stealing the nomination away.  I think that is the Establishment's plan.  That is to say, deny Trump or Cruz the nomination, and anything can and will happen.

George Soros donated to the Kasich campaign.  Kind of fits in with the theory, don't you think?

Between Cruz and Trump, the overwhelming verdict is against the Establishment, but they could still steal this thing.  That's what the Establishment is counting on.  No way that you people should let this happen, but I fear that the threat is real, and it just might happen.

Oh well.  They don't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.

Update:

Yep, it is definitely possible to steal it away.  I counted the delegates of the top four, and they have more than Trump.  That means it would take fewer delegates to deny him the nomination than it would for Trump to secure it.

Dick Morris says that Kasich and Cruz should team up.   However, if they did, that would destroy Cruz.  You know what? --- they could do it informally.  No formal deal.  No discussion.  Just try it and see if the other guy responds.

On the other hand, the idea that I had presupposes that Cruz and Trump are compatible with each other in many respects, as Dick Morris mentions.  The two of them teaming up could freeze out the Establishment.  Continuing to try to win the nomination in a mano y mano contest would have to include Kasich for at least a little while longer, and Cruz doesn't have the time.  Even if  started now, he would have a tough time getting a majority.

My idea also presupposes that the Establishment would try to lock them both out of the nomination.  Now that outcome would be ridiculous.  The anti Establishment votes vastly outnumber the Establishment.  For them to steal it away would be unforgivable on many levels.

Update:

I've read Rush's take and Dick Morris' take.  Neither suggested that Cruz should get out like I did.  Morris' says it is all up to Kasich, and that Kasich wins it for Trump.   That makes me wrong then, because I think that Kasich spoils it for both.  We'll see.

Rush thinks a little along my line, but he'll never suggest that Cruz should drop out.



Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Tulane University - Cars Could Run on Recycled Newspaper, Tulane Scientists Say

Tulane University - Cars Could Run on Recycled Newspaper, Tulane Scientists Say



so, what became of this?  It is a 5 year old story.




Amen, bro

The comparison to the Nazis is very accurate, and it should be emphasized at every opportunity.


Radiative cooling

One of my goals out west is to be able to trim my energy usage down to a bare minimum.  Also, to recycle as much water as I can.

This post describes the use of the principle of radiative cooling in order to climate control a building and thus use the least amount of energy.

I have a hunch that this principle could work in a concept known as an air well.  It condense water passively.  Out there, especially during the summer months, it can get fairly humid.  I figured that dehumidifiers can collect water, but what if you could do it without electricity?  That would be, pardon the pun, "cool".

Update:

Did a little more googling, and found this post on photonic crystals.  The post says that the surface temperature can be reduced by 30 degrees.  Very interesting.  That means on a 100 degree day, this thing can bring the surface temp down to a comfortable 70 degrees.

Bring it on.

Update:

Nature paper here.  Not as dramatic as above, but useful nonetheless if it were to be available for purchase.  No word on that.

Update:

More info here.




Been there, done that ( sort of )

I see on Instapundit that the Russians want to test a nuclear rocket engine.  How many Instapundit readers know that the USA has already tested one of these over 40 years ago?  If the Russians succeed at this, and they can since we've already demonstrated that it can be done, then how does that make you feel?  Does it give you a feeling that we've been badly governed?  Hmm?




A few simple questions for climate fanatics

American Thinker



comment:



Sure, it is a well reasoned argument, but to have an argument with a fanatic is a waste of time.




Monday, March 14, 2016

Elysium ---- Movie Review ( revisited )

I just watched the video and I have reconsidered my review here.  Yes, there is possibility of people who would and do mistreat their fellow human beings.  But that doesn't jibe with vast material progress that is depicted in the film.  Instead of what's in this flick, you would get the decay of a civilization, not unlike Rome.  As Rome didn't spin off another civilization that became even more advanced and "privileged", neither would any other civilization that mistreats a significant segment of its own population be capable of spinning off something better.  It would destroy itself first, as Rome did.

This is what I've been trying to warn people about for the longest time here.  If the powers that be won't allow basic material progress, and punishes anybody for coming up with an invention that would enhance human well being, it cannot continue for long.

The powers that be today are holding back the progress of humanity.  They are doing it on the misguided notion that is depicted in the flick.  The notion is that the resources of Earth can be depleted.

Those who think Earth's resources can be depleted do not understand basic concepts in science.  Matter is not destroyed when you use it.  It is simply put into another chemical state.  That state is not permanent, as any chemical bond can be broken.  You only have to supply sufficient energy to it.

Once the bonds are broken, they can be reassembled into useful items again.  In other words, with sufficient energy, you can recycle everything an unlimited amount of times.

The trick is the energy.  Where would you get it?  Why from nuclear energy.  Nuclear energy is a million times more powerful than chemical energy.  It is easily seen then, that the altered chemical bonds mentioned can be restored to useful function with the enormous energy from the atom.

