It is now the end of the week. Sunday begins the new week. Or so it appears on the lists of posts on this here blog.
This past week, I got a follow up MRI in Irving. These things are a bit expensive, but I wanted the people who treated me to do them as opposed to doing it closer to home.
I asked the doc how long will I have to follow this schedule. He said for another two years. Gulp. That's eight more MRI's coming up. They won't end after that. It will only be two a year after that.
Yes, I will be doing MRI's for now on. Not that these are a big deal, but it does cost me money to go up there and come back.
I've got that to think about. At least things appear to be getting better. So much for that topic...
Today, I did not work. Normally I will work on a Saturday. It seems my condition is aggravated if I travel a lot, so I decided to dial it down a bit.
Instead of working, I put this swamp cooler to work. One thing that it isn't is an air conditioner. It seems like I could use a bit more in terms of improvements in order to make this idea work as anticipated.
It uses a lot of water. It uses less electricity than the a/c, but more than I would like, since I am using so many fans to help with ventilation.
One idea to help the swamp cooler is to scrounge some wood from last year's project, and use it to make an overhang for the west side. The swamp cooler faces the sun, and no doubt that this makes its job a bit harder. Still thinking it through...
It isn't all politics around here... Trying to do some real stuff, but that take dough. Since I spent so much and made nothing, that could be a problem...
That is all for now... Onward through the fog or whatever...
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, June 23, 2018
Did George Will call President George Herbert Walker Bush "feckless"?
Anybody out there remember that far back? I'm not sure myself, but I know somebody called Bush that, as I wasn't familiar with the word. I looked up its meaning back then.
It seems to be word that isn't used much. So a person might not know what it means. Even somebody well educated. Okay, maybe not everyone would think I am well educated, but I am not that dumb. The word "feckless" just isn't used much, but seems to me it was used even less before it was brought into use about that time.
If George Will really did call Papa Bush that, then what does that make him? They seem to like Democrats so much, but they don't want to be called Democrats. They want to be called "conservative". But it might take a bit of effort to be a conservative. It might take more than wearing bow ties.
He calls other GOP'ers who support Trump as his "poodles". Well, what about George Will himself? He seems to like to hang around liberals, so maybe he's a liberal's poodle. They write his paycheck, do they not?
Guys like Will are a lot like McCain, who seems to be very interested in getting approval from the left. They tend to forget who put them where they are. It wasn't anybody on the left, that's for sure.
A good definition for feckless,by the way, is "weak". I'd say George Will is a bit feckless at this point. How about standing tall against liberalism, Georgie Boy? Are they that big a threat to you? He thinks being brave is fighting against your own. How about protecting your own, if that is who you identify with?
But that might take some guts.
It seems to be word that isn't used much. So a person might not know what it means. Even somebody well educated. Okay, maybe not everyone would think I am well educated, but I am not that dumb. The word "feckless" just isn't used much, but seems to me it was used even less before it was brought into use about that time.
If George Will really did call Papa Bush that, then what does that make him? They seem to like Democrats so much, but they don't want to be called Democrats. They want to be called "conservative". But it might take a bit of effort to be a conservative. It might take more than wearing bow ties.
He calls other GOP'ers who support Trump as his "poodles". Well, what about George Will himself? He seems to like to hang around liberals, so maybe he's a liberal's poodle. They write his paycheck, do they not?
Guys like Will are a lot like McCain, who seems to be very interested in getting approval from the left. They tend to forget who put them where they are. It wasn't anybody on the left, that's for sure.
A good definition for feckless,by the way, is "weak". I'd say George Will is a bit feckless at this point. How about standing tall against liberalism, Georgie Boy? Are they that big a threat to you? He thinks being brave is fighting against your own. How about protecting your own, if that is who you identify with?
But that might take some guts.
The Fly in the Ointment
Robert Ringer is out there practically guaranteeing a GOP victory this fall.
He does seem to realize that there is a significant faction of GOP types who want to join with the Dems.
