Was Bongino really getting some negative feedback because of this show? In my opinion, he is really cooking here. There's an explanation for all of this. It is in the Gospel of John.
What's that, you might ask... It's actually in more parts of the New Testament than that... But it comes down to the fact that the world loves a lie because the world is in darkness. It's a spirtual thing, but the world has forsaken that. You can see it every day.
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.
Tuesday, August 11, 2026
Bongino Show, 8/11/26
Battle of Midway, WWII
8/11/26:
At the end of a film on that subject, the character for Adm. Nimitz asked if we were better than the Japanese, or just lucky.
Well, our side had a few things the Japanese didn't have. We had radar. We cracked their codes. We had better reconnaissance, as we had more planes than they had. We were also in our own backyard, so to speak. We had other advantages, too. Like better fire suppression in ships. Better armor on our planes.
But we had some disadvantages. There were few battleships available because of the successful Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor. These battleships could have provided greatly needed cover. The Japanese had them and it was almost decisive. We were nearly out of attack planes when the final ones came in and caught the Japanese by surprise. It was a surprise because they didn't expect a third carrier to be available. Yorktown was damaged at Coral Sea. Emergency repairs made her sea worthy, and this wasn't expected. Three Japanese carriers were knocked out with that last blow. That final carrier was decisive. Game over.
No, the Battle of Midway wasn't all luck. There was some luck involved. That luck could have been decisive as well. But it wasn't all luck. If that third carrier wasn't available, even this wouldn't have been good enough.
The moral of the story. Don't count on luck. You should strive to be good enough to take advantage of what luck you may get.
Did Nimitz set a trap for Yamamoto at Midway?
The following video makes its case that he did.
At the end of a film on that subject, the character for Adm. Nimitz asked if we were better than the Japanese, or just lucky.
Well, our side had a few things the Japanese didn't have. We had radar. We cracked their codes. We had better reconnaissance, as we had more planes than they had. We were also in our own backyard, so to speak. We had other advantages, too. Like better fire suppression in ships. Better armor on our planes.
But we had some disadvantages. There were few battleships available because of the successful Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor. These battleships could have provided greatly needed cover. The Japanese had them and it was almost decisive. We were nearly out of attack planes when the final ones came in and caught the Japanese by surprise. It was a surprise because they didn't expect a third carrier to be available. Yorktown was damaged at Coral Sea. Emergency repairs made her sea worthy, and this wasn't expected. Three Japanese carriers were knocked out with that last blow. That final carrier was decisive. Game over.
No, the Battle of Midway wasn't all luck. There was some luck involved. That luck could have been decisive as well. But it wasn't all luck. If that third carrier wasn't available, even this wouldn't have been good enough.
The moral of the story. Don't count on luck. You should strive to be good enough to take advantage of what luck you may get.
Liberalism must be all about guilt
8/11/26:
The left is trotting out Gabby Giffords in order to try to guilt trip the opposition to gun-control.
As I suggested before, ask them "what are your solutions?" The solution isn't necessarily giving them what they want. Just because the left wants something doesn't make it an effective solution to a problem.
Gun-control didn't stop the Sandy Hook massacre. Connecticut already has a lot of gun-control. Adding more makes no sense--- if a lot of control didn't stop it, more isn't going to be the answer either.
Now, if you were to take the situation as it happened, and ask what could have been done in that situation that may have made the difference, then you are on the right track.
The situation at Sandy Hook was that there was nobody enforcing the gun-free zone. It is nuts to expect a criminal to obey the law. Why would anybody expect a criminal to obey the law? If all you had to do was pass a law, then there would be no crime. Now think about that. If there were no laws, there would be no crime. If you pass a law, then there is crime. What do you suppose the effect is then if you pass a law? It makes no difference in terms of deterrence unless you enforce it. Nothing is going to change just by passing a law. The act is going to happen unless you have someone there to stop it.
Liberals feel pretty guilty. The one way to stop feeling guilty is to stop doing the wrong thing that makes you feel guilty. Well, duh.
