Why the GOP loses

Senate unanimously passes resolution declaring that the media is not the enemy of the people.

Yet, there have been polls that contradict them.  A majority of Republicans in polls say that the media is an enemy.  Whose enemy?  It ought to be clear that the media is at least not a friend to the GOP.  Otherwise, why have so many claimed media bias?  Complaints about media bias has made the Rush Limbaugh show.  Why would anybody bother to listen to Limbaugh, or talk radio, if they felt that there was no media bias?  If somebody is biased against you, then how can they be your friend?

Perhaps these Senators objected to the phrasing.  If Trump had said enemies of the GOP, would they have passed this resolution?

Such a resolution doesn't help their chances in November.  The failure to recognize a long standing complaint of the GOP is not something that would endear them to the voters.  It is almost as if they would prefer to lose the Congress than to support Trump.

If the GOP loses Congress, this is one of the reasons why.

Off grid post 8.17.18

It is still on, yet I have some doubts.  Let's face it.  I have always had doubts
about this since the beginning.  Interestingly enough, the longer I work on this,
the more confident I get.

But it is not there yet.  Of course, there is the health issue overhanging the
entire project.  As long as nothing else happens, I might make it yet.

Some time back, I wrote that the project is more or less an insurance policy for
the unexpected in my current arrangement.  If something goes horribly wrong, then
there is somewhere I can go.  This is probably the most sensible thing that can
be said about this now.  If it's not a good situation that I am in, then this can
be better than living under a bridge.

That said, I continue to do little things to prepare for that day, if it comes.

Today, I am practicing water recycling.  This has yet to be mastered, and has
come front row and center since I got the evaporative cooler.  Since the cooler
uses so much water, it has thrown my plans in something of a state of uncertainty.

Sure, I can live on five gallons of water or less.  But if this thing gulps down
several gallons a day, and well, that can be a problem.

So now I want to get serious about this project.  With that in mind, I did a little
online shopping and bought something.  It is a squeeze ball thingie, that will
suck the water off the top of some water that I want to skim off.  You see, I
keep the water in the sink.  It drains into a basin, which I collect, and then
use this water for flushing.  Instead of using so much water for flushing, I might
be able to recover some of that water used now for washing my hands.

I use Ivory soap bars for this task, and this stuff collects at the bottom of the
basin.  The top part of the water is fairly clear.  So, the idea here is to
recover that water, and see if I can recycle it.  It needs to be treated quite
extensively, because it is still gunky water.

I have done a lot of filtering, and this hasn't satisfied me yet.  But it doesn't
have to be perfect water.  It can be good enough to use as input water to a
solar distiller.

In addition to the ball, I shopped for some clear material that can be used to
make a solar still.  I found some that is like plexiglass, but fairly thin.  This
can fit over the top of a box that I have been thinking of making for quite some
time now.  The cost is about 10 bucks a sheet.  It comes in two sheets plus
8 bucks for shipping.  For 28 bucks and the cost of the other materials, I
can make two of these 3x2 foot distillers.  That is 12 square feet total. 

Based upon my experiments with the washtub, it may be capable of producing a
gallon and a half per day.  But that has not been confirmed.  It may not distill
as fast as it can evaporate, though.

Seems like I made a drawing of the device.  As usual, I have changed my plans a
bit.  Instead of making an angle, I may just make a square box.  That is so that
I won't have to do a lot of fancy cutting.  It should fit together pretty square,
unless I find a way to mess it up.  Cross my fingers on that one.  The box will
have to be raised a bit so that gravity will force the water droplets to drain
to the bottom and out.

Easier to do it that way than to do a lot of fancy cutting.

Where to put it?  It may make some good shade for the bedroom area.  Two of them
lined up end to end would make it six feet across.  This will accomodate the
solar panel as well, as it would only cover about the same amount of space.

The bedroom area to be shaded is about 32 sq ft, so this is about half of that.

One thought is that this is getting late in the summer, and it may be too late
in the season to be working on this project.  I may want to shelve this plan for
next year.

Yes, the timetable continues to move out.  I was thinking maybe the spring of
2019, but now it is no earlier than the fall of 2019.  Yeah, and maybe not
then either.  I can put off this project until next summer, then.

So it goes.

