Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be commies

OregonMuse at the Ace of Spade HQ blog noted that the camera people wouldn't show the crowd at the Turkey Day Game in Dallas. Evidently they are afraid to show a lot of people in the crowd having a good time while they are home all locked down and wearing masks and being miserable, as leftists do best.

Here's the link: Random Observations Post @ AOSHQ

You hafta ax, what are they so afraid of? Da twuth.

Just hadda gloat, now didn' I?

Gettysburg

If you watch enough videos, you can get an education. Well, maybe something of one. Here are a few things I didn't know about American history that I'd like to discuss briefly.

The Battle of Gettysburg is considered to be pretty important in the outcome of the Civil War. Indeed, Lee's army was in big trouble just after the disastrous outcome of Picket's Charge. Lee threw a lot of what he had left into that battle, and not much came back to him. There was a fear of a Union counterattack, but none came. If it did, Lee would have had the decisive battle he sought. As it was, the war continued for two more years.

The thoughts I had were these 1) Could Lee have won at Gettysburg at all? , and 2) Was Lee's attack on that fateful day a mistake? As for the second question, the answer seems obvious. But upon further reflection, it would appear that Lee's belief that the center of the Union's lines was the weak point is not an unreasonable guess. He very nearly succeeded in the flanking move the previous day. You might expect that the Union would expect another attack just like it. Lee's decision makes sense if you think of it that way.

As for the first question, it seems that at the very least, the attack on Little Round Top was definitely a winnable fight. Actually, Lee's orders were to attack up the road, which was to the west of the two round top mountains. There were already troops on the bigger Round Top, which if exploited, would have given the Confederates a commanding presence on the high ground. They could have used their cannon to fire down upon the Union Army down below. They could have broken up the "fish hook" appearing Union Line amongst the high ground near Gettysburg.

General Hood wanted to take the bigger Round Top, but Longstreet wouldn't allow it saying that it wasn't what Gen. Lee ordered. So Hood obeyed, but was injured shortly after beginning his move up the road. There was confusion amongst the Confederate ranks as some went one way towards the road, and the others went the other way towards the Little Round Top. If ALL of them went up the Little Round Top, the outcome just might have been different.

It can be chalked up to the fortunes of war. The commander was injured in the midst of the attack and the fog of war took over. Confusion led to a division of forces that wouldn't have happened otherwise. We don't know if Lee's orders would have worked because his orders weren't followed to the letter due to Hood's injury. The North caught a break from the confusion amongst the Confederates. They held the line only after a desperate bayonet charge by the Union Col. Chamberlain.

After losing that opportunity, Lee ordered Picket's charge. The rest was as they say, is history. If either of those Round Tops had been taken, the Union Army would have been flanked on that day. The battle could have been won. They could have been driven off what they had believed was the high ground and would have had to fight uphill from there. The South would have had the advantage from that point.

Conservatism Ink

 

Ah, today's blogging entry. I've thought about this off and on today, and now I am finally going to write something. Drum roll please....

This one is going to be about those who claim to be conservative and aren't really. To get an example of why this isn't just my opinion, go to the Ace of Spades--HQ, and read this: David Brooks, remember him?

Comment:

It didn't take long for me to find an objection. Although I agree for the most part with what the author had to say, he used the word "right" in reference to conservativism. That's a big "no-no" to me. If I have said it once, I have said it on this blog a dozen times or more, you never, never, never should ever do that. It falls right into their hands when you do. Maybe I'm not a part of Conservatism then, because I do not ever, ever, ever want to be lumped in together with that word called "right". Never. NEVER.

Once again: the left, right, center dialectic is an invention of the communists that is meant to baffle everyone. That's the entire reason for its existence. Period. Oh, and by the way, Brooks is denying that there's anything such thing as the "left". Brooks needs to get around more. I wonder if he has noticed what has been going on for all these years. The Cold War? The Red Chinese saber-rattling about Taiwan? By the way, the Red Chinese have never renounced their communism. They are only using capitalism to build up their strength, and then they will move towards conquest. Did he bother to notice?

You'd think this guy lived in a cave somewhere and never saw or heard anything at all. But he probably does live in New York, which might explain a few things. He writes for the New York Times, he probably lives in New York. It may not be a cave, but it is a lot of things, and a few too many that aren't so good these days.

