So says this post at Insty. Two things that grabbed me: Glenn Greenwald, and Maddow saying that the Russians control our government.
Greenwald seemed pretty critical of George W. Bush, if memory serves. Somehow, I got him connected to the war in Iraq, but that war doesn't figure prominently in the Wikipedia writeup about him.
So, what to make of Greenwald? I'll wager that he is a self-serving twit, like most of the people in the media. He wants to look good, so he'll attach himself to anything that makes him look like he's hot stuff. He seems to be writing against the Russian collusion allegations, but he is no friend of Trump. He's on the side that's winning ( Trump ), but critical of him too, so he doesn't lose all that good press he gets from his buddies.
He's given a lot of hype by certain media types, and that is about all he seems to be, if you ax me.
As for Maddow, she is a joke. Anybody who says the Russians are controlling our government has got rocks in their heads. The Russians are deeply paranoid about our government. I see the Russians fighting the same things that Trump is fighting in this country today. It so happens that the main part of that is this hyper-globalist take-over the-world-attitude of the New World Order types that Maddow seems to identify with. That Trump is fighting it doesn't mean that the Russians somehow conned all those American people to vote for him so as to help Putin out. Putin and the Russians can fight their own battles, we've got ours right here.
As for Trump being controlled by the Russians, once again, if there was any evidence of this, we'd have had it before election day 2016. No way that they can keep this a secret nowadays.
If you have to cite Greenwald over the Russian collusion thing, it must mean something is missing upstairs. Criticizing Maddow is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Saturday, March 23, 2019
Friday, March 22, 2019
Mueller probe is done
Well, I sure wish that I had a million bucks for every time I said it. There wasn't any there, there. It should not have been a surprise to anyone.
But from what I have read from the reactions, the lefties are all broke up about it.
Are they crying for themselves, or what?
There is some reactions that indicate a desire for vengeance from Trump partisans. Perhaps that can wait for at least a little while. If the lefties get a bit more reasonable, some magnanimity could be offered. If it isn't accepted, then things should get ugly.
Special Counsel Official: "No Further Indictments", "No Sealed Indictments", The Mueller Probe is "Done"... https://t.co/cHxhElxDpB via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 23, 2019
I bite my thumb, sir
Perhaps light sabers would be better. That scooter is so yesterday.
Well, if you live by the bamboo, then you must die by it. Bwah, hah, hah.
The news these days has me biting my fingernails. The thumb may have to wait.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Yield curve is still inverting
Actually, at this point in time, it is nearly flat. Only at the longer maturities does the rate go up much. Even then, it isn't much.
Is it possible, with all the monetary stimulus of the last several years, that this will be an exception? That is to say, if the yield curve completely inverts, and stays that way, can a recession not be far behind?
If it is, the economy is still not very strong. Interest rates are still low, historically speaking.
The economy should be able to withstand short term rates higher than 3 percent. But the rates are not that high yet.
The longer term trend has been lower and lower interest rates. In my opinion, this may be more the result of policy than necessity. It appears to me that the slowdown is built in by the policy makers. Trump may be reversing some of that. Odd that he has so much resistance to that. In other words, economic growth may not be welcomed in policy making circles.
However, if a slowdown does occur, the blame will be directed at Trump. After all, that is how we got Obama.
Is it possible, with all the monetary stimulus of the last several years, that this will be an exception? That is to say, if the yield curve completely inverts, and stays that way, can a recession not be far behind?
If it is, the economy is still not very strong. Interest rates are still low, historically speaking.
The economy should be able to withstand short term rates higher than 3 percent. But the rates are not that high yet.
The longer term trend has been lower and lower interest rates. In my opinion, this may be more the result of policy than necessity. It appears to me that the slowdown is built in by the policy makers. Trump may be reversing some of that. Odd that he has so much resistance to that. In other words, economic growth may not be welcomed in policy making circles.
However, if a slowdown does occur, the blame will be directed at Trump. After all, that is how we got Obama.