This is the fly in the ointment. If as many as the polls seem to indicate join with the Dems, then the GOP's prospects for holding on to power is much imperiled.
The only thing nuttier than the Democrats are these RINOS.
Indeed. The thing that drives the liberals even nuttier is these RINO enablers. If the GOP got its act together, sanity would prevail, and the left would have to shape up or be shipped out.
This election is vitally important. If the Dems win, there will be kangaroo court justice as the standard in the entire United States, instead of liberal bastions like DC and "Collyfornia".
We don't need RINO types enabling this madness. George Will is no conservative. No conservative can support a lawless faction like the Democrats. Voting for them is voting for the dissolution of the United States, plain and simple.
He does seem to realize that there is a significant faction of GOP types who want to join with the Dems.
This is the fly in the ointment. If as many as the polls seem to indicate join with the Dems, then the GOP's prospects for holding on to power is much imperiled.
The only thing nuttier than the Democrats are these RINOS.
Indeed. The thing that drives the liberals even nuttier is these RINO enablers. If the GOP got its act together, sanity would prevail, and the left would have to shape up or be shipped out.
This election is vitally important. If the Dems win, there will be kangaroo court justice as the standard in the entire United States, instead of liberal bastions like DC and "Collyfornia".
We don't need RINO types enabling this madness. George Will is no conservative. No conservative can support a lawless faction like the Democrats. Voting for them is voting for the dissolution of the United States, plain and simple.
A way forward on immigration
Australia seems to have a good approach to dealing with immigration. It should be considered here.
Let’s stop managing this invasion and start blocking it https://t.co/ubCrm9se2w via @RMConservative— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 22, 2018
Wind energy is overrated
American Thinker
comment:
Two things here. One is the claim here that wind energy is a net negative in terms of energy production. I cannot evaluate that claim.
But it cannot be denied that the use of an intermittent source of energy to plug into the grid is a bad idea. Wind energy should be used to make chemical energy, which would not be intermittent. Consequently, it would make a positive contribution to the energy mix.
If this guy is right, plugging the wind energy into the grid is truly counterproductive.
comment:
Two things here. One is the claim here that wind energy is a net negative in terms of energy production. I cannot evaluate that claim.
But it cannot be denied that the use of an intermittent source of energy to plug into the grid is a bad idea. Wind energy should be used to make chemical energy, which would not be intermittent. Consequently, it would make a positive contribution to the energy mix.
If this guy is right, plugging the wind energy into the grid is truly counterproductive.
Friday, June 22, 2018
Freedom of speech not absolute
The recent harassment of a Trump official has led to some saying that it is a Freedom of speech issue.
However, in the past, there have been some cases which may throw doubt upon that claim in this instance.
There is the Schenck case, in which the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect all speech in all cases. For example, it was written in the opinion that...
Recent cases may have amended that somewhat, but there are still limits as to what you can say as protected speech. Indeed, the whole point is that your rights end where it may impede other's rights.
For example, could this be an example of hate speech? Does harassment of an administration official cross the line when the official is off duty and trying to peaceably enjoy dinner? The individual identified as a DOJ paralegal claimed that she had a right to deny this person of her right to peace. She clearly wants to incite others to do the same as what she did. Doesn't such incitement cross the line somewhere? Doesn't this administration officer have any rights that these people are bound to respect?
"Fighting words" are not protected speech. Calling people names may be considered fighting words. Certainly it would seem so, if you call someone a "fascist", it may be enough to cause a fist fight, or maybe a riot. This situation was not just one person calling another a fascist, but an entire group doing so. What happens if another group is nearby, and objects to this characterization?
Does an employer have a right to limit speech? Here are some cases involving that. A fair opinion is that a DOJ is not supposed to be getting involved in politics. The reasoning behind that could be that nobody should want kangaroo court justice in this country. This recent situation certainly appears that way, as Trump's official is getting harassed just for being someone that this group doesn't agree with politically. Justice is supposed to be blind, therefore DOJ officials need to maintain a decorum of respect for opposition members.
