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 6, 2026
Nuclear Policy Just Changed Forever
People have been unncessarily alarmed because of the old policy. Yes, I believe this is good news.
How To Make The World`s Most Delicious Pork Chops
6/6/26:
This post has been discombobulated! Therefore, what to do? Run the question through AI!
To make the most delicious pork chops, **start with thick-cut chops (at least 1 inch thick)**, season them well, and cook them in a hot skillet for a good sear before finishing in the oven. Let them rest after cooking to keep them juicy and flavorful.
Key Ingredients for Delicious Pork Chops To create the most flavorful pork chops, focus on the following essential ingredients: Ingredient Description Pork Chops
Choose thick-cut chops (at least 1 inch thick) for juiciness. Bone-in chops can add more flavor. Seasoning Use kosher salt, black pepper, and your favorite spice rub (e.g., garlic powder, paprika). Oil
A neutral oil with a high smoke point, like avocado or vegetable oil, is ideal for searing. Optional Sauce Consider making a simple pan sauce with butter, garlic, and herbs for added flavor.
Cooking Method Preparation Steps 1. Bring to Room Temperature: Remove pork chops from the fridge 30 minutes before cooking to ensure even cooking.
2. Season: Generously season both sides of the chops with salt and pepper. You can also rub in your spice mix.
3. Sear: Heat oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. Sear the pork chops for about 3-4 minutes on each side until they develop a nice brown crust.
Finishing in the Oven
1. Transfer to Oven: After searing, move the skillet to a preheated oven (around 400°F or 200°C) to finish cooking. This helps retain moisture.
2. Cooking Time: Bake for approximately 10-15 minutes, depending on thickness, until the internal temperature reaches 145°F.
3. Rest: Let the pork chops rest for at least 3 minutes before serving. This step is crucial for keeping them juicy.
Tips for Perfect Pork Chops
• Use a Meat Thermometer: To ensure perfect doneness, use a probe thermometer to check the internal temperature.
• Avoid Brining: Brining can alter the texture of pork chops; proper seasoning and cooking methods are sufficient for moisture.
• Experiment with Sauces: Enhance your dish with a simple pan sauce made from the drippings, adding flavor and richness.
By following these steps and tips, you can create pork chops that are tender, juicy, and bursting with flavor.
Truth be told, I never tried the recipe that got discombobulated. I don't use recipes.
10/8/11:
Beer as an ingredient? Hmm.
How To Make The World`s Most Delicious Pork Chops from Jeremy Campbell on UnleashVideo
This post has been discombobulated! Therefore, what to do? Run the question through AI!
To make the most delicious pork chops, **start with thick-cut chops (at least 1 inch thick)**, season them well, and cook them in a hot skillet for a good sear before finishing in the oven. Let them rest after cooking to keep them juicy and flavorful.
Key Ingredients for Delicious Pork Chops To create the most flavorful pork chops, focus on the following essential ingredients: Ingredient Description Pork Chops
Choose thick-cut chops (at least 1 inch thick) for juiciness. Bone-in chops can add more flavor. Seasoning Use kosher salt, black pepper, and your favorite spice rub (e.g., garlic powder, paprika). Oil
A neutral oil with a high smoke point, like avocado or vegetable oil, is ideal for searing. Optional Sauce Consider making a simple pan sauce with butter, garlic, and herbs for added flavor.
Cooking Method Preparation Steps 1. Bring to Room Temperature: Remove pork chops from the fridge 30 minutes before cooking to ensure even cooking.
2. Season: Generously season both sides of the chops with salt and pepper. You can also rub in your spice mix.
3. Sear: Heat oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. Sear the pork chops for about 3-4 minutes on each side until they develop a nice brown crust.
Finishing in the Oven
1. Transfer to Oven: After searing, move the skillet to a preheated oven (around 400°F or 200°C) to finish cooking. This helps retain moisture.
2. Cooking Time: Bake for approximately 10-15 minutes, depending on thickness, until the internal temperature reaches 145°F.
3. Rest: Let the pork chops rest for at least 3 minutes before serving. This step is crucial for keeping them juicy.
Tips for Perfect Pork Chops
• Use a Meat Thermometer: To ensure perfect doneness, use a probe thermometer to check the internal temperature.
• Avoid Brining: Brining can alter the texture of pork chops; proper seasoning and cooking methods are sufficient for moisture.
• Experiment with Sauces: Enhance your dish with a simple pan sauce made from the drippings, adding flavor and richness.
By following these steps and tips, you can create pork chops that are tender, juicy, and bursting with flavor.
Truth be told, I never tried the recipe that got discombobulated. I don't use recipes.
10/8/11:
Beer as an ingredient? Hmm.
How To Make The World`s Most Delicious Pork Chops from Jeremy Campbell on UnleashVideo
Nick Freitas: " Here Is How The Next Civil War Will Start"
6/6/26:
Rich Lowry in an article at NY Post (link via Powerline) seems to be echoing Freitas here.
Lowry is a bit more subtle and restained. He is, after all, a National Review guy. Lowry could be a Cornyn type: all talk and no action.
6/5/26:
Folks who talk Civil War haven't thought it all out. I'm convinced of that. I have thought so since I first heard of it. If you think there's gonna be a war, you start preparing for it. Even if the idea is not to fight, you'll prepare for it. Where's the war preps?
yesterday:
Well, this is a real bonafide argument right here.
It only describes how it will develop, not how it will go.
My question is this: How much do you want victory? It seems to me that the answer is "Not very much". We can't even get simple things done when we have power. We allow them to stop us, and then we have others that are supposedly with us, who turn around and betray us. It is why nothing gets done.
If it happens the way he envisions, it won't be much of a rebellion. He imagines a love for the conservative way that is hard for me to see how that is so. If the love for the conservative was all that strong, then how did we get to this point in the first place? It does appear to be trending our way in some areas, but it needs to come together fast. Not happening nearly fast enough in my opinion.
We'll see.
Rich Lowry in an article at NY Post (link via Powerline) seems to be echoing Freitas here.
Lowry is a bit more subtle and restained. He is, after all, a National Review guy. Lowry could be a Cornyn type: all talk and no action.
6/5/26:
Folks who talk Civil War haven't thought it all out. I'm convinced of that. I have thought so since I first heard of it. If you think there's gonna be a war, you start preparing for it. Even if the idea is not to fight, you'll prepare for it. Where's the war preps?
yesterday:
Well, this is a real bonafide argument right here.
It only describes how it will develop, not how it will go.
My question is this: How much do you want victory? It seems to me that the answer is "Not very much". We can't even get simple things done when we have power. We allow them to stop us, and then we have others that are supposedly with us, who turn around and betray us. It is why nothing gets done.
If it happens the way he envisions, it won't be much of a rebellion. He imagines a love for the conservative way that is hard for me to see how that is so. If the love for the conservative was all that strong, then how did we get to this point in the first place? It does appear to be trending our way in some areas, but it needs to come together fast. Not happening nearly fast enough in my opinion.
We'll see.
Not a smart way to use your head
Ball bounces off outfielder's head, goes over the fence for a home-run.
Sounds like James Carville to me. Carville is endorsing a Nazi on the grounds that it will beat who they claim to be a Nazi---Trump.
My first inclination is to get mad at Carville. But the dude is going to keep the Nazi on the ballot, then let Carville run his crazy mouth.
Sounds like James Carville to me. Carville is endorsing a Nazi on the grounds that it will beat who they claim to be a Nazi---Trump.
My first inclination is to get mad at Carville. But the dude is going to keep the Nazi on the ballot, then let Carville run his crazy mouth.
Off his glove, off his head, and out!
— MLB (@MLB) June 3, 2026
One of the strangest home runs you've ever seen 🤯 pic.twitter.com/KaPpp1r9Cx
Friday, June 5, 2026
Bongino show 6/5/26; This point is a good one
Better to let him say it, so I jipped in where he starts on the point...