Liberalism is a cycle of guilt. Let the liberals feel guilty. No need to join them, because liberalism doesn't solve problems. Liberalism's all about feeling guilty, and making a virtue of the guilt. Liberalism just makes things even worse so the liberals can keep on feeling guilty for all the damage they cause.
As I suggested before, ask them "what are your solutions?" The solution isn't necessarily giving them what they want. Just because the left wants something doesn't make it an effective solution to a problem.
Gun-control didn't stop the Sandy Hook massacre. Connecticut already has a lot of gun-control. Adding more makes no sense--- if a lot of control didn't stop it, more isn't going to be the answer either.
Now, if you were to take the situation as it happened, and ask what could have been done in that situation that may have made the difference, then you are on the right track.
The situation at Sandy Hook was that there was nobody enforcing the gun-free zone. It is nuts to expect a criminal to obey the law. Why would anybody expect a criminal to obey the law? If all you had to do was pass a law, then there would be no crime. Now think about that. If there were no laws, there would be no crime. If you pass a law, then there is crime. What do you suppose the effect is then if you pass a law? It makes no difference in terms of deterrence unless you enforce it. Nothing is going to change just by passing a law. The act is going to happen unless you have someone there to stop it.
CTH: Susan Kokinda...
Reviews Abdul El-Sayed From Michigan
Doesn't deal with the lefty-righty paradigm of the Socialists-Marxists-Democrats, imo.
That works for me.
Here's another story from CTH while you're visiting. I noticed something over at Barnhardt recently. They're sneaking in the mRNA "vaccines" again for FLU SHOTS. Glad to know that. I won't be getting one of those "vaccines".
Cave men just don't wanna be commie pinko fags
8/11/26:
We see you, but we don't wanna be you.
It's a good thing that cave men weren't fruits. We wouldn't be here otherwise! Know what I mean, Vern?
10/12/24: The original post follows:We see you, but we don't wanna be you.
KAMALA HARRIS’S MAN PROBLEM! As Obama desperately pleads with black male voters to back her, Freddy https://t.co/Bgt072wrS4 ---$$$ quote: "they've Bud Lighted their whole brand". Now that's making the complex simple. Even a cave man can get that.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) October 12, 2024
Getting rocket fuel into orbital space depots
8/11/26:
Speculation alert
MAB post 11
John Powell of JP Aerospace wants to get up to orbit with an airship. John Hunter wants to use an air gun to get fuel up to orbit. Now, this may be a crazy concept, but here goes. Combine the two by sending 100 lb payloads to orbit from JP Aerospace's Dark Sky Station.
Hunter says he can do 10 shots per day. That would be a 1000 lbs per day. After a month, you have a respectable amount of fuel in orbit.
Another purpose for using the Dark Sky Station this way is to avoid the energy loss of going through the lower atmosphere at high velocity. This enables a smaller gun to do a bigger job.
As I noted earlier, you can't put a gas gun on a plane. You can't even put a gas gun on an Ascender. But you can assemble one in a Dark Sky Station because the Station is frickin' huge.
Getting the gun there is only half the problem, though. Maybe the easier half. The other half is what to do about the recoil of the gas gun? It will be too much for the Dark Sky Station to handle.
One thing that could be considered is to capture the energy of the recoil and use it to make work. That work will act as the buffer that will soften the recoil of the gas gun.
How to do that? The old 64K dollar question.
You could use the energy to spin up one or more flywheels. A flywheel with enough mass and capability to spin at great velocity.
Update:
As long as this is a speculative post, let's use the MAB concept in concert with this concept. The MAB would take it to orbit. The Hunter gas gun would give it a boost to 1/2 orbital velocity. The total wet mass calculated assuming 20% payload fraction ( Parkins assumption) gives us a vehicle of under 1k lbs.
What to do about that recoil? Use the Airship to Orbit module launched from the Dark Sky Station for your launch pad. Point it in the direction so that the recoil forces the Airship down. The buoyancy of the Airship will force it to come back up. You could also dampen the recoil a bit as described above.
The gas gun would have a smaller payload than what Hunter is talking about. But the extra mass brings it back up to full size. That's much too big again. So, we pare down the size of the gas gun by making it less ambitious. It will only go 1/2 orbital velocity. A conventional rocket will take it to orbital velocity from there.