Enough paper chase for now. The media will cry first amendment, but don't be so cowed by that. They aren't.
However, in the past, there have been some cases which may throw doubt upon that claim in this instance.
There is the Schenck case, in which the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect all speech in all cases. For example, it was written in the opinion that...
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Recent cases may have amended that somewhat, but there are still limits as to what you can say as protected speech. Indeed, the whole point is that your rights end where it may impede other's rights.
For example, could this be an example of hate speech? Does harassment of an administration official cross the line when the official is off duty and trying to peaceably enjoy dinner? The individual identified as a DOJ paralegal claimed that she had a right to deny this person of her right to peace. She clearly wants to incite others to do the same as what she did. Doesn't such incitement cross the line somewhere? Doesn't this administration officer have any rights that these people are bound to respect?
"Fighting words" are not protected speech. Calling people names may be considered fighting words. Certainly it would seem so, if you call someone a "fascist", it may be enough to cause a fist fight, or maybe a riot. This situation was not just one person calling another a fascist, but an entire group doing so. What happens if another group is nearby, and objects to this characterization?
Does an employer have a right to limit speech? Here are some cases involving that. A fair opinion is that a DOJ is not supposed to be getting involved in politics. The reasoning behind that could be that nobody should want kangaroo court justice in this country. This recent situation certainly appears that way, as Trump's official is getting harassed just for being someone that this group doesn't agree with politically. Justice is supposed to be blind, therefore DOJ officials need to maintain a decorum of respect for opposition members.
Enough paper chase for now. The media will cry first amendment, but don't be so cowed by that. They aren't.
"Clockwork Orange" --- The Cure
Update:
6.22.18:
We are like the young Alex character in the video below. We are a captive audience of the message that they are trying to imprint upon our minds. We are to be controlled according to their will.
But is their control over our minds as iron clad as it is being presented in the video below?
I suspect the reason the mind control works in this society is that people are too lazy to think and act for themselves.
We cannot be bound down the way young Alex here. We are free to choose. We have not reached the extreme conditioning that this movie shows. Don't be surprised if the pressure to conform gets greater and greater over time. Their urge to control is all encompassing.
Originally posted yesterday, 6.21.18, the original post follows:
This movie's premise is that man doesn't have a free will. You can be programmed to be whatever the controllers want you to be. It can even be against your own will.
Now, I wouldn't go that far, but it is a point of view.
As I wrote before, it is not beyond these people to try to control others even to the extreme that this movie presents. If it is not so, then why do they do it?
6.22.18:
We are like the young Alex character in the video below. We are a captive audience of the message that they are trying to imprint upon our minds. We are to be controlled according to their will.
But is their control over our minds as iron clad as it is being presented in the video below?
I suspect the reason the mind control works in this society is that people are too lazy to think and act for themselves.
We cannot be bound down the way young Alex here. We are free to choose. We have not reached the extreme conditioning that this movie shows. Don't be surprised if the pressure to conform gets greater and greater over time. Their urge to control is all encompassing.
Originally posted yesterday, 6.21.18, the original post follows:
This movie's premise is that man doesn't have a free will. You can be programmed to be whatever the controllers want you to be. It can even be against your own will.
Now, I wouldn't go that far, but it is a point of view.
As I wrote before, it is not beyond these people to try to control others even to the extreme that this movie presents. If it is not so, then why do they do it?
Has the West the Will to Survive?
Has the West the Will to Survive?: By Patrick J. Buchanan
"If you're ... pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you're strong, then you don't have any heart, that's a tough dilemma. ... I'd rather be strong."
So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump's enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.
Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. Read more on Buchanan.Org...
comment:
The answer to his question appears like a shaky "yes" at best.
"If you're ... pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you're strong, then you don't have any heart, that's a tough dilemma. ... I'd rather be strong."
So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump's enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.
Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. Read more on Buchanan.Org...
comment:
The answer to his question appears like a shaky "yes" at best.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
A Constitutional Convention Is Really Necessary Now
The main argument against a Convention of States is the possibility of a runaway convention. But should we fear that more than what we already have?
What we have now is a runaway government.
Consider what happened recently, when the DHS Secretary was eating at a restaurant, when a mob descended upon her, and ran her out of the establishment.
In Washington DC, this could happen. Why? There is an effective one party state in DC now. If anybody runs afoul of this party, who could do anything about it? They could do just about anything and get away with it. This can happen because of the one party jurisdiction that is DC can pretty much stop anything and anybody from doing anything about it.
Therefore, the DC police will do nothing. None of the patrons will do anything. Nor will the restaurant's owners. If they tried, they would run up against the party establishment, who will punish them for their disobedience. Nor could the President do anything about it. The existing power structure is opposed to him, and probably approve of what was done.
In effect, what these people are attempting is a one party dictatorship emanating from Washington DC. But there is a remedy for this. If the fifty states do not wish to be lorded over by these people, they can organize a convention, and just run them out of power.
These people have organized a coup against a lawfully elected President. It doesn't look like he can do anything about it because of all the government machinery that already exists, and they are working feverishly to force him out of office on the pretext of a pretended offense.
That is the significance of this event, and of the Mueller probe. It is basically the same thing. It is the powers that be in that city that will not abide an opposition party in their own city. Well, it should be pointed out to them who the boss is, and it isn't THEM.
They will be boss if the people do not rise up and throw off their high handed tyranny, and restore the Republic to its rightful place as the legal authority of this nation.
Washington DC is out of control. A convention of states is necessary in order to reign them in.
It is obvious that they will not police themselves.
What we have now is a runaway government.
Consider what happened recently, when the DHS Secretary was eating at a restaurant, when a mob descended upon her, and ran her out of the establishment.
In Washington DC, this could happen. Why? There is an effective one party state in DC now. If anybody runs afoul of this party, who could do anything about it? They could do just about anything and get away with it. This can happen because of the one party jurisdiction that is DC can pretty much stop anything and anybody from doing anything about it.
Therefore, the DC police will do nothing. None of the patrons will do anything. Nor will the restaurant's owners. If they tried, they would run up against the party establishment, who will punish them for their disobedience. Nor could the President do anything about it. The existing power structure is opposed to him, and probably approve of what was done.
In effect, what these people are attempting is a one party dictatorship emanating from Washington DC. But there is a remedy for this. If the fifty states do not wish to be lorded over by these people, they can organize a convention, and just run them out of power.
These people have organized a coup against a lawfully elected President. It doesn't look like he can do anything about it because of all the government machinery that already exists, and they are working feverishly to force him out of office on the pretext of a pretended offense.
That is the significance of this event, and of the Mueller probe. It is basically the same thing. It is the powers that be in that city that will not abide an opposition party in their own city. Well, it should be pointed out to them who the boss is, and it isn't THEM.
They will be boss if the people do not rise up and throw off their high handed tyranny, and restore the Republic to its rightful place as the legal authority of this nation.
Washington DC is out of control. A convention of states is necessary in order to reign them in.
It is obvious that they will not police themselves.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Stanford Prison Experiment
It is something of a landmark study that is now being questioned.
This news provoked a thought just now... Are humans really capable of being free? Is there such a thing as free will?
I know that is a provocative thought....
But if human beings can be mind controlled, as I think many are, then how is it that men can be free?
Even if you doubt that people are mind controlled, you cannot doubt that there is a relentless push to control people through controlling what they see, hear, and say.
Free will can exist to a certain extent in a free society, maybe...
This news provoked a thought just now... Are humans really capable of being free? Is there such a thing as free will?
I know that is a provocative thought....
But if human beings can be mind controlled, as I think many are, then how is it that men can be free?
Even if you doubt that people are mind controlled, you cannot doubt that there is a relentless push to control people through controlling what they see, hear, and say.