Politics is not about solving problems
6/5/26:
"Nobody really wants to do that." A bit of doomerism there. There's a lot of hyperbole in politics and that "nobody" part was hyperbole. Doomerism is the hyperbole that claims that nothing is getting done. A few things are getting done, but things are not moving as fast as we would like. The system is built that way.
I added this to my reaction posts because of that tendency to hype things a bit. I don't want to hype things. I want to be accurate as possible. Things are getting done, and to say nothing is getting done is doomer stuff. I don't want to go down that road. It IS definitely true that things are being obstructed. That's absolutely true. No question about that one.
Sep 25, 2017:
Because it seems to me that nobody really wants to do that.
When I say "nobody", all I have to do is look at the experience of this blog. If this blog has been about anything, it is about solving problems. It is also about the political class' total disinterest in doing anything like that.
No, the NFL nonsense is designed to make people mad. That isn't going to solve any problems.
Colin Kaepernick took a knee because he wanted to piss off a lot of people who pay his bills for him. He has the right to disagree. He does not have the right to disrespect the nation while making a spectacle of himself, and then expect no blowback.
John McCain refuses to honor his promise because he just wants to make people mad. He also gets some love from people who don't really give a damn about him or anybody else but themselves. If John McCain really meant it about public service, like he claims he does, he wouldn't cooperate with Democrats to sink a bill that would honor his own promise. He would at least serve his constituents who voted for him. But what does his constituents think? Do they really like what they get from this bozo?
People want red meat because it is fun to bash the other side. They all love it so. Me too. I admit it.
But the problems remain. We are no better off for all this nonsense. Except the politicians seem to continue in their jobs, and the problems mount.
If we really have to divide up into opposing camps, then I might be on the side of those who call themselves "the right". I probably shouldn't though. For to do so is letting them off the hook for not getting anything done. Their time is now, not some unforeseen moment in the future when the time is right.
There are no more excuses. Suck it up, and get it done. My vote is no longer something you can count on, assholes. It is time to stop being assholes, and do your jobs.
"Nobody really wants to do that." A bit of doomerism there. There's a lot of hyperbole in politics and that "nobody" part was hyperbole. Doomerism is the hyperbole that claims that nothing is getting done. A few things are getting done, but things are not moving as fast as we would like. The system is built that way.
I added this to my reaction posts because of that tendency to hype things a bit. I don't want to hype things. I want to be accurate as possible. Things are getting done, and to say nothing is getting done is doomer stuff. I don't want to go down that road. It IS definitely true that things are being obstructed. That's absolutely true. No question about that one.
Sep 25, 2017:
Because it seems to me that nobody really wants to do that.
When I say "nobody", all I have to do is look at the experience of this blog. If this blog has been about anything, it is about solving problems. It is also about the political class' total disinterest in doing anything like that.
No, the NFL nonsense is designed to make people mad. That isn't going to solve any problems.
Colin Kaepernick took a knee because he wanted to piss off a lot of people who pay his bills for him. He has the right to disagree. He does not have the right to disrespect the nation while making a spectacle of himself, and then expect no blowback.
John McCain refuses to honor his promise because he just wants to make people mad. He also gets some love from people who don't really give a damn about him or anybody else but themselves. If John McCain really meant it about public service, like he claims he does, he wouldn't cooperate with Democrats to sink a bill that would honor his own promise. He would at least serve his constituents who voted for him. But what does his constituents think? Do they really like what they get from this bozo?
People want red meat because it is fun to bash the other side. They all love it so. Me too. I admit it.
But the problems remain. We are no better off for all this nonsense. Except the politicians seem to continue in their jobs, and the problems mount.
If we really have to divide up into opposing camps, then I might be on the side of those who call themselves "the right". I probably shouldn't though. For to do so is letting them off the hook for not getting anything done. Their time is now, not some unforeseen moment in the future when the time is right.
There are no more excuses. Suck it up, and get it done. My vote is no longer something you can count on, assholes. It is time to stop being assholes, and do your jobs.
Americans want to know how it got so bad in Great Britain
We already know, but this appears to be a Brit, and I think the Brits must all have their heads up their a-holes. So do we in the USA, but not everybody has gone full bonkers. Yet.
Thursday, June 4, 2026
DNI Tulsi Gabbard Gives Update Following Surgery for Husband Abraham Williams
The Conservative Treehouse
Comment:
Same thing I was diagosed with--sacral chordoma.
He had a surgery, I elected to have proton therapy, which is a type of radiation.
He seems rather young. But I suppose this condition can crop up at any age, but most likely than not, at an older age than what he appears to be.
Chordomas can happen at young ages, but those who get it in younger ages tend to get it closer to the skull according to age. That is to say, a young person gets it in the skull, someone older, perhaps the neck, and someone OLD like me, in the sacrum.
Every case is different, I suspect. I have survived mine by nine years so far. The average lifespan after diagnosis back when I got it was five years. Let us hope Mr. Williams will have a lot of life left.
Comment:
Same thing I was diagosed with--sacral chordoma.
He had a surgery, I elected to have proton therapy, which is a type of radiation.
He seems rather young. But I suppose this condition can crop up at any age, but most likely than not, at an older age than what he appears to be.
Chordomas can happen at young ages, but those who get it in younger ages tend to get it closer to the skull according to age. That is to say, a young person gets it in the skull, someone older, perhaps the neck, and someone OLD like me, in the sacrum.
Every case is different, I suspect. I have survived mine by nine years so far. The average lifespan after diagnosis back when I got it was five years. Let us hope Mr. Williams will have a lot of life left.
Don't like IPO now for SpaceX
It's probably premature to hold an IPO for SpaceX.
If he had a mature Starship launch system, then yes. Otherwise, no.
You don't have to have a profitable company to go public, so even though SpaceX may be bleeding cash to fund Starship development wouldn't be a barrier normally; the hostility towards Elon Musk may cause trouble down the line.
Lot harder to monkey-wrench his Starship if he keeps it private for now. I say wait until it's proven itself more.
New York’s 1.47 Million Voter Roll Fraud Unmasks The ‘Safe Blue State’ Myth
American Thinker:
Comment:
This comment adds my own thoughts to what is being said in the article. The main idea is that the solid blue state may well be a myth. Frankly, I think it is more than myth. It is a syndrome of criminality. There is more than just outright fraud. It could well involve violence or threats of violence. Gaslighting figures in the mix as well.
One other example: Bongino referred to how "jungle primaries" can result in the elimination of Republicans from the ballot. That and other fradulent means of "voter suppression" are the only reasons the Democrats have any power at all. Voter suppression is what Dems routinely accuse Republicans of doing. Ten to one that this is just another case of projection. I'll call it political projection, because this is not psychological. It is intentional lying and fraud.
Ultimately, you need to get people to get their backs up against this kind of thing. It's this or there will be subjugation.
Quick update:
I've got a really bad feeling about election integrity. It may be very, very difficult to get rid of it. I have a very definite reason to suspect ALL politicians for this. It has to be extremely tempting for a politician or group of politicians to rig elections. There may be only limited ways in which an election can have integrity. One way is with paper ballots counted in public. The votes must be cast in private. The use of purple dye should be required in order to prevent double voting. Anything short of this should be considered suspect.
A damning discovery in New York has flown under the national radar.
Comment:
This comment adds my own thoughts to what is being said in the article. The main idea is that the solid blue state may well be a myth. Frankly, I think it is more than myth. It is a syndrome of criminality. There is more than just outright fraud. It could well involve violence or threats of violence. Gaslighting figures in the mix as well.
One other example: Bongino referred to how "jungle primaries" can result in the elimination of Republicans from the ballot. That and other fradulent means of "voter suppression" are the only reasons the Democrats have any power at all. Voter suppression is what Dems routinely accuse Republicans of doing. Ten to one that this is just another case of projection. I'll call it political projection, because this is not psychological. It is intentional lying and fraud.