Back to this left v right dialectic. The left likes to do that because they like to categorize anybody who disagrees with them as fascist. This means EVERYBODY. Now---doesn't it seem kind of dumb to let them get away with this??? I remember some stuff back in the Nixon days when he went to China. There was a lot of talk amongst the commies about "backsliding" and becoming one of the "running dogs" of imperialists. They had plenty of uncomplimentary things to say about America. They probably haven't changed, but the commies sure look different now. It is all a ruse. To all commies, you have to toe the line, or you're a fascist. That's how they think. Why agree with them? Why validate their warped point of view? Notice how anybody on the opposition side is always the latest reincarnation of Hitler? This is no accident. To them, if you wander off the reservation, you are backsliding into fascism. That's the dialectic. Don't use it.

Brooks either doesn't know this, or he is pulling everybody's leg. Neither alternative is good. This is how guys like Brooks become "useful idiots". Actually, the term "useful idiot" is a leftist term. Those who support freedom shouldn't think of people as useful idiots, but uninformed. Supporters of freedom just want people to recognize that truth. The commies don't care anything about truth. It is all about fooling the public, because if the public really caught on to their spiel, they RUN, not walk, away. So guys like Brooks are not to be taken seriously. There has never been any shortage of "useful idiots" out there who the commies have no problem in fooling. None of them should be a part of the freedom faction. It takes a clear head when these commies are always blowing smoke in your face.

As for the author of this piece about Brooks, he needs to "get it" himself. If he doesn't get dialectics, he doesn't get it either. Ronald Reagan did, and that's why he won 49 states in 1984. There is no reason why that couldn't work again. People are always going to prefer freedom over slavery. Especially once there are people, like Reagan, who enunciate and articulate it properly. Brooks and this Ace of Spades author are both off that mark.

It should also be noted that Brooks mentioned "rage". If you are in a rage, then you are doing what the lefties want you to do. They need people to be angry. Don't get angry then. They need you to be afraid. Don't be afraid then. They need to dumb everybody down. Don't listen to them and raise your IQ a stardard deviation or two. Not only that, you will feel a lot better, because commies need you to feel bad. Don't give them the satisfaction.

Beer saved the world! Nah. I can't back that up

 

Comment:

Here's that Pawn Stars show snippet that I wrote about previously. It's only about 4 minutes long, and the first part isn't even about beer. Those with very short attention spans need to be patient...Don't watch this next one just below if you're in a hurry...



...just watch the one below to save a little time...

right here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rambling wreck type post

 

Looks like there wasn't a post yesterday, and I'm too lazy to organize my thoughts much, so this is a by-the-seat-of-pants type rambling wreck post. Be forewarned. /lol

Taking it back chronologically, yesterday was a day in which I watched a lot of videos. That alone was a rambling wreck. Just all over the place with what I watched. Youtube will send out some suggested vids, and if I see anything, I'll click on it. If I like it, I'll watch it all. If not, I'll move on to the next one. And so on and so forth.

Hard to say how much time I spent on that, but it was probably several hours. One thing that sticks out was a video about the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War. There was something that caught my attention. I have a video about that battle, and in one critical part, there was Col. Chamberlain of the ??th Maine, who "refused the line". It is a battle tactic. Chamberlain's men were out of ammo, so they had to do a bayonet charge or retreat. A retreat meant being outflanked, and that would mean big trouble. If memory serves, Chamberlain got a Medal of Honor for his heroism in making that charge.

So I was familiar with Chamberlain. The thing that was new was that THE SAME THING happened on the opposite flank. It wasn't at exactly the same time, but it was the same thing. Lee was attempting to flank the Union Army, but these two guys are what held the lines on that day, and the fateful Picket's Charge was the next day. With that, I think I know why the North won that battle, and that was the beginning of the end for the Confederacy. The point is that all of that came down to two men. If either them failed, it would have been a disaster.

That was one video. There were others. The next one is about one from the Terran Space Academy. It was about aneutronic fusion. Now I've written a bit about that subject here on this blog. What's different about this one is that it is about Helium-3 as a fusion fuel that could be mined on the moon. Here's a chart of the Helium-3 content that can be obtained from the lunar surface.