Still worried about the recoil.
Well, it certainly appears that something has changed up here. None of these ideas will ever matter at all since SpaceX's Starship will be able to take over 100 Tons to orbit soon. Fuel
depots are in the mix for the Starship, and if that works out, other ideas can't compete.
The thing about JP Aerospace is that you may be able to use it on Mars. On Mars, the atmosphere is already as thin as Earth's at the altitude that JP wants to use the ascender for. The ascender will go to orbit. It is a matter of how much energy it needs and whether or not it will be enough to get to orbit. Mars gravity is roughly 40% of Earth's, so if orbital velocity is also 40%, that would make it about Mach 10? (I could ask AI for that number, and probably already have once. If so, I may update this later.)
Ascender can be used on the Martian surface for sure as a transportation system to any other place on the Martian surface even if it cannot get to orbit (yet).
Gas guns? John Hunter of Quicklaunch once mentioned that you don't even need to heat the hydrogen gas in order to get to lunar orbital velocity! Think of the possibilities.
Speculation alert
MAB post 11
John Powell of JP Aerospace wants to get up to orbit with an airship. John Hunter wants to use an air gun to get fuel up to orbit. Now, this may be a crazy concept, but here goes. Combine the two by sending 100 lb payloads to orbit from JP Aerospace's Dark Sky Station.
Hunter says he can do 10 shots per day. That would be a 1000 lbs per day. After a month, you have a respectable amount of fuel in orbit.
Another purpose for using the Dark Sky Station this way is to avoid the energy loss of going through the lower atmosphere at high velocity. This enables a smaller gun to do a bigger job.
As I noted earlier, you can't put a gas gun on a plane. You can't even put a gas gun on an Ascender. But you can assemble one in a Dark Sky Station because the Station is frickin' huge.
Getting the gun there is only half the problem, though. Maybe the easier half. The other half is what to do about the recoil of the gas gun? It will be too much for the Dark Sky Station to handle.
One thing that could be considered is to capture the energy of the recoil and use it to make work. That work will act as the buffer that will soften the recoil of the gas gun.
How to do that? The old 64K dollar question.
You could use the energy to spin up one or more flywheels. A flywheel with enough mass and capability to spin at great velocity.
Update:
As long as this is a speculative post, let's use the MAB concept in concert with this concept. The MAB would take it to orbit. The Hunter gas gun would give it a boost to 1/2 orbital velocity. The total wet mass calculated assuming 20% payload fraction ( Parkins assumption) gives us a vehicle of under 1k lbs.
 |
| Wet mass for 100 lb payload launched from DSS/MAB assuming 20% mass fraction (MAB module) |
What to do about that recoil? Use the Airship to Orbit module launched from the Dark Sky Station for your launch pad. Point it in the direction so that the recoil forces the Airship down. The buoyancy of the Airship will force it to come back up. You could also dampen the recoil a bit as described above.
The gas gun would have a smaller payload than what Hunter is talking about. But the extra mass brings it back up to full size. That's much too big again. So, we pare down the size of the gas gun by making it less ambitious. It will only go 1/2 orbital velocity. A conventional rocket will take it to orbital velocity from there.
Still worried about the recoil.
Monday, August 10, 2026
Consim video
8/10/26:
I like this game. However, it receives lower ratings than it should.
This video discusses a problem that I never solved with this game. I'm sure many folks encounter the same problem and give the game lower ratings than what it would have otherwise. That's too bad.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I found a lot of "errors" in the game, but later turned out to be something that slipped by me.
The new version I bought recently is like that. I've found a couple things that were really on me, and not the game.
How much of this was engineered the way it is so that it wouldn't be too easy?
Still, I think some better explanations would have been helpful. Not only true with Construction Simulator 3, which is what this video refers to, but also the newer version. (What's its name?, I didn't get one, and it doesn't appear to be listed on the screen! ) See what I mean?
I like this game. However, it receives lower ratings than it should.
This video discusses a problem that I never solved with this game. I'm sure many folks encounter the same problem and give the game lower ratings than what it would have otherwise. That's too bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)