Free will can exist to a certain extent in a free society, maybe...
Rich Little does impersonations of historical figures
This is a bit old, but what the heck. It is historical.
About bias in criminal proceedings
How many times have you heard about removing bias when seating juries? The thing you hear is that juries are selected after filling out long questionaires, which are created in order to weed out any potential juror who may be biased.
As far as I know, no such means exist to weed out biased investigators.
Therefore, let's say you have a jurisdiction, such as Washington DC, which voted 96% for Hillary, who are to investigate Hillary Clinton. How can they not be biased?
Also, if only 4% voted for Trump, then how can they possibly be fair to Trump?
I'd say that this is a real problem. If you have a completely biased jurisdiction, you should be able to do something about that.
Trump's legal team can demand a change of venue.
What would the Dems say if Hillary's case were to be transferred from DC to a state very hostile to her?
You know what they would say.
As far as I know, no such means exist to weed out biased investigators.
Therefore, let's say you have a jurisdiction, such as Washington DC, which voted 96% for Hillary, who are to investigate Hillary Clinton. How can they not be biased?
Also, if only 4% voted for Trump, then how can they possibly be fair to Trump?
I'd say that this is a real problem. If you have a completely biased jurisdiction, you should be able to do something about that.
Trump's legal team can demand a change of venue.
What would the Dems say if Hillary's case were to be transferred from DC to a state very hostile to her?
You know what they would say.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Are these questions relevant?
Watching CSPAN here in Irving, which is about the IG report.
What strikes me is how much they are talking about "bias".
It seems to me that bias is natural. Everybody has a point of view, and that point view is going to "bias" them in some way.
What is important here is not the "bias", but whether or not they are in accordance with the law. The law is supposed to be impartial, but this cannot possibly be impartial. Each side here has a stake in the outcome of this investigation.
So, the question of bias is irrelevant, it seems to me.
With respect to the email investigation, the question is whether or not Hillary broke the law. I find that to be a matter of certainty. She certainly did. Of course, "bias" could determine whether or not she would be charged with a crime. If that is what this questioning is trying to determine, then it is indeed relevant. But it is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
It strikes me as rather odd that the Democrats are trying to get people to believe these investigators were impartial to Hillary and Trump. There is way, way too much evidence already out there to show that they indeed favored Hillary over Trump. How is there a doubt about that?
Here is the difference: Hillary's emails are a matter of record. But after all this time, they cannot find a single law that was violated by Trump. This, despite the fact that no investigation is warranted until an actual law is violated first. For example, you don't do a murder investigation when the person is supposedly murdered is very much alive. They are looking for a possible violation in terms of Trump, but nobody doubts that classified information was found on Hillary's unauthorized email account.
If bias is the issue, then how can it be doubted then that these guys were biased? The real question is whether or not a law was violated and whether or not a person is going to be held accountable to that.
In short, was a law violated, then what law? And who did it?
I can't find any law Trump violated, but Hillary certainly violated it. Now, why do the Democrats think that they can charge Trump for not violating the law, and excuse Hillary for violating it?
Bias is irrelevant. The question is whether or not there is a rule of law.
You cannot be guilty or innocent just because of your political associations.
What strikes me is how much they are talking about "bias".
It seems to me that bias is natural. Everybody has a point of view, and that point view is going to "bias" them in some way.
What is important here is not the "bias", but whether or not they are in accordance with the law. The law is supposed to be impartial, but this cannot possibly be impartial. Each side here has a stake in the outcome of this investigation.
So, the question of bias is irrelevant, it seems to me.
With respect to the email investigation, the question is whether or not Hillary broke the law. I find that to be a matter of certainty. She certainly did. Of course, "bias" could determine whether or not she would be charged with a crime. If that is what this questioning is trying to determine, then it is indeed relevant. But it is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
It strikes me as rather odd that the Democrats are trying to get people to believe these investigators were impartial to Hillary and Trump. There is way, way too much evidence already out there to show that they indeed favored Hillary over Trump. How is there a doubt about that?