The problem is that the powers that be have decided that we cannot have nuclear energy.  By taking this position, they are holding back the progress of humanity.

They'll say that they are doing it because radioactivity is dangerous.  It's dangerous only if mishandled.  Lots of things are that way.  If everything that was potentially dangerous were to be banned, we would have to live at a much lower standard of living.

Ironically, the powers that be are the ones posing as our benefactors, but they are our oppressors.  They are like the people of Elysium in this flick.  They'll pose as good people, who bring us such ideas that are presented in this flick, but are evil instead because they are the same people who ban something like nuclear energy that would benefit mankind.  I think the flick is such a pose, and it fools many.

The original review follows:

I went to see the movie last night at the IMAX on the west side of Houston.

The theater was about half full and there was a smattering of applause at the end.  Some people seemed to like it.

As for me, it seemed to be entertaining, with plenty of action and things that go boom.  If you accept the premises of the movie, you can enjoy it.  If you don't, the movie looks rather flawed.

The main premise is that there can be such a place as this space station called "Elysium", at the same time that the Earth is really bad shape.  For to construct such a place would require a technical competence far beyond anything that we have now.  If such competence existed, why could it not be used to solve Earth's problems?  It is that premise, that such competence would NOT be used for the greater benefit of humanity, that is the major premise of the movie.  If you accept that, you can like this movie.  If you don't, there's no doggone way that you can like this movie.

It has been said that the movie reflects our present more than it predicts the future.  I would agree.  It is basically a rather ignoble view of humanity that is offensive here.  That there is something righteous and good about being poor, and something evil about being rich.  That, by being rich, you can only take from others, or withhold from others, and not contribute something of worth for your prosperity.  The movie doesn't even demonstrate that, it just presumes that people are that way.  Again, I would agree that there are some people like that, but I would hope that it doesn't define humanity.  For if it does, nothing like the technological marvel that is Elysium could ever be possible anyway.  Why?  Why invent something if you can steal it?

So, my verdict is this:  If you want to be entertained, go see it.  If you want to be informed, there are better ways to spend your time.





If the average Trump voter wants a strong man, then I am not the average Trump voter

I voted for Trump in the Texas primary.  I also wrote this post, which illustrates my point.

                               Federalist Papers v Anti-Federalist Papers


I wrote that the presidency is too strong.  How does somebody want to weaken the presidency and be for a strong man?  Of course I'm not for the strong man.   Yet there are so called conservatives who are for a strong presidency.  Try to square that one if you can.


Sunday, March 13, 2016

How to lose an argument you should win

The conservatives seem  to be about principles.  They are really proud of their principles.  So, they say it is wrong to advocate violence in order to remove hecklers from a political rally because their principles just won't allow them to stoop to such oafish behavior.

But I don't agree.  If somebody is forcefully taking away my rights, then I feel that one must respond to that in a likewise manner.  A heckler isn't there to listen politely, and ask questions in a civil way---no they are there in order to disrupt the proceedings.  By doing so, they are depriving those in attendance from exercising their rights to participate in the process.

If you don't treat the hecklers forcefully, then why will they leave?  The answer is that they won't.  Force is necessary.  Therefore, to complain about the use of force is rather hollow.  Are we expected to believe that the conservatives will do nothing to stop them if the hecklers decide to come to their rallies?  None are said to have done it, but wait,  I think they have at some point.  Did they just sit around and let them disrupt their rallies?  They wouldn't allow it if it became a problem because then their supporters would lose confidence in them.  For instance, if they won't provide security for their own rallies, then what will they do when they have the reins of government?  In order to maintain credibility, they have to have security at their rallies.  No way they let hecklers disrupt their meetings whenever they want.

So they say some rather meaningless words about how it is wrong to shut down a Trump rally.  Does not a heckler do the same thing ( shut down a rally ) in principle?  The conservatives don't like Trump, so they just wink at the hecklers.  As long as the hecklers don't come after them, that is.

In other words, they don't care about it in principle because it doesn't affect them.  At least not yet.  But if they can shut down a Trump rally, then why can't they shut down a Cruz rally?  Just because Cruz is "nicer", they won't come after him?  Do you really believe that?

The conservatives expose their alleged high mindedness as nothing but hypocrisy.  If they cared that much about everybody's rights, they would condemn the hecklers and defend Trump.  Instead they join the hecklers until they have to say something in order maintain credibility, but now it is too late.  Their credibility is shot.


Alone in the Wilderness

Saw the video with the title above maybe a week ago, and then today, I found the same video as part of a playlist.

Some of the man's philosophy is what I'm discovering at a late age.

Maybe better late than never.

One should question one's assumptions from time to time.  Perhaps you can learn something.



Shame on the GOP

To let themselves be duped by left wing propaganda, and to be so spineless and weak



The alleged Trump violence serves the propaganda goals of the far left.  Why fall for this?


Update several hours later:

I am dismayed at how weak the response is from the so called conservatives.  Come to think of it, I have noticed it before.