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Focus Fusion
Two beams are produced. A positive and a negative beam. The positive beam has 2000 times more mass than the negative beam. If that is moving in one direction ( as a beam ), its usefulness as a means of propulsion should become evident.
This is one of the two main reasons why I am intrigued by this proposed means of aneutronic fusion. The other is a low cost source of energy.
If the cost of energy is low enough, it will enable a lot of things that currently are uneconomic. That is what intrigues me.
I don't buy the AGW theory. However, here's a way to deal with AGW if you do believe it. As a bonus, you can get real economic benefits.
What's not to like?
If you hold a significant investment in current means of energy production, you may not like this idea at all. Therein lies a problem. If AGW really is a problem, then we have a lot of folks who have a vested interest in not solving this theorized problem.
It makes a controversy. But an improvement in material well being should not be controversial. That is why I suggest the economic benefits of this tech.
There is an argument that to replace fossil fuels with aneutronic fusion would be harmful to the economy. No doubt that some people would be hurt. But more people would benefit. Cheaper energy benefits everyone. Expensive energy benefits the few.
This is one of the two main reasons why I am intrigued by this proposed means of aneutronic fusion. The other is a low cost source of energy.
If the cost of energy is low enough, it will enable a lot of things that currently are uneconomic. That is what intrigues me.
I don't buy the AGW theory. However, here's a way to deal with AGW if you do believe it. As a bonus, you can get real economic benefits.
What's not to like?
If you hold a significant investment in current means of energy production, you may not like this idea at all. Therein lies a problem. If AGW really is a problem, then we have a lot of folks who have a vested interest in not solving this theorized problem.
It makes a controversy. But an improvement in material well being should not be controversial. That is why I suggest the economic benefits of this tech.
There is an argument that to replace fossil fuels with aneutronic fusion would be harmful to the economy. No doubt that some people would be hurt. But more people would benefit. Cheaper energy benefits everyone. Expensive energy benefits the few.
Housekeeping the Blog
Yesterday was a bit of an unsettling day. For a long time, I believed that an electric car was feasible. Now, that belief has been shaken a bit. To be a bit more accurate, electric cars are feasible, but perhaps not economical.
The reason for this was an oversight by yours truly. I figured that ammonia was easy to make, and easy to "crack". Therefore, I didn't do my homework, and consequently, I assumed something to be true, which may not be.
As a result, I made some slight modifications to the left sidebar in order to indicate this doubt. I added a question mark to the link to a couple posts in the "Brainstorm" list of links. These links point to posts made previously with respect to a certain topic. Two of those topics apply here
The reason for this was an oversight by yours truly. I figured that ammonia was easy to make, and easy to "crack". Therefore, I didn't do my homework, and consequently, I assumed something to be true, which may not be.
As a result, I made some slight modifications to the left sidebar in order to indicate this doubt. I added a question mark to the link to a couple posts in the "Brainstorm" list of links. These links point to posts made previously with respect to a certain topic. Two of those topics apply here
- Electric cars are feasible today. and,
- Killer app for molten-salt reactors.
Frankly, the whole idea of not using carbon for energy has to be looked at. The question for me has always been whether or not burning fossil fuels was really a problem for the human race. I expressed my doubts about this. However, what if that is correct after all?
If it is correct, then we may have a real problem here after all. The thing that changed here for me was that finding that ammonia is not likely the answer. If that is the case, and if AGW is actually a valid theory, then this is going to turn out to be a major challenge. Human beings are very dependent upon carbon energy. Economic growth and stability could be on shaky ground.
Monday, March 18, 2019
A liar is confronted
Earlier in the picture, Keefer lies on the witness stand. That is why Greenwald is confronting him.
If you can't be a hero, at least don't lie about it. Keefer admits he's no hero, but he didn't tell the truth, either.
If you can't be a hero, at least don't lie about it. Keefer admits he's no hero, but he didn't tell the truth, either.