Ultimately, you need to get people to get their backs up against this kind of thing. It's this or there will be subjugation.
Quick update:
I've got a really bad feeling about election integrity. It may be very, very difficult to get rid of it. I have a very definite reason to suspect ALL politicians for this. It has to be extremely tempting for a politician or group of politicians to rig elections. There may be only limited ways in which an election can have integrity. One way is with paper ballots counted in public. The votes must be cast in private. The use of purple dye should be required in order to prevent double voting. Anything short of this should be considered suspect.
The Democrats' Insanity Defense
Update on 6/04/26:
The easiest thing in the world to do is to give up. That appears to be one of the leftist's strategies: to make you want to give up. Don't let this win.
Updated on 2/9/26:
Tempting thing to say: "Life is nuts."
And: "Try to make any sense of it will make you nuts, too."
To counter those thoughts, I'd say: "If you didn't try to make sense of it, then you'll just join the rest of the looney tunes."
One philosophy that I've held for a long time, and it doesn't seem to have helped me much: "I try to be rational. It doesn't seem to work too well in this crazy world."
Maybe it is my own brand of crazy to keep insisting upon it.
Whatever.
I return you to your regularly scheduled nuttiness.
11/2/24:
The Democrats are so crazy, that GOP activists have to tone it down, or they won't be believed.
Tabletmag dot com
If the Democrats are crazy, and people are in denial about that, then does that make a lot of people crazy? It's got to be some type of dysfunction of a massive scale. If Kamala Harris somehow ends up in the White House, this may be a big reason why.
It is a scary thing to consider that there may not be enough sane people around to do what is clearly indicated. This group of people need to go, but will that happen?
Turn a page indeed. These people are nuts, and this isn't the first time I've written that. Here's a campaign slogan --- Make America Sane Again.
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
Dan Bongino on "suicidal empathy"
Suicidal empathy is defined as "Empathy with no ownership". Search text: "Suicidal Empathy: author Gaad Saad". Looked up this on search engine and found the Amazon link to the book.
Quote from Amazon page:
What happens when a society elevates victimhood to a virtue and decides that punishment is cruel? You get the disease Dr. Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy. And the West may be terminally infected.
Comment:
My own reaction is that the Bernie Sanders types are like the apparatchicks in the former Soviet Union. They talk a good game of equality under communism or (socialism or what have you in the modern West), but they live the high life. The apparatchicks in the Soviet Union got the goodies that the West produced, and these same goodies were denied to their subjects under the tyrannical and totalitarian control of the commies.
I simplify it ( as does Bongino in this clip) to plain old dishonesty.
Quick Update:
Keep in mind that the Soviet Union didn't coddle criminals. Neither does Red China. The hard line commies KNOW that this is societal poison, and they do NOT practice "suicidal empathy". This has got to be a psy-op on gullible Westerners who fall for this nonsense. It's a total and complete scam.
The pertinent section of the video where Bongino mentions the book:
Getting out of the comfort zone
6/3/26:
With respect to the most recent post as of this update, could it be that Democrats allow unsavory types into their coalition because their comfort zone would prefer the unsavory types over losing power?
But they're losing power anyway. What the Democrats are doing doesn't make sense...
Jan 11, 2026:
With respect to the most recent post as of this update, could it be that Democrats allow unsavory types into their coalition because their comfort zone would prefer the unsavory types over losing power?
But they're losing power anyway. What the Democrats are doing doesn't make sense...
Jan 11, 2026:
It's a little difficult to come up with a topic today. Something I saw just recently gave me an idea. What is it about people these days that makes them
different than before?
Some may argue that they are not any different than before. Well, something is certainly different. No, it isn't exactly Trump. But Trump has something
to do with it. Not in the man himself, but in the fact that it may be the time in which a man like Trump could succeed in getting elected to office.
Trump didn't just fall out of the sky. He's been well-known for decades. Why now?
Trump gets into somebody's comfort zone. He's a threat to a lot of folks in DC. Probably not so much in the heartland. Otherwise, he couldn't have been
elected. The people wanted him for a reason. Just speaking for myself, I was sick and damned tired of the GOP refusing to do anything about the outrages
of the political left. I recall vividly the way the left took down George W. Bush, and Bush didn't do a damned thing about it.
But this sentiment of mine is nothing new. I've written of it long before Trump came down the escalator.
The reaction of the left to Trump also pushes some buttons.
Yet I am amazed by the polls. Nothing that Trump does comes remotely close to what the political left does. I won't argue about this, but there will be
a denial of the truth of this. The political "right" is way, way too passive. The political left does not share that trait. Would you see "moderates"
blocking streets because they didn't agree with a certain policy? Of course not. Moderates don't behave badly.
Can you see "conservatives" storming the Capitol Building on January 6th, 2021? Not really. Conservatives wouldn't do that. But MAGA people can be
socially conservative, in my opinion.
I didn't go to DC on January 6th, 2021. There are multiple reasons why. I don't think that even if I did go, would I have gotten myself in the middle of
a crowd of people who went inside the Capitol Building. But if ANYONE gets in that situation, events could draw you in.
One reason for not going to DC then was the attitude of the people there--the best example was in the video of Maxine Waters saying that those that she
didn't agree with weren't welcomed there. It is 90% Democrat, perhaps more than that. You won't be treated fairly there. You are stepping on hostile
ground.
Many people didn't believe that. Many people went there to express their opinions, and found themselves in the middle of something that they didn't
think would happen. If cops allow you into the Capitol Building, you don't expect to be treated as if you committed a heinous offense.
The reaction to that event was just more outrage from the left, and it continues to this day.
Sometimes the reaction to outrageous behavior is to give in to it. Like the outburst from Jasmine Crockett. The emotionalism is meant to make you
feel sorry for making her feel bad enough to cry in public like she did. I am inclined to think the whole exhibition was a big act, but there could
be some genuine emotion there. Yet it is still manipulative.
Sometimes a person has to accept responsibility for their own behavior. If they are going to engage in unlawful behavior, and even behavior that
could be considered dangerous, they should accept the fact that something bad could happen in consequence of that. Don't go around boo-hooing about
it afterward.
Same thing for the people who got caught up in the January 6th riot. Many people just got caught up in the moment. But they certainly didn't
deserve to be called insurrectionists if they believed that the election of 2020 was a fraud. There is a line to draw. Where do you draw that line?
There is such a thing as the First Amendment. But what sort of behavior is appropriate? When does the line get crossed? But the folks who want
to cause trouble will blur the lines. The lines should be very, very clear.
You don't get to endanger anybody's life. You don't have the right to block traffic. If an officer tells you to do something, you should comply, and
if you do not, then take your punishment, because you deserve it.
Getting all emotional about it may go with the territory, but it doesn't get my sympathy.
Indeed. There are many examples in history that could be cited here. Just because someone gets into your comfort zone doesn't give you the right
to shoot anyone either. It's a fine line. But law enforcement requires a firm response to those who would challenge it. If you challenge it, be
prepared for bad stuff. You had to know what you were doing, and if you didn't, all the more reason for not even being there to begin with.
Why mention Trump. Because for some folks, Trump is the reason for this. Nope. Not buying that. The reason for it is that certain people make
it their business to get into your comfort zone for the sole purpose of being provocative. If the provocation is taken, there is an opportunity
to exploit it.
There has to be a certain amount of ill will involved in order to provoke people for the purposes of exploiting their reactions. But you don't
have to take the bait.
So what is this essay all about? NOTHING. Ignore it, if you please. I think of it as a WARNING. Things are getting out of hand. But there are
people who like that shit. Just saying.
No common ground with Democrats?
Yours truly cannot believe that most Democrats favor a guy associated with Al-Qaeda as their representative in Congress...
Either I am wrong and they do, or Democrats are making a bad judgment call in allying themselves with a group of folks like this.
However, they did vote to send Barak Hussein Obama to the White House. Obama was elected because he is black; and the Dems decided to overlook his prior associations with a communist.
