Gotta love it.
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.
Friday, April 10, 2026
Thursday, April 9, 2026
Morality who needs it?
There is an economics term called "the commons". This is distinguished from "private property". The capitalist theory holds that socialism doesn't work because nobody really cares about the commons; but if somebody owns it, then they'll care about it.
Perhaps one can expand upon that beyond the economic sphere. Let's take religion. Religion concerns itself with morality, does it not? But nobody cares about morality except for the people who own it. That would be the clergy. Got that?
There will be objections to that, of course. Christianity teaches that the "good sheperd" takes care of the sheep. The sheep meaning the followers of the religion. Therefore, according to the theory propounded above, the clergy only cares about the sheep because they "own" the sheep. Once again, there are those who would object, but isn't that really the case? Who would care about the sheep but its owners?
The good shepherd will guard his flock with his own life. The same is true of private property, is it not?
Once again, there will be objections. There's always objections. This is a working theory. Maybe it isn't the best possible one, but it one that provide a working model for an idea.
Morality is the commons like land is, or any other good thing. Morality is a good thing because it gives predictability to human relations. For example, the common good isn't advanced if there's no enforcement for murder, theft, and so forth. If these behaviors aren't punished, there will be anarchy. Of course there are those for which anarchy would be a good thing, and those people benefit from the anarchy. Consequently, it can be said that they own it.
Furthermore, if anything is a good thing that most people would want, it would be best to have someone in charge of it.
Most people would say that law and order is a good thing. Only the criminal class likes anarchy.
Who would benefit from law and order? Why the government, of course. An anarchy doesn't go with law and order. Therefore law enforcement will "own" orderliness in a society.
Consequently, if you want good things for everybody (in the commons), then you'd better put somebody in charge of it.
If nobody is in charge of it, then the law of the jungle will apply. Nature really does abhor a vacuum. If there's no morality, then the amoral will benefit. If there's no law and order, the criminal class will dominate. In a so-called democracy, if the people want law and order, then that is what they'll get. If people want to be amoral monsters, then that's is what they'll get too.
How do you determine what the people want? Why an election, of course. I think the conclusion follows. But of course there will be objections to that. There always is.
Wednesday, April 8, 2026
The Shroud of Turin
4/8/26:
Have you seen those type of videos that take a picture or sculpture, and turn it into a life-like depiction of that person? This is a documentary of that endeavor with respect to the Shroud of Turin.
From the video's description section:
3/15/26:
A genetic analysis results in anomalous results. In other words, a satisfactory explanation for the cloth still does not exist. But the evidence does show that it is not a forgery.
4/4/21:
The first I heard of it was way back in the early eighties, if memory serves. There was a guy today on the internet who was claiming the Shroud is a fake.
One could argue the point, I suppose. If I were to argue, it would be along the lines that nobody knows how such an object could have come into being. You can claim it is a fraud based upon certain tests, but how do you explain its very existence?
The technology to reproduce the relic still doesn't exist, if I am not mistaken. Once that is figured out, maybe there would be a cause for claiming fraud. Or there wouldn't be. The next question is if you reproduce it today, how did somebody in the middle ages fake this, and why?
Find an answer for that one.
Have you seen those type of videos that take a picture or sculpture, and turn it into a life-like depiction of that person? This is a documentary of that endeavor with respect to the Shroud of Turin.
From the video's description section:
A team of graphic experts use cutting-edge software to bring the Shroud of Turin to life.
3/15/26:
A genetic analysis results in anomalous results. In other words, a satisfactory explanation for the cloth still does not exist. But the evidence does show that it is not a forgery.
4/4/21:
The first I heard of it was way back in the early eighties, if memory serves. There was a guy today on the internet who was claiming the Shroud is a fake.
One could argue the point, I suppose. If I were to argue, it would be along the lines that nobody knows how such an object could have come into being. You can claim it is a fraud based upon certain tests, but how do you explain its very existence?
The technology to reproduce the relic still doesn't exist, if I am not mistaken. Once that is figured out, maybe there would be a cause for claiming fraud. Or there wouldn't be. The next question is if you reproduce it today, how did somebody in the middle ages fake this, and why?
Find an answer for that one.
Anti-matter, does it matter?
4/8/26:
Why make it if you can mine it instead?
12/21/24:
17:45:
It should be obvious that I am really enthusiastic about this concept. Indeed, it may be THE way to go for the Space program. If NASA wants a new direction, this could be it. But there's a danger here.
The danger is that the public may think that this is "too far out there". The danger is from a lack of understanding, in my opinion. To me, the reason this works is that it can give a return on the investment of the taxpayer's money. Other measures are too much in the nature of half-measures, and may well result in the abandonment of great enterprises like this one could be. Half-measures only result in another boondoggle that has to be supported by the taxpayer. But THIS could result in a new source of revenue for the government that puts the space program on a self-funding basis and then some.
