Peanuts Gang Singing "Living in the U.S.A."

1/16/26:

Video was taken down. Shucks. Let's try this one instead...

Author:Flying Dutchman

Description: Video mashup with Steve Miller Band's hit song "Living in the USA".

5/3/17:


Cute little mashup of the Steve Miller Band song Living in the USA.

Kinda fit the theme, so I put it in today.

Robert Ringer

1/16/26:

 

Update:

  In this post, at the third paragraph or so, there was a mention of Leonard Peikoff, who wrote a provocatively titled book.   The title is The Ominous Parallels.

  I'm sure that I've read the book, and may have owned it.  I don't think I have it now, though.  I've largely forgotten about the book, except the names, obviously.

  There's a lot of mention about a rise of fascism in this country.  It has certainly gotten a lot of mention, but not this book.  If you want to discuss fascism, and what it actually is, you should at least have a philosophical basis for that discussion.  This book could provide some information on that topic.

  A study of history could be in order as well. In my opinion, too many people flap their gums without knowing of what they speak.

12/21/10:

Ringer is the guy who wrote "Winning Through Intimidation".  I mentioned this guy in an earlier post, but I can't remember which one offhand.   Or how to find it in my own blog.  But it is in here somewhere.

But my own disorganization aside, I recall writing that his book made me aware of Ayn Rand.  Eventually, I got around to reading "Atlas Shrugged", and another one of her books, "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal".  I can't say that I became an Objectivist.  But I can say that her works convinced me, even though I did not need all that much convincing.  When Ronald Reagan said that the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, it could have come out of my own mouth.

I read a book by Nathaniel Branden, who is or was an Objectivist.  And in an earlier version of this blog, back in 2004, I reviewed a book by Leonard Peikoff, who was closely allied with Ayn Rand.  So, I am familiar with that philosophy.  Not necessarily a fully fledged member of it.  This is not to say that I am against it in any way. I tend not to be a joiner, nor a Kool Aid drinker or any flavor.  I tend toward an independence that runs almost to an extreme.

It would be easy to dismiss me as a kook.  Perhaps that is what many people think.  If so, then so be it.  I can't be who I am by pleasing other people, and in the process, sacrificing myself for their approval.

I favor Capitalism, but I am not going to drink that Kool Aid either.  So, when I suggest that we use the external tank from the shuttle derived launcher, I feel it is in the spirit of Capitalism, but not necessary in the letter of it, down to the last dotted "i" and crossed "t".  To me, there is no need for that kind of purity of principle.  For I am a practical man.  Some have said "too practical", but it is what it is.

I mention these names so as to inform people of the direction from which I am coming.  With a few caveats sprinkled in.  For what it's worth, the last thing I would suggest is to keep a boondoggle or create a new one.  If I thought this is in effect of what I was proposing with these external tanks, I would drop the idea in a heartbeat.

Update:

One of the commenters yesterday asked why put up one of these big stations?

Here are 4 reasons:
1) To use it to generate artificial gravity.  Tethers could be used, but a solid structure could be better.
2) To use the huge volume for storage and habitation.  Machines could be installed as well to enhance capabilities.
3) Cheaper to reconfigure what is already in orbit as opposed to building it and launching it from Earth
4) Want to use it for deep space missions.  Take this station to the asteroids and mine platinum for profit.

Here are few more:
Testing techniques for in situ resource extraction using the ET's for that purpose.
Testing techniques for tethers while constructing the station.
Testing skills for managing artificial gravity systems.

"Trouble coming"

  Does "Democracy" die in darkness, as the WaPo heading says?

  Perhaps a revolution can occur in the midst of confusion, as that thought crosses my mind.  There's a lot of noise out there.  Perhaps we can do with less, not more.

  You can cling to the well-established ways for the sake of stability.  Laws are made during times of calm.  When laws are made during turbulence, a lot more mistakes get made.  Decisions are best when made during times of quiet reflection.

  A lot of finger-pointing too.  Rather than that, one can look inward at oneself, and look for one's own mistakes first.  After all, it is in the Gospel.

  I'd like to think that things are improving despite all the "sound and fury", a lot of this signifies "nothing".

Trouble coming by Tom Knighton

Read on Substack

Not exactly what I had in mind

 

  Looks like a number of GOP congresscritters voted against the proposed bill defunding some rogue judges.

  This looks bad, but maybe not so bad once you consider that it won't pass constitutional muster.  The Constitution says you cannot mess with their compensation, if I am not mistaken.  You may be able to defund their staff positions, but not the judge's salary itself.

  A better move would be to remove jurisdiction.  Besides, there's not enough of a majority to do anything anyway.  The GOP may not even have a majority right now.  This stuff is just for show.

  The political climate right now is pretty goofy.  Not much worth commenting upon, but this is worth some attention.   They need to get smarter, not louder.

Starship Update, 1/13/26

 

Author: NASASpaceflight

Description: "Is SpaceX is closing in on Starship Flight 12 and the debut of Version 3?"

Comment:

  Too much talk, and not enough action. Sure, they are building things, but where's the launches?  It's been awhile already since Flight 11, and it will take some more time to launch 12.  Maybe in March???   Man, I thought they'd be ready back in December.

Texans v Steelers last night

  This isn't the usual fare around here, so excuuuuuse me.

  There were some funny looking plays in that game. The fumbles and such. Late in the game, Woody Marks had a run in which he seemed to disappear and then pop out of nowhere to score a touchdown. "Upon further review", it looks like a Steeler tackler took out another Steeler defender, and that sprung Marks for the endzone.

  Weird.

  Then there was the strip sack of Aaron Rodgers which looked like it was almost whistled dead, but all of a sudden, Sheldon Rankins picks up the ball and runs to the endzone--touchdown.  Weird.

  Why write about football?  Might as well.  There's nothing else to write about.  The NFL won't let me embed the video, but the link above will show it.  

Former Lecturer/Corporate CFO Bullies Chick-fil-A Clerk

1/12/26:

Author: u1oo

8/3/12:

Some homosexual activist bullies a clerk.  Proud of yourself, fella?

This is projection. He's condemning hate, but actually acting in a hateful manner himself.

Is this what it is coming to in this country?



Update:

Free market wins (this time)

One of the most amazing things to me about the Chick-Fil-A appreciation patronage is that private citizens are waging a free market battle against progressivism. While progressives want to use government to shut down diverse thought, conservatives don't. Conservatives will counter progressive boycotts with massive buying power, as seen yesterday. We don't need regulations or legislation. Conservatives battled progressivism within the private sector over Dan Cathy's free speech and conservatives won. Consider Vante's action another free market move.

But the free market can't win if the socialists take over.  You won't have the freedom to resist.

Getting out of the comfort zone

   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.