Saturday, September 2, 2017

New video from Charlottesville

I'm reading that some folks think the guy who ran over those people may have been trying to escape a bunch of people attacking him.

I watched some of the video, but it is way too slow developing, so I didn't watch all of it.

An obvious question is this:  was it intentional or not?  If not, then the whole brouhaha was fake news, don't you think?

Other folks think the whole thing was staged.  If that is true, it is worse than fake.

Goes to show you not to trust what the media say, nor the first reports, nor much of anything else.

Cannot say which is true, but of the things that I have researched, it doesn't favor the way the media reports it.

Just for the record, the whole video that I saw didn't show a whole lot.  But based upon the reporting, you'd think the Civil War had started again.  Just a lot of hype, at the very least.

Friday, September 1, 2017

Who's winning and who's losing?

A distressing thought just occurred to me.  The ones who win are always going to be the same.  So is the same for those who lose.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Still, I think that they cannot rule without our votes.  Just vote them out.  Whatever you do, don't let them get away with it.  Even if all you do is vote, then vote them out.

The right to vote is still there.  All other rights are still there.  Use them or lose them.

May want to reconsider the Drudge Report

Somebody on Free Republic says he's a homosexual.

Well, if that is so, then alternatives should be considered.

Supposedly, Drudge is a conservative site.  However, when you talk about homosexuals, that word doesn't go with it.  Personally, I believe homosexuals to be unreliable.  You should not depend upon them for much.  Conservative one day, super liberal the next.

No homosexual can truly be a conservative.  No can do.  It is incompatible..

Not that I want to jump to conclusions about Drudge based upon one report.  We'll see.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Okay, time for a little outrage

Originally posted 8.31.17, updated on

Why be outraged by this?  The will of the people has been flouted by an unelected judge.  If you say you believe in democracy, or in at least some semblance of it, you cannot approve of this and be consistent with what you say you believe.

Actually, we have a republic, so it isn't a democracy per se.  But judges are accountable, too.  There is a thing called impeachment.  Impeachment can go both ways.

If you want to impeach someone, impeach this dude.

The original post follows:

You need your daily ration of outrage porn?

Well, here 'tis.

Yeah, it is nuff to make me sooooo angry.  A little Marvin the Martian lingo, there.

Hey.  I'm not making fun of anybody getting mad over this.  Just DO something about it.   Bitching about it doesn't get the job done.  Gotta raise it up a notch.

What can you do?  Get your butts to the voting  booth.  So, a guy betrays what he says he's for?  Vote his sorry butt out.  You can do at least that much.

Doing more like passing the word around that a Latino judge decided that an American state legislature cannot comply with Federal law and still be within Federal law, is shall we say, a bit outrageous.  It's like they are forcing unlimited immigration upon us whether we like it or not.  Even if the illegal immigration is against the law.  This is a Federal judge saying the law is against the law.  Impeachment, anyone?

But if you are Juan McCain, well, we just cannot second guess our unelected Federal judges.  No sirreee Bob.

What is controversial about thorium reactors?

It is being written as such, but where's the evidence of controversy?

Thorium is not particularly nasty stuff.  However, it is not to be treated lightly.  Does that disqualify it then as an energy source?

The question should be answered carefully, because there's a lot more thorium than fissionable uranium.  Secondly, there's enough thorium to last millennia.  You cannot say the same with conventional fuels.  Thirdly, its energy concentration is much greater than with solar or wind, meaning it will have a much smaller footprint.  Finally, the world needs an energy source.  Fusion is not available yet, and may never be.  There's got to be a solution somewhere, that is, if you want a non-carbon energy source.  Thorium as the solution has been waiting in limbo for over forty years.

What could go wrong?  The downside is the risk.  But if the risk is manageable, then why not?

There is a risk to many things in modern life.  Fire is a risk, but is acceptable because there is a long history of handling it.  You can die in a fire, but that is no reason to ban fires simply because you can get hurt.  Same is true of electricity.  You can balance off the risk with the abundant rewards.  It is the price for a higher standard of living for more people.

It should be noted that some confusion may be in evidence with the linked article, since the seventies experiment with molten-salt reactors did not involve thorium.  That is to say, you can run a molten-salt reactor without thorium.  They don't require thorium.  The ones they tested in the seventies used uranium.  The molten-salt experiments were a proof-of-concept only, and were quite successful.

Molten-salt reactors are definitely safer than solid-fueled water-cooled reactors.  Molten-salts have been used in solar thermal power plants.  It is an excellent way to store heat.  Why should it be controversial then to store energy from nuclear reactions?  The radioactivity has no effect upon the salts.  That is one reason why they are safer.  In comparison, using water as an energy storage medium for nuclear energy has its problems.  Water can be ionized by the radiation, thus producing hydrogen and oxygen.  Enough of that, and you can get an explosion.  This is what happened at Fukishima.  There is no risk of that happening with molten-salt reactors.  Indeed, the molten-salts tend to help moderate the nuclear reactions.  It is another reason for their superior safety characteristics.

Meltdowns are not a problem with molten-salt reactors.  Reason being is that they are already melted!  They are designed to run in that state, whereas solid-fueled reactors are not.  Once a solid-fueled reactor melts down, you have a problem.  Solid fuels are supposed to stay solid.  On the other hand, if something goes wrong with a molten-salt reactor, its molten-salts passively drain into a holding tank where it solidifies and is safe.