Prior associations DO matter. They mattered with Obama because Obama's election DID NOT IMPROVE RACIAL RELATIONS. The presumption was that by electing a black man to the White House would improve racial relations. That presumption failed.
What's the excuse for ignoring this Al Qaeda sympathizer to Congress? I refuse to believe that most Democrats agree with Al Qaeda.
But maybe I'm wrong...
This is the House Democrat leader congratulating a guy who defended the World Trade Center bomber and volunteered for an Al Qaeda organization.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) June 3, 2026
The level of cooked we are can’t be quantified. pic.twitter.com/97Gi9ZgU6G
This Red State content producer says "we are cooked". Who's "we"? By all rights, the Democrats should be cooked if they put up with this guy... The GOP should hammer this home again and again. Instead this Red State guy can only wring his hands and say "woe is me!"
Could Oikophobia explain why solutions aren't wanted?
6/3/26:
It seems that I get into these modes of thinking with regards to what seems to be intractable problems. One of these is this negative attitude referred to as oikophobia--which to me is a hatred of the elite for one's own people. Or those who prefer to use hatred of others as justification for their own behavior.
Christianity teaches as a commandment to "love one another". That may be a problem for some folks who think that Christianity is the problem. Well, you can hate something, say Christianity for instance, and still use its ideas if those ideas are good. If you think hatred is a bad thing, why not try this Christian thing?
Ah! But people may not always agree on what "love" is.... Therefore, they could justify horrors by claiming it IS love that drives them to doing what they do.
Or you could just try to find a solution for the problem, whatever it is.
But you cannot please all the people all the time. Some folks are just going to be what they are. You cannot tell them anything...
1/25/13:
First, the term "oikophobia" has to be defined, which can be found here and here.
Basically, that's what I've been writing about. Oikophobia is the hatred of the familiar which, in the case of the nation, it is the hatred of one's own people.
So, why wouldn't an "oik" try to sabotage any effort at truly improving a situation? Why not do the opposite and try to destabilize and destroy the current order since you hate it?
By "current order", I mean the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. By "current order", I mean capitalism. By "current order", I mean the very things that have brought us our wealth and prosperity. By "current order", I mean Western Civilization. The right to self-defense and so on and so forth.
To the left side of the political spectrum, America is bad, and must be changed. But changed how and in what manner? To destroy those things described above as the "current order"?
To the right side, the left is only misguided and not evil. Therefore, at least some on the right will not engage the left and fight them. If you prefer not to fight, might you try some other way?
I've offered my thoughts on the subject of Oikophobia. I suggested finding common ground on which an environment could be fostered so that solutions to problems could be found. But what if the common ground is studiously being avoided? What if the common ground is being avoided for the purposes of furthering the attitude of Oikophobia itself? Perhaps the clang and discord is what is desired and not the clang of hammers which are the sounds of building the new ways and means that will solve our problems.
How far does this phenomenon of Oikophobia go? Some of those on the right presume that it is only the left that has this problem. But if you don't actually seek solutions to problems that your adversary claims to exist, perhaps you would prefer the noise that accompanies the opposition? The noise that confirms you in your disgust with your own people?
Let's not hate people, let's hate bad thinking.
It seems that I get into these modes of thinking with regards to what seems to be intractable problems. One of these is this negative attitude referred to as oikophobia--which to me is a hatred of the elite for one's own people. Or those who prefer to use hatred of others as justification for their own behavior.
Christianity teaches as a commandment to "love one another". That may be a problem for some folks who think that Christianity is the problem. Well, you can hate something, say Christianity for instance, and still use its ideas if those ideas are good. If you think hatred is a bad thing, why not try this Christian thing?
Ah! But people may not always agree on what "love" is.... Therefore, they could justify horrors by claiming it IS love that drives them to doing what they do.
Or you could just try to find a solution for the problem, whatever it is.
But you cannot please all the people all the time. Some folks are just going to be what they are. You cannot tell them anything...
1/25/13:
First, the term "oikophobia" has to be defined, which can be found here and here.
Basically, that's what I've been writing about. Oikophobia is the hatred of the familiar which, in the case of the nation, it is the hatred of one's own people.
So, why wouldn't an "oik" try to sabotage any effort at truly improving a situation? Why not do the opposite and try to destabilize and destroy the current order since you hate it?
By "current order", I mean the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. By "current order", I mean capitalism. By "current order", I mean the very things that have brought us our wealth and prosperity. By "current order", I mean Western Civilization. The right to self-defense and so on and so forth.
To the left side of the political spectrum, America is bad, and must be changed. But changed how and in what manner? To destroy those things described above as the "current order"?
To the right side, the left is only misguided and not evil. Therefore, at least some on the right will not engage the left and fight them. If you prefer not to fight, might you try some other way?
I've offered my thoughts on the subject of Oikophobia. I suggested finding common ground on which an environment could be fostered so that solutions to problems could be found. But what if the common ground is studiously being avoided? What if the common ground is being avoided for the purposes of furthering the attitude of Oikophobia itself? Perhaps the clang and discord is what is desired and not the clang of hammers which are the sounds of building the new ways and means that will solve our problems.
How far does this phenomenon of Oikophobia go? Some of those on the right presume that it is only the left that has this problem. But if you don't actually seek solutions to problems that your adversary claims to exist, perhaps you would prefer the noise that accompanies the opposition? The noise that confirms you in your disgust with your own people?
Let's not hate people, let's hate bad thinking.
New category: "Reaction posts"
If someone clicks on a video, and if I wish to write something additional on the subject, then this label will be attached to the post. History of the blog was attached to the label so as to emphasize that this was a post from the past.
This post may be an exception, as it is a new post. Yet it has the new label.
If you'd like to see posts according to that label, click on the label at the end of each post. I can attach labels to posts already made, so perhaps I will populate the category with the most recent reaction posts.
This is better than including a mention that the post is a reaction to somebody clicking on the post.
This post may be an exception, as it is a new post. Yet it has the new label.
If you'd like to see posts according to that label, click on the label at the end of each post. I can attach labels to posts already made, so perhaps I will populate the category with the most recent reaction posts.
This is better than including a mention that the post is a reaction to somebody clicking on the post.
Why the Right Really Hates Obama
6/3/26:
Ah, a blast from the past... The website is still in business, and the link's still good. It's worth taking another look at this article.
Not much change in my point of view. The political left wants to make it all about race, but that's not what drives what the left calls "the right". It's pure projection on their part.
You can have a color-blind society. There's no "cynicism" in that. You can have equal opportunity, as opposed to the leftist's equal outcomes. There's no cynicism in that either. What the left won't accept is that you cannot guarantee equal outcomes if you rely upon equal opportunity alone. In other words, people aren't equal. But the left knows that this is true. So I just call bullshit on their ideals and claims of equality. Now that may be called cynicism. But I'd rather refer to it as realism. Nobody strives to be equal. People strive to be better than the other guy. Take away all notions of merit, and you take away incentive. If you take away incentive, achievement suffers. It's been shown again and again. But the leftists push this utopianism nonetheless.
5/10/12:
In These Times
The title really says it all. It is all about hate, it says. I can't speak for anyone else, but here's what I said on the subject of hate in this blog. The second part is this business about "right" v "left". Again, I refer to what I wrote previously on the subject, which I paraphrase here--- it's not about right or left, but about freedom or tyranny. In other words, it's not about ideology.
I wrote about ideology too, that it can make you stupid. What's even more shocking and stupid is that those who are conservative claim to be on the right. This is playing right into the hands of the left. It is playing on their turf and it is always the loser. Therefore, just speaking for myself, I am not on the right. I am on the side of freedom. If you are conservative, you stop letting the left box you into their ideology.
By the way, calling them left is appropriate because it is their ideology and evidently they believe in it fervently.