Civil War drama
At Gettysburg, a flanking maneuver threatened the Union's position. Chamberlain was at the end of the line, if his position didn't hold, the Northern Army could have been outflanked. In other words, defeat was definitely possible. To make matters worse, Chamberlain's men were out of ammo. How could they fight the imminent attack of the rebels?
Chamberlain ordered a bayonet charge. It worked. The Northern flank held, and the South was on its way to a disastrous defeat at Gettysburg. For his heroism at Little Round Top, he received the nation's highest tribute: the Medal of Honor.
Chamberlain ordered a bayonet charge. It worked. The Northern flank held, and the South was on its way to a disastrous defeat at Gettysburg. For his heroism at Little Round Top, he received the nation's highest tribute: the Medal of Honor.
New Zealand killer did White Christians no favors
This may seem over the top, but this dude is actually helping do the thing that he claimed that he was fighting.
How? Look who benefits from this. Leftwing causes are getting a propaganda boost. So called right wing ( confused with conservative ) news outlets ( Fox ) are trying to link Trump to New Zealand. Gun Control will now be pursued with extra vigor in New Zealand AND the United States. ( even though it didn't happen here )
Those who say anything against the lefties are going to be called bad names. Basically, white Christians have been targeted for extinction, and this guy helped them do it. He has swallowed down whole the leftist propaganda. He believed Trump to be racist ( but he did not support Trump policies ). He is an opponent of Trump, which makes him no different from the lefties themselves. He claims to be for Christians, but he does not follow the religion, and does something heinous in its name. If you do anything to defend Trump or Christianity, you are smeared with this attack. In other words, they have gotten these people to do self-destructive things, such as entertaining this notion that Trump is at fault, in service to a lie.
What about Eco-Fascism? Isn't that what the lefties are? His actions were done in the name of Christianity, but the Eco-Fascists have benefited from it. Since this advances the left wing cause, we will get more of that flavor in terms of policy. Environmentalism ( or so-called Green policy ) gets a propaganda benefit as well.
If you condemn the attacks, you may be appearing to help Muslims. This will cause divisions.
It is clear though that the attack was evil. It was in service to a lie. It was unjust to kill people without specifying any justification for it in terms of any harm any of those individuals may have been alleged to have done. For all we know, they may have been willing to be peaceful and productive members of a western based society. For radical Islamists, the shooters actions made them into martyrs. This empowers the Islamists. It will encourage further violence.
No matter how you slice it, there is nothing beneficial about it. It did the opposite of what the shooter ostensibly wanted.
How? Look who benefits from this. Leftwing causes are getting a propaganda boost. So called right wing ( confused with conservative ) news outlets ( Fox ) are trying to link Trump to New Zealand. Gun Control will now be pursued with extra vigor in New Zealand AND the United States. ( even though it didn't happen here )
Those who say anything against the lefties are going to be called bad names. Basically, white Christians have been targeted for extinction, and this guy helped them do it. He has swallowed down whole the leftist propaganda. He believed Trump to be racist ( but he did not support Trump policies ). He is an opponent of Trump, which makes him no different from the lefties themselves. He claims to be for Christians, but he does not follow the religion, and does something heinous in its name. If you do anything to defend Trump or Christianity, you are smeared with this attack. In other words, they have gotten these people to do self-destructive things, such as entertaining this notion that Trump is at fault, in service to a lie.
What about Eco-Fascism? Isn't that what the lefties are? His actions were done in the name of Christianity, but the Eco-Fascists have benefited from it. Since this advances the left wing cause, we will get more of that flavor in terms of policy. Environmentalism ( or so-called Green policy ) gets a propaganda benefit as well.
If you condemn the attacks, you may be appearing to help Muslims. This will cause divisions.
It is clear though that the attack was evil. It was in service to a lie. It was unjust to kill people without specifying any justification for it in terms of any harm any of those individuals may have been alleged to have done. For all we know, they may have been willing to be peaceful and productive members of a western based society. For radical Islamists, the shooters actions made them into martyrs. This empowers the Islamists. It will encourage further violence.