Manafort Trial

Updated,

8.17.18 @ 9:28 am:

Manafort jury asks judge to define reasonable doubt.  You can read up on the latter part of the trial, and perhaps much more at Techno Fog.

The reason reasonable doubt may come into play is based a bit on what I saw on Techno Fog.  Manafort might be innocent.  This could be a railroad job.

Originally posted 8.8.18 @ 9 am:

It was a circuitous route, but I found how to get some news about the Manafort Trial.  First from Instapundit, a link to a pj media site ( liz shield ), who mentions a twitter site (techno fog ) ,where a running commentary is tweeted.

Whew!

A short view of that shows that  Gates' credibility is taking a beating.  Gates is the star witness against Manafort.

But it is a jury, and this jury is from Alexandria Virginia, which is close to DC.  A tough sell for Manafort, in my opinion.

A further reading shows that Gates embezzled money from Manafort.  Question:  Is this why Gates is testifying against Manafort?  In order to get immunity for this?

The criminal justice system needs a bit of a overhaul, in my opinion.  An unscrupulous prosecutor can get a witness to say anything he wants simply by granting immunity.  Something wrong here, ya'll.

Another observation is how Judge Ellis keeps after the prosecution.  Ellis doesn't like these guys.

Well, Manafort is lucky that he has Ellis as a judge.  A different judge could let the prosecution run wild.

That's all for now.

Why Romney, Rubio lost their bid to become POTUS

That must be true if this is true:

....with respect to Charlottesville,  Trump said : "  I think there's blame on both sides.  "         

 ... and Romney?  "No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes."

... and Rubio?   "Very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #whitesupremacists".


All Trump is saying is what should be obvious--- that this so-called "Antifa" isn't on the up and up.

Why is it so hard for certain Republicans to see this?

It isn't hard for me to see why Trump won.  He is the only one running on the GOP side in 2016 who could have won.

The GOP found a winner, and promptly helped the Democrats try to run him out of office.

Obligatory, 8.16.18, What makes a liberal tick?

It may be futile to mention, but what is it that makes them liberals tick?  Liberals say
they want equality, don't they?  But how do you achieve that?  Equality comes at some
price, but what is that price, and are you willing to pay for it?

You will have to have quotas for everything.  So many of this and so many of that.  Thus,
quotas will have to exist, to some degree, and will be independent of merit.  That is to say, if there aren't enough of this, and too many of that kind are around, then that kind
cannot be included.  That's because there's not enough of "this" kind that would
make things equal, and "fair".  So, somebody is going to be excluded, and it might well
be somebody better qualified.  By the same token, somebody who is unqualified gets
to be included.  The price you pay, therefore, is merit.  Merit is going to have
to sacrificed on the altar of equality.

Liberals don't like white folks, either.  Remember that Michael Moore said that when white people are no longer a majority in this country, the country will be better.  Maybe,
maybe not.  For Moore, it is the white folks who make things not as good as they
should be.  What if that is wrong?  But then again, it may depend on what you want.  Maybe Moore wants the colored people to rule.  How's that working in South Africa?  How's that working in Haiti?

If you think that industry is harming the planet, and the white folks are responsible
for that, then once the white folks are in the minority, industry goes away.  Perhaps
that is what the liberals think.  White folks are ultimately responsible for the
believed lack of environmental quality.  That is but one thing that white folks are said
to be to blame for, but there are many others in the liberal catechism.

But what if that is wrong too?  What if the colored folks create a world that is
less environmentally friendly than when the white folks ran things?

In the end, liberals aren't necessarily concerned about what is right.  It may
not matter to them that their policy prescriptions lead to bad outcomes.  What
may matter more to them is their feelings about themselves.  As long as a thing
makes them feel good about themselves, then it is okay.  Never mind where that
actually leads.

Racism and all the "isms" that they love to accuse "whitey" of, is but one facet of the
equality theme.  Everybody must be equal, and if you object for any reason, then
you must be guilty of an "ism" of some kind.

So what makes a liberal tick?  They love their "isms".  But they don't love what
is right.  They believe that they are better than the rednecks.  But the wrong may not
be so bad to them, as long as they feel good about themselves.  That's what matters
the most.  It would be better to Moore if the country dies than to have to feel
bad about himself if he had to admit that he was wrong about what he believes.