Finally, I remember getting into an argument with some guy on Amazon about conservatism. I would say that this guy may be someone "on the right" as opposed to being someone who favors freedom. If his idea is the prevailing notion of conservatism in this country, then I am not a conservative. But what I think is closer to Reagan than some of what I hear from those who claim to admire Reagan.
I think I understand his success better than some of them do. If these people ever got a clue, Obama wouldn't stand a chance.
Ah, a blast from the past... The website is still in business, and the link's still good. It's worth taking another look at this article.
Not much change in my point of view. The political left wants to make it all about race, but that's not what drives what the left calls "the right". It's pure projection on their part.
You can have a color-blind society. There's no "cynicism" in that. You can have equal opportunity, as opposed to the leftist's equal outcomes. There's no cynicism in that either. What the left won't accept is that you cannot guarantee equal outcomes if you rely upon equal opportunity alone. In other words, people aren't equal. But the left knows that this is true. So I just call bullshit on their ideals and claims of equality. Now that may be called cynicism. But I'd rather refer to it as realism. Nobody strives to be equal. People strive to be better than the other guy. Take away all notions of merit, and you take away incentive. If you take away incentive, achievement suffers. It's been shown again and again. But the leftists push this utopianism nonetheless.
5/10/12:
In These Times
The title really says it all. It is all about hate, it says. I can't speak for anyone else, but here's what I said on the subject of hate in this blog. The second part is this business about "right" v "left". Again, I refer to what I wrote previously on the subject, which I paraphrase here--- it's not about right or left, but about freedom or tyranny. In other words, it's not about ideology.
I wrote about ideology too, that it can make you stupid. What's even more shocking and stupid is that those who are conservative claim to be on the right. This is playing right into the hands of the left. It is playing on their turf and it is always the loser. Therefore, just speaking for myself, I am not on the right. I am on the side of freedom. If you are conservative, you stop letting the left box you into their ideology.
By the way, calling them left is appropriate because it is their ideology and evidently they believe in it fervently.
Finally, I remember getting into an argument with some guy on Amazon about conservatism. I would say that this guy may be someone "on the right" as opposed to being someone who favors freedom. If his idea is the prevailing notion of conservatism in this country, then I am not a conservative. But what I think is closer to Reagan than some of what I hear from those who claim to admire Reagan.
I think I understand his success better than some of them do. If these people ever got a clue, Obama wouldn't stand a chance.
Off-grid post, 4-3-22
6/3/26:
It looks like the basement idea really isn't necessary. The system that the Amish uses for climate control looks like a better implementation of the same idea. It's better because it will take far less excavation in order to get the necessary climate control effect.
With respect to the water, I still like the beaver idea. Beavers could dam up the rainfall and produce some permanent water (maybe). Come to think of it, the dry season lasts too long out there. Maybe the beavers cannot stop water evaporation. If vegetation can give enough shade, evaporation can slow down (maybe).
Help out the beavers? Interesting thought...
I haven't really thought out the beaver idea. You have to get them there. How could that be done? Besides, if the prospects for success aren't good, getting them there could be a problem.
4-3-22:
Yesterday I did an experiment to see how much power could be transmitted via the 12-volt inverter to the 24-volt charger, which charges the power-tote. What I found was that the 12 volt battery could only work (at best) for 30 minutes at a time. At that point, the voltage drop was too great to sustain the inverter, and so it had to be shut down so that it could recharge.
This deficiency might be aided somewhat with some parts that I ordered. The RV battery outside will be hooked up with the inverter, which is an upgrade in power available. The solar panel only puts out about 100 watts, so it cannot keep up either. But it won't drain the battery as quickly, and it won't be necessary to shut down so often, or maybe not at all. ( That might be wishful thinking).
For every 30 minutes of charging, it needed 1 hour of recharging. It got to be rather tedious to keep shutting down and restarting. I wouldn't want to have to do it this way.
In the meantime, I did some water filtration with some rainwater obtained recently. This produced one gallon of fairly clean water. ( not potable though)
This effort was a lot of work, and the economic benefit could be measured in pennies. However, out in the desert, which has no power and no running water; these experiments will give valuable insights into how to make that situation work more smoothly and efficiently. So there's a method behind the madness.
With water, you can sustain yourself. With enough water, you can grow food. Combine that with power, and you can not only do all that, but you can be comfortable as well. Or, perhaps not as uncomfortable.
One way to reduce the power requirements may be to adopt the old ways of yesteryear. Recently, I read about salt pork. It is rather simple to prepare. That means even yours truly could do it. To add to that technique, I googled up a video that shows how to pickle ANYTHING. ( according to that author) With these techniques, the need for refrigeration could be greatly diminished. I was also thinking that it would help to keep the refrigerator in the basement area that I am thinking of building out there. If that is cooler than at grade level, then the fridge doesn't have to work as hard, and that would save energy too.
Of course, all of this may seem insane. But what the heck? Nobody is sane anymore, so I might as well join the party.
Posting may be light for awhile
6/3/26:
Another visit with the doc, and we'll find out more...
5/16/26:
More about the Twilight Zone than what anyone bargained for...
5/15/26:
The term "Twilight Zone" was used in this post (before updating). Perhaps I wasn't clear what the term was supposed to mean. It may have helped if I was more familiar with the TV show from what back then. Maybe it was on the TV when I was little, but I just don't remember it much. What does Twilight Zone mean to me? In a word, "weird". It had that weird music that introduced it. Rod Serling would give his speech. Actually the speech may have come afterward. Either way, it just seemed weird. That's what I meant. It was "weird".
The re-runs are on Tubi, and I watched a few episodes. What seemed weird before does not seem so weird now. It helps to be more familar with the words one uses. After watching a few of these episodes, I don't think I would've used the term "Twilight Zone" this way. Just thought I would mention that. Over and out.
4/29/26:
Did my doctor's visit. My fears were a bit overblown. There's something that needs to be handled, but it is manageable. That's all I got on this. Posting will resume. As Roseann Rosanna Dana would say: "Never mind!"
4/26/26:
There might be something going on medically that I need to attend to.
Don't want to be morbid, but this may not be too good.
Anyway, I am up at an hour in which I am usually asleep. I checked the news (big mistake?), and discover that there was a shooting at the event that POTUS was attending. Another assassination attempt.
Good Lord.
Update:
A doctor's visit has been scheduled, so there's that.
Since I mentioned the incident at an event in DC? ( apparent assassination attempt), I'll add this to this update. Here's something that's going around apparently. (False Flag accusation.)
"May you live in interesting times" seems an appropriate quote right now. This is straight out of the Twilight Zone.
Another visit with the doc, and we'll find out more...
5/16/26:
More about the Twilight Zone than what anyone bargained for...
5/15/26:
The term "Twilight Zone" was used in this post (before updating). Perhaps I wasn't clear what the term was supposed to mean. It may have helped if I was more familiar with the TV show from what back then. Maybe it was on the TV when I was little, but I just don't remember it much. What does Twilight Zone mean to me? In a word, "weird". It had that weird music that introduced it. Rod Serling would give his speech. Actually the speech may have come afterward. Either way, it just seemed weird. That's what I meant. It was "weird".
The re-runs are on Tubi, and I watched a few episodes. What seemed weird before does not seem so weird now. It helps to be more familar with the words one uses. After watching a few of these episodes, I don't think I would've used the term "Twilight Zone" this way. Just thought I would mention that. Over and out.
4/29/26:
Did my doctor's visit. My fears were a bit overblown. There's something that needs to be handled, but it is manageable. That's all I got on this. Posting will resume. As Roseann Rosanna Dana would say: "Never mind!"
4/26/26:
There might be something going on medically that I need to attend to.
Don't want to be morbid, but this may not be too good.
Anyway, I am up at an hour in which I am usually asleep. I checked the news (big mistake?), and discover that there was a shooting at the event that POTUS was attending. Another assassination attempt.
Good Lord.
Update:
A doctor's visit has been scheduled, so there's that.