No matter how you slice it, there is nothing beneficial about it. It did the opposite of what the shooter ostensibly wanted.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
A lot of reading
That's the kind of day I have had. I woke early, and noticed a rash. But the rash went away, so that is kinda weird. There must have been a cause in the bedroom, but what?
So, I pretty much stayed inside and read.
I read up on Hitler on the Wikipedia. If you have read Shirer's book, you are familiar with his background and so forth. Wikipedia seems to follow that story pretty much.
Is there anything worth commenting about with respect to Hitler? I have a theory that the guy was devoted to untruth as a source of power. Like all politicians, it seems, he told people what they wanted to believe. Anybody who can sense what people yearn for, and can cynically use that to their advantage, will find a way towards power. Trouble with that is, is that it can be twisted into something evil. For example, Hitler sensed the Western powers really desired peace, so he took advantage by getting concessions, and then backing out of them after getting what he wanted. In other words, he lied. The pattern can be seen in more than this one way. His rise to power was a lot like that, too.
Hitler is the favorite boogie man that the left likes to use against anyone who disagrees with them. A quick study of Hitler shows that this accusation of Hitlerian villainy is untrue. If the so-called right was anywhere near as unscrupulous as Hitler, the left would be in dire straits. Indeed, many of them would be in jail, or in their graves by now.
I would also present the theory that you do not have to be a Hitler to oppose the leftists. In fact, if you are more like Hitler, you might just fail, because anything short of that will fail against them. In other words, if you copy them, and try to be a nice guy at the same time, they will destroy you. Isn't that what so-called conservatives are always doing? How's it been working lately? Not good, unless you are delusional.
To beat them, try Reaganism. Reagan was a nice fellow, but he was no fool. Wish I could say that about these so-called conservatives today.
So, I pretty much stayed inside and read.
I read up on Hitler on the Wikipedia. If you have read Shirer's book, you are familiar with his background and so forth. Wikipedia seems to follow that story pretty much.
Is there anything worth commenting about with respect to Hitler? I have a theory that the guy was devoted to untruth as a source of power. Like all politicians, it seems, he told people what they wanted to believe. Anybody who can sense what people yearn for, and can cynically use that to their advantage, will find a way towards power. Trouble with that is, is that it can be twisted into something evil. For example, Hitler sensed the Western powers really desired peace, so he took advantage by getting concessions, and then backing out of them after getting what he wanted. In other words, he lied. The pattern can be seen in more than this one way. His rise to power was a lot like that, too.
Hitler is the favorite boogie man that the left likes to use against anyone who disagrees with them. A quick study of Hitler shows that this accusation of Hitlerian villainy is untrue. If the so-called right was anywhere near as unscrupulous as Hitler, the left would be in dire straits. Indeed, many of them would be in jail, or in their graves by now.
I would also present the theory that you do not have to be a Hitler to oppose the leftists. In fact, if you are more like Hitler, you might just fail, because anything short of that will fail against them. In other words, if you copy them, and try to be a nice guy at the same time, they will destroy you. Isn't that what so-called conservatives are always doing? How's it been working lately? Not good, unless you are delusional.
To beat them, try Reaganism. Reagan was a nice fellow, but he was no fool. Wish I could say that about these so-called conservatives today.
2+2 equal 5
Can you believe that there are people that really believe this?
A propaganda poster in Soviet Russia:
It isn't relegated to the Soviets, though. The Nazis used it too. The Iranians have used it in recent times. The idea behind it is coercive persuasion, aka brainwashing. If enough force is applied to an individual, you can get them to believe and say anything.
By the way, on a related note, there was this post... there are four lights!
A propaganda poster in Soviet Russia:
It isn't relegated to the Soviets, though. The Nazis used it too. The Iranians have used it in recent times. The idea behind it is coercive persuasion, aka brainwashing. If enough force is applied to an individual, you can get them to believe and say anything.
By the way, on a related note, there was this post... there are four lights!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)