The advantage to the use of anti-matter is that it overcomes a lot of the tyranny of the rocket equation. It ends the necessity of super large rockets and the needs for large amounts of fuel. A mere nanogram of the stuff can send you on your way to Mars. A couple of nanograms can put you into orbit. Yet another nanogram can send you into a landing entry. Three nano-grams is hardly anything compared to what could be gathered up on Saturn. Therefore a means of traversing that distance, and many other places, could be opened up.
In short, it could open up the solar system to development. The returns could be mind-boggling. All that is required is the will to do it. Does that will exist? We'll see. The future will depend upon it. No if and nor buts about it. It's go big or go home time.
10 AM:
The best plan for using this was suggested. That plan would be to pick up enough anti-matter for a visit to Saturn, and use Saturn to do more mining. That's because the refill rate for the anti-matter on Earth is too slow. Saturn has the richest deposits. No worries about getting to Saturn if you have this stuff, and no worries getting back. The difference is that you'll have more than enough for all kinds of missions if you do it that way. Otherwise, you'll be too limited. The length of the mission could be shortened because of the power of the anti-matter makes high delta-v missions feasible, hence you should want that, and Saturn is where you can get it.
12/20/24:
Before my computer decided to take a dump, I was checking out something about the Van Allen belts. The idea was to collect propellant from these belts, if feasible. It seems that there was a write up about that, and I was checking it out, then boom.
It seems that there's a possibility of retrieving anti-matter in the Van Allen belts. How interesting. Anyway, anti-matter propulsion is far more powerful than even nuclear power. It may be feasible to travel to the nearest star with this stuff. Just another possibility that might be opening up, ya'll.
This would enable missions to Mars in 45 days. This study wasn't done by amateurs, ya'll.
Why make it if you can mine it instead?
12/21/24:
17:45:
It should be obvious that I am really enthusiastic about this concept. Indeed, it may be THE way to go for the Space program. If NASA wants a new direction, this could be it. But there's a danger here.
The danger is that the public may think that this is "too far out there". The danger is from a lack of understanding, in my opinion. To me, the reason this works is that it can give a return on the investment of the taxpayer's money. Other measures are too much in the nature of half-measures, and may well result in the abandonment of great enterprises like this one could be. Half-measures only result in another boondoggle that has to be supported by the taxpayer. But THIS could result in a new source of revenue for the government that puts the space program on a self-funding basis and then some.
The advantage to the use of anti-matter is that it overcomes a lot of the tyranny of the rocket equation. It ends the necessity of super large rockets and the needs for large amounts of fuel. A mere nanogram of the stuff can send you on your way to Mars. A couple of nanograms can put you into orbit. Yet another nanogram can send you into a landing entry. Three nano-grams is hardly anything compared to what could be gathered up on Saturn. Therefore a means of traversing that distance, and many other places, could be opened up.
In short, it could open up the solar system to development. The returns could be mind-boggling. All that is required is the will to do it. Does that will exist? We'll see. The future will depend upon it. No if and nor buts about it. It's go big or go home time.
10 AM:
The best plan for using this was suggested. That plan would be to pick up enough anti-matter for a visit to Saturn, and use Saturn to do more mining. That's because the refill rate for the anti-matter on Earth is too slow. Saturn has the richest deposits. No worries about getting to Saturn if you have this stuff, and no worries getting back. The difference is that you'll have more than enough for all kinds of missions if you do it that way. Otherwise, you'll be too limited. The length of the mission could be shortened because of the power of the anti-matter makes high delta-v missions feasible, hence you should want that, and Saturn is where you can get it.
12/20/24:
Before my computer decided to take a dump, I was checking out something about the Van Allen belts. The idea was to collect propellant from these belts, if feasible. It seems that there was a write up about that, and I was checking it out, then boom.
It seems that there's a possibility of retrieving anti-matter in the Van Allen belts. How interesting. Anyway, anti-matter propulsion is far more powerful than even nuclear power. It may be feasible to travel to the nearest star with this stuff. Just another possibility that might be opening up, ya'll.
 |
| Yes, it does matter. Maybe a lot. |
This would enable missions to Mars in 45 days. This study wasn't done by amateurs, ya'll.
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
A Few Good Men- 1992 Film
How should this film be taken?
It has been given good reviews generally speaking.
The crux of the story is this: "how do you hold the powerful to accountability"?
Does it sound familiar?
It should. It seems that the political system protects itself against accountability. However, the system doesn't really do that, if the system is poorly served by those who violate their oaths. A system is as good as the people who run it. In the times of Kings, it was said that the King could do no wrong. Authority doesn't take kindly to being questioned. Indeed, it cannot be and have authority maintained. Yet, somehow authority must be held to account, or there will be tyranny. A republic of laws is no different. If the laws are not observed, then how is it any different from a King? Such is how the film could be taken-- it is a comment upon our ways of governing ourselves.