 

The point is that there are so many elements that could be mined from the lunar surface. These are the most rare of the substances, but if Helium-3 could be used in fusion reactions, it's value, which is the most rare, would also be the most valuable back on Earth. Helium-3 is useful because it can be used in aneutronic fusion. Neutrons are the most troublesome byproducts of nuclear energy. If you can remove the neutrons, you can have clean energy. He claims that it would be worth trillions. That alone could subsidize the entire operation. But NASA has tested a device that could mine oxygen, and it is said to be no bigger than a suitcase. Oxygen makes up about 80% of the propellant of Musk's MethaLox Rockets. That alone could be sufficient to go to the moon. The point is that how do you NOT go to the moon?

But it should be remembered that nobody has a successful fusion device as of yet. You could go to the moon anyway even if it weren't for that. There is plenty more good stuff there.

Which brings me to the next video! I didn't make a note of this next one at all, so I am winging it again. This one was about muon-catalyzed fusion as a rocket design to get us to the stars. Whoa! Heady stuff there. Nobody has figured out how to do muon-catalyzed fusion yet, either. It caught my eye because muons ALMOST work. You don't need net-energy to work in a rocket. A rocket doesn't have to be net energy. It just needs a reaction mass that is going out the business end of the rocket at near relativistic speeds. That's what this proposition is said to do. It is a bit fanciful, though. You would need a source of muons, and how the heck do you do that? Not only that, you'd need a whole helluva lot of muons. You need a lot of reactions and the muons are unstable. That means they don't last long. You could use helium-3 you got from the moon so that it can be radiation free. Almost radiation free, there's still that.

The last video to comment upon was about Tesla. I was skeptical of battery powered vehicles, but this dude is making progress. They believe that they can get the prices down to a competitive level with gasoline powered cars. If you can get an energy source to power the batteries, then you will have something. Otherwise, they are not better than what we already have, and they cost more. Nevertheless, the progress is impressive.

Oh, by the way. There were two more things. I told ya it would be a rambling wreck. The reason capitalism is better than communism is Elon Musk. Communists would never be able to do what this guy does. If they did, they wouldn't be communists. Communists have to lie because they are inferior and they know it.

One more thing! Just saw the Tucker Carlson video of Kyle Rittenhouse. Or some of that video. I thought what they did to the kid was bad, but I didn't know the whole story. It was even WORSE than I thought. That takes some doing. Communists really suck and his story shows that. All they got is lies and intimidation. To beat them, you need to stop FEARING them. They are INFERIOR. That's why they have to lie and they know it.

Talk to me Spuds

Talk to me, beer

Something like this may get me to start watching teevee again... This story is so good, that as soon I saw it, I had to shut it off and come write about it. It is about London in the middle ages. People back then had an excuse not to know things that we all take for granted. They didn't know about germs because microscopes hadn't been invented yet. They didn't know that you could boil water and kill those germs, and that would make the water safe to drink.

So back then, the story goes, everybody in the big cities would drink beer. Beer wouldn't make you sick, see? All the big cities at that time couldn't exist without beer! The reason being is that they boiled the water to make beer, and those folks back then didn't make the connection between getting sick and needing to boil the water. But the boiled the water to make the beer and nobody got sick.

This teevee show was about a couple guys who ran a pawn shop. People would bring in things to sell for money and the dudes would make offers for whatever people brought in. Somebody brought in "Spuds Mackenzie". It was Budweiser's Party Animal of the Eighties--- a dog. This item was in the form of that dog, and it lit up when you flipped the switch. So they started telling this story about beer being necessary for civilization. Something clicked about the modern situation we're in with the so-called "pandemic" and Ivermectin in Sub-Saharan Africa-- and beer.

But folks today aren't like the folks in the middle ages. They know better, or SHOULD. If there's people not getting sick and a lot of them are taking Ivermectin, then maybe you have a connection. Could be???? This is not hard, ya know?

They object by saying "Science!". Science is just a magic word they're using in order to lie to people. There's nothing wrong with science, don't misunderstand. It is the way that the word is being used in order to deceive people. That's the very opposite of what science is supposed to do. Science is not supposed to deceive, but to inform.

Anyway, the thing here is that ignorance will kill you. Or at least make you sick. Not to knock science or anything. But scientists that are worth anything would look at the info about people not getting sick in Sub-Saharan Africa and try to figure out why they aren't getting sick. Turns out that they take the malarial drug too. Homer head slap, and exclamation "D'oh"!

By the way, REAL scientists already knew that Ivermectin was a good anti-viral drug. There's no excuse for disputing the obvious fact that it is helpful in fighting covid.