How can Moore be right about socialism and race?  The record does not show that he
is.  Socialism is a failure in all colors.

Minnesota is a swing state?

Something must be changing in Minnesota in order for it to be called that.

However, upon closer inspection, Minnesota is going to be the same old same old.

You cannot expect much from Minnesota.  For some strange reason, these people vote Democrat.  It isn't a colored people state, either.  There are more white folks there on percentage than just about any other state.  But they vote Democrat.  Go figure.  I can't, that's for sure.  If there is any party in the history of this country that is anti-white, it is the current day Democrats.

Lessons From Minnesota's Primaries https://t.co/7oaN5TZaFe via @powerlineUS

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 15, 2018

Labels can be useful, but on the other hand...

The subject came up earlier today of certain personalities, such as Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro.  Before it was said and done, I was reading about the so-called "alt-right".

My opinion of the "alt-right" was that it was a label meant to harm anybody who thought a certain way.  It turns out that certain parts of the what the self-described "alt-right" believe, are things that I would consider to be sensible.

For example, from the ubiquitous Wikipedia, I quote:

The 'alt-right' or 'alternative right' is a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States... [ beliefs section ]

Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.  But then it goes on and says a number of other things which I don't agree with.

Generally speaking, I am not a "joiner".  I don't associate with many groups.  Maybe none at all, to be frank.  To lumped together with people who embrace Nazism and Fascism, well, that just isn't my way of thinking.  I am anti-ideological.  It was I who said on this blog that "ideology can make you stupid".

There's nothing wrong with protecting white culture in my opinion.  In fact, it is quite necessary, as there are those who seem bound and determined to destroy it.  But that doesn't make one a "white nationalist" or a "white supremacist".  Those labels only belong to those who openly join this group, and those people are unusual to say the least.

As a matter of fact, I have always had a problem with those who call themselves conservatives, and also call themselves "on the right".  But this seems to go over people's heads, as they look at the other things, and conclude you must agree with these other things.

As I continue to read about it on the Wiki, I can see why the left reacts so hysterically.  A lot of stuff gets "lumped in", that doesn't belong.  Perhaps they are all of the mind that there is this grand conspiracy of white supremacists who want to bring back Jim Crow or even slavery.  This is just paranoia.  I'm sure that there are more than a few wackos in this movement, but that doesn't mean that everybody who wants to "make America great again" has to be one of those people.

I've linked to Pat Buchanan's stuff, too.  But I don't agree with Buchanan all of the time.  I even wrote a negative review of one of his books.

People get hyper over the smallest details.  There is no conformity of thought in any of this.  The article shows that.  The alt-right is a myth that is being promoted for whatever reason and to whatever end.  But those promoting it may have little to do with what is supposed to be about, which isn't even clear.  There isn't any such animal as "alt-right", except for perhaps those who wish to call themselves that.

He's a good boy!

Peter Strzok was fired today.  Awwwww.

Pictures of this guy tend to be of the bizzarro ilk, that it reminded me of something.

There was this scene from Young Frankenstein, where the Doctor goes into the cell in order to make the monster feel loved.  Here it is:





Strzok is getting a lot of love from the media after this.  Maybe he could learn to do a song and dance.





But don't make him mad.  Anything could happen then!

Dick Morris: Republicans Will Probably Keep Control Of The House

Dickie Boy said it, so it must be true.

They don't deserve to win, though.

Republicans Will Probably Keep Control Of The House https://t.co/6kajgZ9n44

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 13, 2018

Handling ANEL Disease - by Robert Ringer

Handling ANEL Disease - by Robert Ringer: I was talking to my friend Bill a few weeks ago, and in the course of our conversation he happened to mention something about the business troubles Dexter Windbag (pseudonym) had encountered in recent years.  I had no idea the guy was still alive, and had no interest in hearing about his troubles. Nevertheless, my …





comment:



ANEL is an acronym.  For a discussion of the meaning, go to the link provided.

Actionable?

If the media is engaging in malicious acts, their immunity from lawsuits goes away, does it not?

Consider this quote:

We’re talking about thousands of hours of media TV pundits, thousands more columns written, and almost every scintilla of it based on originating intelligence sources -from the larger intelligence system- that are now being exposed as duplicitous and conspiratorial in the scale of their malicious intent. ( emphasis added )

If you can prove this, then this opens them up to lawsuits, if I am not mistaken.  But the proof is in the story linked below.  In other words, the media's goose should be cooked. 