Here is the difference: Hillary's emails are a matter of record. But after all this time, they cannot find a single law that was violated by Trump. This, despite the fact that no investigation is warranted until an actual law is violated first. For example, you don't do a murder investigation when the person is supposedly murdered is very much alive. They are looking for a possible violation in terms of Trump, but nobody doubts that classified information was found on Hillary's unauthorized email account.
If bias is the issue, then how can it be doubted then that these guys were biased? The real question is whether or not a law was violated and whether or not a person is going to be held accountable to that.
In short, was a law violated, then what law? And who did it?
I can't find any law Trump violated, but Hillary certainly violated it. Now, why do the Democrats think that they can charge Trump for not violating the law, and excuse Hillary for violating it?
Bias is irrelevant. The question is whether or not there is a rule of law.
You cannot be guilty or innocent just because of your political associations.
When you see a dumpster fire...
Jump right on in!
But I'll pass... I'm too skeered.
Speaking of dumpster fires https://t.co/hbXceLkHMq via @powerlineUS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 19, 2018
But I'll pass... I'm too skeered.
Monday, June 18, 2018
Immigration
Democrats want the votes, some pubbies want the cheap labor. Can a deal be reached? Only if enough pubbies cave. If Trump caves, he will have a bigger problem than Russian collusion ever thought about being.
Morris says it is about citizenship. That's so that they can vote. The conservatives don't want the citizenship, but they can work here.
Dick Morris on Immigration and "Dreamers";: It's All About Citizenship https://t.co/i0y62k09C3— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 18, 2018
Could there be another explanation?
One should always ask that question because it is very, very easy to jump to conclusions. As I like to say, "the truth is a slippery thing".
Lot of people can say that they support the truth, but it is really easy to go wrong, and be wrong. Just saying...
Jumping to conclusions is not scientific, don't you know.
Lot of people can say that they support the truth, but it is really easy to go wrong, and be wrong. Just saying...
Jumping to conclusions is not scientific, don't you know.
What an Engineer Finds Amazing About the Claims of Arctic and Antarctic Melting https://t.co/e3xMpzzoBb via @WattsUpWithThat— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 18, 2018
"Great Political Theater"
That title up there is a quote from the article. Anyway, I am dying to know how to say his name.
Strzok Speaks https://t.co/C6IoKgYQyK via @powerlineUS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 18, 2018
Sunday, June 17, 2018
ThorCon still working on Molten-salt reactor
Note:
My understanding of this is that it doesn't have to be thorium. Uranium can work just fine. As a matter of fact, this outfit was stated as explicitly as only interested in doing what could be done now, as opposed to looking for the absolute perfect solution "one of these days" in some future time.
In other words, according to this article, in five years, they could be set to ramp up to assembly line production of molten salt reactors. It would be a world changing event.
It will take five years to study and test this concept. That is where they are NOW. This doesn't have to wait for anything but the testing.
I'd say that this is a big deal. Even so, five years seems like a long time. But better than never.
My understanding of this is that it doesn't have to be thorium. Uranium can work just fine. As a matter of fact, this outfit was stated as explicitly as only interested in doing what could be done now, as opposed to looking for the absolute perfect solution "one of these days" in some future time.
In other words, according to this article, in five years, they could be set to ramp up to assembly line production of molten salt reactors. It would be a world changing event.
It will take five years to study and test this concept. That is where they are NOW. This doesn't have to wait for anything but the testing.
I'd say that this is a big deal. Even so, five years seems like a long time. But better than never.
It could have been worse
From Young Frankenstein, a scene that I like to refer to in a tough situation.
Yesterday was a pip. I just about lost it with somebody, but fortunately, I did not. Could have been worse, it could have been raining. Come to think of it, it did rain yesterday. But not at that time...
Yesterday was a pip. I just about lost it with somebody, but fortunately, I did not. Could have been worse, it could have been raining. Come to think of it, it did rain yesterday. But not at that time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)