Since I mentioned the incident at an event in DC? ( apparent assassination attempt), I'll add this to this update. Here's something that's going around apparently. (False Flag accusation.)
You idiots who think Trump is staging assassination attempts. You think he would agree to a plan wherein someone STOPS HIM FROM TROLLING A CAPTIVE ROOM OF THOUSANDS OF JOURNALISTS FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF? This is his dream scenario.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) April 26, 2026
"May you live in interesting times" seems an appropriate quote right now. This is straight out of the Twilight Zone.
Tuesday, June 2, 2026
James Talarico is called "Talafreako"
Can anything be done to discourage these types of attempts by politicians to make themselves appear to be different from what they really are?
Talarico is fake. But it may be possible to fool the public and win an election. Either by fraud or force (phony ballot trickery and the like).
Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment?
If by amendment, then how do you enforce it? If a politician wants to lie his way into office, then how do you stop it?
There is no fail-safe way, but maybe there is a way to discourage it. Perhaps something like a recall election. This doesn't always work, though. California is an example. They did recall one politician, and simply got another fake--Arnold Swartzenegger.
If democracy is to work, the public has to be on guard. That's a problem. As the saying goes: "You can fool most of the people some of the time, and some of the people most of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time". The trouble with elections is that you only need to fool most of the people some of the time. An election campaign isn't constant. It is for a short time.
Let's suppose you had something like a petition to find facts regarding an issue that the public decides is worthy of setting up. A court of inquiry could be mandated by a recall petition. If the recall petition gets enough votes, the court of inquiry would be convened and hold a trial. The results of the trial is definite like a finding of guilty on not guilty. The finding wouldn't remove an official, but it would be finding of fact that could be used in impeachment proceedings, and in electoral campaigns.
The limited nature of this proposition may insure that it is rarely used. After all, you wouldn't get an automatic removal from office even if malfactor is found guilty. But it could lead to removal. If the supporters of a politician found guilty this way refuse to hold the malfactor accountable, the public can take that into consideration the next time an election is held. Indeed, the refusal to act could result in more findings of fact petitions.
It could be messy, but politicians would not necessarily want to go through all this, and may act more reasonably. That's the hope, anyway.
Quick update:
Directly on point here with this tweet:
Update later in the day:
Big ideas from Democrats
If the ideas are so good, why not make it like a contract? If the politicians fail to live up the contract, they can held accountable for it. Make it to where they can in effect be sued for breach of contract, with the relief being a loss of the power of the office the rascal is holding.
The trouble with these "big ideas" is that they aren't explicitly stated. The ideas need to be explicitly stated and put in an enforceable contract with the voters. That is to say, make their office contingent upon being faithful in executing their contract.
This probably makes too much sense, and why it would never be enacted.
Talarico is fake. But it may be possible to fool the public and win an election. Either by fraud or force (phony ballot trickery and the like).
Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment?
If by amendment, then how do you enforce it? If a politician wants to lie his way into office, then how do you stop it?
There is no fail-safe way, but maybe there is a way to discourage it. Perhaps something like a recall election. This doesn't always work, though. California is an example. They did recall one politician, and simply got another fake--Arnold Swartzenegger.
If democracy is to work, the public has to be on guard. That's a problem. As the saying goes: "You can fool most of the people some of the time, and some of the people most of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time". The trouble with elections is that you only need to fool most of the people some of the time. An election campaign isn't constant. It is for a short time.
Let's suppose you had something like a petition to find facts regarding an issue that the public decides is worthy of setting up. A court of inquiry could be mandated by a recall petition. If the recall petition gets enough votes, the court of inquiry would be convened and hold a trial. The results of the trial is definite like a finding of guilty on not guilty. The finding wouldn't remove an official, but it would be finding of fact that could be used in impeachment proceedings, and in electoral campaigns.
The limited nature of this proposition may insure that it is rarely used. After all, you wouldn't get an automatic removal from office even if malfactor is found guilty. But it could lead to removal. If the supporters of a politician found guilty this way refuse to hold the malfactor accountable, the public can take that into consideration the next time an election is held. Indeed, the refusal to act could result in more findings of fact petitions.
It could be messy, but politicians would not necessarily want to go through all this, and may act more reasonably. That's the hope, anyway.
Quick update:
Directly on point here with this tweet:
If Democrats told you what they really believed, they’d never get elected. https://t.co/THGTZDc4MW
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) June 2, 2026
Update later in the day:
Big ideas from Democrats
If the ideas are so good, why not make it like a contract? If the politicians fail to live up the contract, they can held accountable for it. Make it to where they can in effect be sued for breach of contract, with the relief being a loss of the power of the office the rascal is holding.
The trouble with these "big ideas" is that they aren't explicitly stated. The ideas need to be explicitly stated and put in an enforceable contract with the voters. That is to say, make their office contingent upon being faithful in executing their contract.
This probably makes too much sense, and why it would never be enacted.
Made a audio track with Gemini Ai
6/2/26:
Not happy with this subscription. Not only that, but Google seems to make a mystery out of cancelling the service. Nope, not happy at all. Mystery solved: service is cancelled. No video will be made with Gemini AI.
5/25/26:
They couldn't make a video using the video I supplied and adding an audio track to it. So it produced an audio track instead.
Here's a link they provided for to be shared. I can take what they provided, and try to add it to a video, but I'm not sure how to do that yet using ClipChamp.
Not happy with this subscription. Not only that, but Google seems to make a mystery out of cancelling the service. Nope, not happy at all. Mystery solved: service is cancelled. No video will be made with Gemini AI.
5/25/26:
Here's a link they provided for to be shared. I can take what they provided, and try to add it to a video, but I'm not sure how to do that yet using ClipChamp.
 |
| AI produced still from my video. But the rocket is on the wrong side of the river! |
More on the supposed breakup of the Union
6/2/26:
There's really no way to sustain a war like the one in the nineteenth century. The only way to break up the union would be by mutual consent.
How do you sustain armies when it would be so easy to starve people out? You cannot forage on the countryside like in the old days. There's nowhere to go if order breaks down. It wouldn't last long at all. As this article seems to point to, the most likely consent would come from a Democrat administration with a breakup demand from red states. The RINO wing might let the Dems separate. Not sure about the MAGA wind. It should be a firm "NO". Democrats cannot win without fraud and violence. Nobody in the right mind would voluntarily choose the kind of rot-gut leftism running so rampant in the Democrat party now.
12/15/14:
Saw something on Maha's blog that hinted the same theme. Now these guys on the left really don't know their vulnerability. Their problem is bigger than the South.
Here's their proposition: they want to split, but their populations are on isolated islands in the big cities. With their world view on such issues as war and piece plus energy, how the heck are they going to run these energy intensive areas? You can't put windmills and solar panels in New York City. War and Peace? Where do these social justice warriors going to come from when they kicked out the people who are likely to man the battalions? How are they going to reproduce when their access to the red states is cut off? They need people, how are they going to get them if they are aborting them or having same sex relationships?
They need all these things, but somehow they think they can do without them. A breakup of the Union would be sheer folly for them.
What would stop the red counties from seceding from their blue states? Does the secession only work one way? How do they stop it if they don't believe in force?
It doesn't work. Sheer lunacy.
There's really no way to sustain a war like the one in the nineteenth century. The only way to break up the union would be by mutual consent.
How do you sustain armies when it would be so easy to starve people out? You cannot forage on the countryside like in the old days. There's nowhere to go if order breaks down. It wouldn't last long at all. As this article seems to point to, the most likely consent would come from a Democrat administration with a breakup demand from red states. The RINO wing might let the Dems separate. Not sure about the MAGA wind. It should be a firm "NO". Democrats cannot win without fraud and violence. Nobody in the right mind would voluntarily choose the kind of rot-gut leftism running so rampant in the Democrat party now.