A tsunami like in Fukishima won't cause the problems that they had in Fukishima.  In fact, the reactor could be up and running again in a short time.  If there was any damage, it would not likely be in the reactor itself.

There should be no controversy, nor any doubt that molten-salt reactors are safer.  If they are safe for solar, then they can be safe for nuclear.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

News - Houston, We Have a Problem | Heartland Institute

News - Houston, We Have a Problem | Heartland Institute


Having lived in Houston for nearly all my life, I am a bit puzzled as to why the flood gates were opened in a couple of flood control dams in the West part of Houston.

These are not lakes, but dry reservoirs, which are designed for events like Hurricane Harvey.  It makes little sense to OPEN the gates in the midst of all that rain.  It only makes matters worse, not better.  The dams were built with these types of storms in mind.  Why defeat the purpose of the dams and release water?

Questions should be asked.


First of all, a map of Houston, courtesy Google Maps.

Just want to say, there's going to be people who don't know what they are talking about, who will mouth off about what happened in Houston.

The circled area is what is being referred to.  Whatever happened at these two reservoirs is not going to matter all that much when you consider how much rain fell.  However, it does matter that things could have been made worse by opening the floodgates too soon.

There may have been a good reason, but still...

As far as evacuations, well, they did one in 2005, which didn't go too well.

Not to defend or attack Mayor Turner.  People just don't act right for some reason.  Especially in what is perceived as an emergency.  In 2005, too many people headed out of town at the same time.  There was no need for that kind of rush.  A structured evacuation could have avoided the logjam on the freeways, which aren't designed for that kind of traffic.  There was time for an orderly evacuation.

In 2005, people tried to leave when the storm didn't even have much of an impact.  The evacuation was worse than the event.  People might have remembered that and stayed home ( to their regret ).

If the same thing happened this year, a massive evacuation all at once, things would have been much worse.

The most rational thing would be a layered evacuation, with the most vulnerable areas evacuated first.  This should have been ordered and enforced as strictly as possible.  But that may have rubbed some people the wrong way.  Americans don't respond kindly to regimentation.

The moral to the story?  Shift happens.  You can never know when you deal with Mother Nature.  Sometimes things cannot be controlled.  That's the way it is.

Texas Flood

Dark clouds are rollin' in.

The Flood is a metaphor for the times, it seems.  The rain keeps falling, and the lips keep moving, and none of it is any good for anything.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

The Racist Attacks on America and Trump

The Racist Attacks on America and Trump: Why the Left hates the president and the nation he heads.


Can't add anything to the discussion.  It is excellent.

Woman gets life in prison for murder of husband

The star witness appears to have been a parrot.

The parrot was reported to have said:  "Don't f----ing shoot" , in the husband's voice.  The parrot belonged to the dead man.

This must break new ground in criminal justice.  If all of this is true, then animals can testify in court.

Question:  Can a bird lie?  If it does, can it be put in jail for perjury?

Houston Flooding

Seen some pics too.  Someone came by from the Houston Galveston area, and said nobody is allowed on the freeways there.

From what I have seen from the pics, news reports, and this, I would say things are definitely bad.

The bill to pay the damages done will be big.  ( Frickin' huge )

Weather dot gov

Monday, August 28, 2017

Obligatory, 8.28.17


Looking up the term "outrage porn".   Could it be that too many people are getting addicted to the need for this kind of stimulation, and are seeking out websites that cater to it?

All I am saying is "give peace a chance".  Lol.

Yes, the outrage machine is a money machine.  It is like porn, alright.  Maybe it gives people a sense of usefulness and power.

But it is dangerous.  You can talk yourself into a bigger problem than what actually exists.  I have done it before.  Consequently, I am sure that this is not necessary, and it surely isn't helpful.

the original post follows:

The media is one non-stop hype machine.

Perhaps this is so because that is what gets the eyeballs.  What gets the eyeballs gets the money.

No need to pick a topic as an example.  It is a principle.  So it applies across the board.

Trouble is, people make a lot of decisions based up the hype.  Better decisions could be made if the hype was toned down.

So, here's to hype.  I include a video of the two guys hunting for a shark in the movie Jaws.  They're having a "drink to their legs".

Sunday, August 27, 2017

The Post-Charlottesville Nervous Breakdown Was Deliberately Induced

The Post-Charlottesville Nervous Breakdown Was Deliberately Induced: After Charlottesville Americans are being manipulated with the ultimate purpose the repeal of the First Amendment and erasure of national memory.


A must read.  Check it out.

More here.

The pardon of Joe Arpaio

Much cussed and discussed topic of the day, it seems.  I  noted how it kept being mentioned that he was "convicted".  Upon closer examination, I found that he was "convicted" without a jury trial.

Not that the judge lacks power to put someone in jail for contempt.  However, a person has a right to a trial by jury.  Or, if someone is going to refer to it as a conviction, it should be noted that Arpaio didn't receive a jury trial.

If the phrase of  "rule of law" is going to be used, then at least let it be according to our Constitution.

A POTUS has the power under the Constitution to grant pardons.  A judge can slap a contempt charge on somebody.  But please don't use "conviction" and "rule of law" for what is an opinion of a single judge.

Even if the Supreme Court says he  is in contempt, he still has a right to a trial by jury.  And the POTUS can pardon him if he wishes.  The law says so.  Don't give me this "rule of law" bravo sierra, which claims he cannot.