The Media Are Hiding Their Knowledge and Duplicity - Buzzfeed, WaPo and New York Times Had Unredacted FISA Application For Over A Year... https://t.co/rAwPPR5hiV via @thelastrefuge2

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 13, 2018

Tesla

Musk has said something to the effect that he wants to go private.  What does it mean?

There is more to this story than this post, and Coyote Blog has some more.

After reading from the link above, the idea of Musk being sent to jail does not seem to me to be in the public interest.  However, there are those who may feel differently.

Tesla could go belly up, and that wouldn't hurt the country.  It would hurt a lot of share holders, and maybe it might hurt Musk's feelings, but that's life.  But Musk being sent to prison for an ill considered remark is a whole 'nother story.  It could be better for Musk and the country if he suffers an indignity such as a bankrupt enterprise, than to be sent to jail.  Just my opinion.

What's Going On At Tesla https://t.co/KAhp4PKJvx

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 12, 2018

Electoral college v. popular vote

What is going on with these presidential elections in the last 30 years?   I spent some time researching it a bit, and offer some thoughts upon what has been happening.  My conclusion is that issues matter more than mass movements because of the electoral college.

Elections since 1988

Year:  Remarks
1988: Reagan's third term, Bush wins 40 states.  In 1984, Reagan wins all states except Minnesota, which is a Great lake state.
1992: Bush defeated, Perot plus Bush vote would have won.  Great lake states desert GOP.  Mass of voters DID NOT vote for Bill Clinton, but it did not matter in the electoral college, where it matters.
1996: Clinton hangs on, again Perot vote could have won for Dole
2000: Bush wins electoral vote, loses popular vote.  Dems hold Great lake states.
2004: Bush hangs on, 9-11 issue weighs.  Bush's popularity was still high at this time.
2008: Obama wins as first black president, huge spike in votes cast.  Mass voter appeal appears.
2012: Obama wins again easily, by a smaller margin however
2016: Trump wins, but loses popular vote.  Hillary gets as many votes as Obama, but loses Great lake states.  Mass voter appeal loses to electoral college.

Impression is that the map doesn't change easily.  Patterns stick, but then change suddenly for some reason.  What was the reason in 1992?  What was the change in 2000?  Finally, what was the change in 2016?

The reason in 1992 may have been issues.  A slow economy and large budget deficit played to Perot.  Perot also talked about trade issues, but the trade deficit wasn't all that big in 1992.  War in Iraq may have played a role.  The slow economy may have lost the Great lake states to the Democrats.

 In 2000, Bush won back a lot of voters for the GOP.  Was it because of impeachment?  He didn't win the popular vote, however.  Note that the Great Lakes remain Democrat territory.

In 2016, Trump wins a few more votes than Romney, Clinton holds the Dem votes, but somehow loses anyway.  This is where the electoral college comes into play.  The Great Lakes desert  the Dems for the first time in nearly 28 years.  Even Minnesota is competitive.

In summary, Trump wins because he gets the electoral vote, which is what matters legally.  Hillary plays the mass voters angle, but it is a loser in the electoral college.  She got as many votes as Obama did four years earlier.  Something changed.

After losing twice this way in the last five elections, the Democrats are making an issue out of the Constitution itself.   Plus, there these allegations about Russian interference.  But how does alleged Russian interference figure into Hillary losing in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania?  Playing up to a bogey man may harvest a lot of votes, but it doesn't change the issues.  It doesn't win the states that push the electoral vote to a majority.

Trump made an economic pitch that may have worked in these states.  His policies as president may be solidifying his support thus far gained, and so the Democrats may have a problem winning back these states.  A bogey man strategy doesn't change the fact that a lot of these people must have been dissatisfied with the status quo.  The status quo is a loser for the Dems.

The 2016 election may have been like the 1992 election on the basis of issues mattering in the outcome.  In 1992, Clinton didn't get the most votes, but he got them where they mattered.  Same for Trump in 2016.  The mass of voters didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 1992, nor Trump in 2016.  It didn't matter.

The Russian controversy isn't likely to change the issues any.  Democrats are trying to win with that controversy, but it didn't win for them in 2016, so why would it win in 2020?