12/15/14:
Saw something on Maha's blog that hinted the same theme. Now these guys on the left really don't know their vulnerability. Their problem is bigger than the South.
Here's their proposition: they want to split, but their populations are on isolated islands in the big cities. With their world view on such issues as war and piece plus energy, how the heck are they going to run these energy intensive areas? You can't put windmills and solar panels in New York City. War and Peace? Where do these social justice warriors going to come from when they kicked out the people who are likely to man the battalions? How are they going to reproduce when their access to the red states is cut off? They need people, how are they going to get them if they are aborting them or having same sex relationships?
They need all these things, but somehow they think they can do without them. A breakup of the Union would be sheer folly for them.
What would stop the red counties from seceding from their blue states? Does the secession only work one way? How do they stop it if they don't believe in force?
It doesn't work. Sheer lunacy.
Monday, June 1, 2026
Why bother?
6/1/26:
Another reaction post here. As you can see, this post is over 10 years old! So what has happened from that time to this?
I've probably mentioned something about audience numbers before. To mention it again: I don't know what the true numbers are. I DO think that they are somewhat higher. But I don't think they're anywhere near the numbers I am seeing from the Google interface.
As for Barnhardt, I'd say that somebody has to do the job. Elections are the way we decide who the leaders are. We aren't voting for saints. Hopefully we can get people who will do a fair job.
This may allow to me segue into a further discussion about Trump. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've held the opinion that trade deficits are bad since at least 1988. Back then, Dick Gephardt was running for President. I actually voted for him in the Democrat primary. If he got the nomination, maybe ( maybe!) I would've voted for him on what he was running on. He was running against those huge deficits. We thought they were huge in 1988. Of course, they are much, much bigger now.
Free trade uber alles types don't see the national security risk of offshoring our industrial base. For the Democrats, offshoring our industrial base may be a feature, not a bug. Gephardt was a Democrat. Something tells me the Democrats have changed. It was not always so that they thought that way about de-industrialization. Gephardt didn't win, but he got SOME votes anyway.
If Trump gives up on re-industrialization, then he will have lost the plot as far as I'm concerned.
3/21/16:
Five and a half years of blogging, and few readers. Very few. Sometimes I wonder about this habit of mine.
Not to mention that even if I had much influence, it doesn't do much for me personally. If all of a sudden, the world heeded my every word, and things started going the way I think they should, it wouldn't make much of a difference in my own life. Why bother?
Truth to it is that I don't know. I just press on. Maybe it could be thought of as a type of penance. But why would I need to do that? Don't know. Don't think I have wronged anybody. Maybe the penance wouldn't be recognized as such, and may be considered as bad as anything else that I have done.
Nope, there doesn't appear to be any reason for it other than I like to do it. So I do it.
With that thought in mind, I turn to another person out there. But this person does have an audience.
That person says that it is axiomatic that the culture has degraded to such an extent that to seek office is evidence that that person is unfit to hold office.
Axiomatic is the word. She keeps repeating her axiom, as some of her readers just don't get it. Well, for me, I decided to look up the word "axiomatic". What I got out of the definition is that if it is axiomatic, then it cannot be argued against. Sort of like water being wet. The sun rising in the east. And so on. In other words, it ain't axiomatic if she has to keep explaining it.
Perhaps I shouldn't write that here. Perhaps I should write her and tell her this. I have a hunch though that this wouldn't work. Nor would this little post. It is just another example of why should I bother? If people are going to believe something or other, they are not going to be argued out of it.
It is like AGW. People believe in it. Why bother arguing against it? They won't change their minds, because it is a belief, not a rational conclusion based upon facts.
I could go on and on and on. No. We do not live in a rational world. Yes, that may be said to be axiomatic, but I might get an argument about that. That is, if I had an audience.
Another reaction post here. As you can see, this post is over 10 years old! So what has happened from that time to this?
I've probably mentioned something about audience numbers before. To mention it again: I don't know what the true numbers are. I DO think that they are somewhat higher. But I don't think they're anywhere near the numbers I am seeing from the Google interface.
As for Barnhardt, I'd say that somebody has to do the job. Elections are the way we decide who the leaders are. We aren't voting for saints. Hopefully we can get people who will do a fair job.
This may allow to me segue into a further discussion about Trump. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've held the opinion that trade deficits are bad since at least 1988. Back then, Dick Gephardt was running for President. I actually voted for him in the Democrat primary. If he got the nomination, maybe ( maybe!) I would've voted for him on what he was running on. He was running against those huge deficits. We thought they were huge in 1988. Of course, they are much, much bigger now.
Free trade uber alles types don't see the national security risk of offshoring our industrial base. For the Democrats, offshoring our industrial base may be a feature, not a bug. Gephardt was a Democrat. Something tells me the Democrats have changed. It was not always so that they thought that way about de-industrialization. Gephardt didn't win, but he got SOME votes anyway.
If Trump gives up on re-industrialization, then he will have lost the plot as far as I'm concerned.
3/21/16:
Five and a half years of blogging, and few readers. Very few. Sometimes I wonder about this habit of mine.
Not to mention that even if I had much influence, it doesn't do much for me personally. If all of a sudden, the world heeded my every word, and things started going the way I think they should, it wouldn't make much of a difference in my own life. Why bother?
Truth to it is that I don't know. I just press on. Maybe it could be thought of as a type of penance. But why would I need to do that? Don't know. Don't think I have wronged anybody. Maybe the penance wouldn't be recognized as such, and may be considered as bad as anything else that I have done.
Nope, there doesn't appear to be any reason for it other than I like to do it. So I do it.
With that thought in mind, I turn to another person out there. But this person does have an audience.
That person says that it is axiomatic that the culture has degraded to such an extent that to seek office is evidence that that person is unfit to hold office.
Axiomatic is the word. She keeps repeating her axiom, as some of her readers just don't get it. Well, for me, I decided to look up the word "axiomatic". What I got out of the definition is that if it is axiomatic, then it cannot be argued against. Sort of like water being wet. The sun rising in the east. And so on. In other words, it ain't axiomatic if she has to keep explaining it.
Perhaps I shouldn't write that here. Perhaps I should write her and tell her this. I have a hunch though that this wouldn't work. Nor would this little post. It is just another example of why should I bother? If people are going to believe something or other, they are not going to be argued out of it.
It is like AGW. People believe in it. Why bother arguing against it? They won't change their minds, because it is a belief, not a rational conclusion based upon facts.
I could go on and on and on. No. We do not live in a rational world. Yes, that may be said to be axiomatic, but I might get an argument about that. That is, if I had an audience.
Sunday, May 31, 2026
Installing an AI agent
Whoa, Nellie! I am not endorsing any AI agent here. As usual, I am willing to TRY it out sometime. As of this time, the following AI installation has not been attempted by yours truly.
It is worth considering if Braxman thinks it's okay. But I haven't gotten to the point where I'll try it.
Maybe I won't try it at all. As for now, it will be kept here for reference purposes in case I DO decide to try it.
Waterloo --- Stonewall Jackson
Senator "Cornball" met his political Waterloo... "Every puppy has its day". "Democracy" means that the bums get thrown out, and meet their political Waterloo. It does seem that for all their love for "Democracy", the Dems don't like to ever meet theirs. Nobody does, but the Dems pay only lip service to "Democracy". Losing only makes them mad. Then they'll get worse, not better. You'd think that they'd learn, but they only get worse. "Cornball" was almost as bad as the Dems, but not by much. Perhaps he won't try to gain revenge for his loss.
Jon Matonis on Bitcoin and crypto-currencies
5/31/26:
Bitcoin didn't seem like a durable thing. A small investment back then may have appreciated a lot, so I may have missed an opportunity. What problem does Bitcoin (crypto) solve? Maybe the same ones that paper currency does. But it has the same problems that paper currency has. Perhaps even more problems. Security would seem to be a problem with crypto. I don't trust it.