Some may take this as critical of Trump. There could be a valid complaint, but Trump really isn't the issue. The problem is systemic. If Trump isn't held accountable, it isn't unique to himself. There IS no accountability at all in Washington DC. The system won't allow itself to be policed.
In theory, there is Congress as the ultimate arbiter. Congress is accountable to the people, in theory. But Congress won't pass the SAVE act, which would at least bring the possibility of political accountability. If the elections were honest, the system can be policed by the people at the ballot box. But if the ballot box is corrupted, then how can there be any accountability anywhere in the system? The Congress is the political body closest to the people---especially the House of Representatives.
But the House passed the bill, the Senate won't. Note that among the politically accountable branches of the government, the Senate is the least accountable. This is by design. However, that design was changed from being accountable to the legislatures of the various states to the people in the various states. This was done by Constitutional amendment during the Progressive Era. It didn't make more accountable, but less.
If the state legislatures cannot be trusted to police the Senate, then who? This is a problem that has to be worked out.
The movie required a performance from an attorney to get the desired justice. It would seem that the legal system requires a performance in order to make a judgement, according to the views expressed during the movie.
Movies and theaters cannot determine accountability. It is entertainment, not justice. It isn't politics either. It's no way to run a republic.
That leaves us with the President and the Courts. The Courts aren't elected offices. The President is elected by the STATES. The states can be governed by the Courts. But the President appoints the members of the Court. The Senate confirms the choices. The system cannot be policed by the people.
If the system won't police itself, you've got a problem. So here we are. Perhaps there won't be a happy ending. This isn't Hollywood.
It has been given good reviews generally speaking.
The crux of the story is this: "how do you hold the powerful to accountability"?
Does it sound familiar?
It should. It seems that the political system protects itself against accountability. However, the system doesn't really do that, if the system is poorly served by those who violate their oaths. A system is as good as the people who run it. In the times of Kings, it was said that the King could do no wrong. Authority doesn't take kindly to being questioned. Indeed, it cannot be and have authority maintained. Yet, somehow authority must be held to account, or there will be tyranny. A republic of laws is no different. If the laws are not observed, then how is it any different from a King? Such is how the film could be taken-- it is a comment upon our ways of governing ourselves.
Some may take this as critical of Trump. There could be a valid complaint, but Trump really isn't the issue. The problem is systemic. If Trump isn't held accountable, it isn't unique to himself. There IS no accountability at all in Washington DC. The system won't allow itself to be policed.
In theory, there is Congress as the ultimate arbiter. Congress is accountable to the people, in theory. But Congress won't pass the SAVE act, which would at least bring the possibility of political accountability. If the elections were honest, the system can be policed by the people at the ballot box. But if the ballot box is corrupted, then how can there be any accountability anywhere in the system? The Congress is the political body closest to the people---especially the House of Representatives.
But the House passed the bill, the Senate won't. Note that among the politically accountable branches of the government, the Senate is the least accountable. This is by design. However, that design was changed from being accountable to the legislatures of the various states to the people in the various states. This was done by Constitutional amendment during the Progressive Era. It didn't make more accountable, but less.
If the state legislatures cannot be trusted to police the Senate, then who? This is a problem that has to be worked out.
The movie required a performance from an attorney to get the desired justice. It would seem that the legal system requires a performance in order to make a judgement, according to the views expressed during the movie.
Movies and theaters cannot determine accountability. It is entertainment, not justice. It isn't politics either. It's no way to run a republic.
That leaves us with the President and the Courts. The Courts aren't elected offices. The President is elected by the STATES. The states can be governed by the Courts. But the President appoints the members of the Court. The Senate confirms the choices. The system cannot be policed by the people.
If the system won't police itself, you've got a problem. So here we are. Perhaps there won't be a happy ending. This isn't Hollywood.
Monday, April 6, 2026
Trail Drive-In San Antonio Texas
The family went to this drive-in theater back in the sixties. On trips to San Antonio, it seemed to not be there anymore. This video explains what happened to it.
Sunday, April 5, 2026
Disturbance at Houston Rodeo this year
Surprising to learn about this weeks after the fact.
It was at the carnival, not the rodeo itself. The carnival is outside the stadium.
It was shut down from an abundance of caution. Nothing really seriously bad, but it could've developed into that I suppose.
It is a sign of the times, I'd say. Something's not right within the culture.
It was at the carnival, not the rodeo itself. The carnival is outside the stadium.
It was shut down from an abundance of caution. Nothing really seriously bad, but it could've developed into that I suppose.
It is a sign of the times, I'd say. Something's not right within the culture.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)