4/4/13:
GoldMoneyNews
Quote:
Comment:
GoldMoney is a gold vault operation, for want of a better term. This is their communication, which is amongst the ways in which they communicate with the world.
You can buy and sell gold there, with what they call gold grams, which represent 1 gram of gold. In comparison to an ounce, it takes about 30 grams to equal an ounce. GoldMoney's vault is located in the Channel Island of Jersey, near England, if memory serves. I traded with them there, on the internet, in 2007. I stopped fairly quickly that year when the US government started interfering, to my displeasure.
My contribution to the thoughts on this matter on the video is that since BitCoin is peer-to-peer, and a value is needed to establish what a BitCoin is actually is worth, then all is needed is some agreement amongst the BitCoin community as what that value of a BitCoin actually is. Now, if BitCoin is pegged amongst the community that it is worth so many gold grams, then you have achieved an objective value of a BitCoin, in my opinion.
Real currencies are set up by governments. A government is a group of people who exert authority and operate according to some kind of mutual agreement amongst them. In comparison, you would need to have a way to police a system, amongst the participants in that system. Now, a group of people can set this up and run it according to a charter they agreed upon. It can govern the system.
The video doesn't cover this, by the way. It is my own thought on the matter.
Anyway, here's the video
Bitcoin didn't seem like a durable thing. A small investment back then may have appreciated a lot, so I may have missed an opportunity. What problem does Bitcoin (crypto) solve? Maybe the same ones that paper currency does. But it has the same problems that paper currency has. Perhaps even more problems. Security would seem to be a problem with crypto. I don't trust it.
4/4/13:
GoldMoneyNews
Quote:
Published on Mar 29, 2013
Subscribe to our newsletter at http://www.goldmoney.com/goldresearch. Episode 118: GoldMoney's Andy Duncan talks to Jon Matonis of the Bitcoin Foundation who is also a contributor to Forbes Magazine. They discuss Bitcoin's latest price spike and whether crypto-currencies are a credible alternative as a medium of exchange.
Comment:
GoldMoney is a gold vault operation, for want of a better term. This is their communication, which is amongst the ways in which they communicate with the world.
You can buy and sell gold there, with what they call gold grams, which represent 1 gram of gold. In comparison to an ounce, it takes about 30 grams to equal an ounce. GoldMoney's vault is located in the Channel Island of Jersey, near England, if memory serves. I traded with them there, on the internet, in 2007. I stopped fairly quickly that year when the US government started interfering, to my displeasure.
My contribution to the thoughts on this matter on the video is that since BitCoin is peer-to-peer, and a value is needed to establish what a BitCoin is actually is worth, then all is needed is some agreement amongst the BitCoin community as what that value of a BitCoin actually is. Now, if BitCoin is pegged amongst the community that it is worth so many gold grams, then you have achieved an objective value of a BitCoin, in my opinion.
Real currencies are set up by governments. A government is a group of people who exert authority and operate according to some kind of mutual agreement amongst them. In comparison, you would need to have a way to police a system, amongst the participants in that system. Now, a group of people can set this up and run it according to a charter they agreed upon. It can govern the system.
The video doesn't cover this, by the way. It is my own thought on the matter.
Anyway, here's the video
Whine industrial complex
5/31/26:
If Trump falls short for some folks, he hasn't for me. If you wish define him as a disappointment, you have failed to convince moi. I'll decide that for myself.
5/10/18:
Remember George Will? He is now firmly in the camp of the Never Trumpers. Not only that, he has lost his love for veep Mike Pence, who doesn't seem to be getting their message.
There are those who have said that the GOP would rather lose elections, as opposed to having their gigs threatened.
Most of the gigs, if not all of them, are of the variety of professional complaining. I now hereby dub this phenomenon as the Whine Industrial Complex. The Never Trumpers fit into this category. They have raised it up to a fine art.
What makes a whiner? A person who doesn't actually do anything can be a whiner. You see, a whiner feels powerless, but perfect. They love to consider themselves above it all, and they just can't let their own hands to get dirty, or they won't be clean anymore.
As for yours truly, I have distanced myself from the Whine Industrial Complex by taking the money out of the Whine. No money will be accepted here, but I will bitch endlessly about everything, which seems fine with me. If it ever gets more serious around this lame ass society of ours, I will be ready, willing, and able to pitch in what I can. That includes opening up enough cans of Whoop-Ass to do the job that is desperately needed.
If it also means that I will get "my hands dirty" by supporting the likes of Donald Trump, then let it be so. I prefer some action, even if it means that I might get a little dirty and mussed up before it is all over.
The Whiners will never do anything about the cultural rot around us, except complain. They will ratify the left in the high-jacking of America, and toppling it in the way the 9/11 terrorists did.
If Trump falls short for some folks, he hasn't for me. If you wish define him as a disappointment, you have failed to convince moi. I'll decide that for myself.
5/10/18:
Remember George Will? He is now firmly in the camp of the Never Trumpers. Not only that, he has lost his love for veep Mike Pence, who doesn't seem to be getting their message.
There are those who have said that the GOP would rather lose elections, as opposed to having their gigs threatened.
Most of the gigs, if not all of them, are of the variety of professional complaining. I now hereby dub this phenomenon as the Whine Industrial Complex. The Never Trumpers fit into this category. They have raised it up to a fine art.
What makes a whiner? A person who doesn't actually do anything can be a whiner. You see, a whiner feels powerless, but perfect. They love to consider themselves above it all, and they just can't let their own hands to get dirty, or they won't be clean anymore.
As for yours truly, I have distanced myself from the Whine Industrial Complex by taking the money out of the Whine. No money will be accepted here, but I will bitch endlessly about everything, which seems fine with me. If it ever gets more serious around this lame ass society of ours, I will be ready, willing, and able to pitch in what I can. That includes opening up enough cans of Whoop-Ass to do the job that is desperately needed.
If it also means that I will get "my hands dirty" by supporting the likes of Donald Trump, then let it be so. I prefer some action, even if it means that I might get a little dirty and mussed up before it is all over.
The Whiners will never do anything about the cultural rot around us, except complain. They will ratify the left in the high-jacking of America, and toppling it in the way the 9/11 terrorists did.
Mike Steger Recaps Current State of "Fortress America" - President Trump's American Manufacturing Surge
Conservative Treehouse
This new economic policy ( or should I say "old", since it is the policy of Alexander Hamilton ) to rebuild American manufacturing, should be continued. If the Democrats return to power, they will undo all of this, and the gains will vanish. Indeed, the whole globalist project is to reduce the American Experiment to nothing.
Hasn't the Globalist Gambit been exactly that? A "gambit" is the sacrifice of an important piece in order to get a positional advantage in the game of chess. As in chess, the Globalists are sacrificing American economic power in exchange for a political victory. The results of their victory will likely mean communism and/or Islamic extremism.
Globalism is no friend to America. It is inherently against America First, and the sooner the public understands it this way, the better.
I have never been a supporter of free trade uber alles. This opinion of mine precedes Trump by decades. Trump is merely following the policy that I favored for the longest time. I will not be swayed by all of this other crap. Lose to this gambit, and you lose it all.
This new economic policy ( or should I say "old", since it is the policy of Alexander Hamilton ) to rebuild American manufacturing, should be continued. If the Democrats return to power, they will undo all of this, and the gains will vanish. Indeed, the whole globalist project is to reduce the American Experiment to nothing.
Hasn't the Globalist Gambit been exactly that? A "gambit" is the sacrifice of an important piece in order to get a positional advantage in the game of chess. As in chess, the Globalists are sacrificing American economic power in exchange for a political victory. The results of their victory will likely mean communism and/or Islamic extremism.
Globalism is no friend to America. It is inherently against America First, and the sooner the public understands it this way, the better.
I have never been a supporter of free trade uber alles. This opinion of mine precedes Trump by decades. Trump is merely following the policy that I favored for the longest time. I will not be swayed by all of this other crap. Lose to this gambit, and you lose it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)