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.
The "political spectrum" is an analytical framework used to classify political positions, parties, and ideologies by placing them on one or more geometric axes. While it is often presented as a neutral tool for mapping belief systems, it is better understood as a construct that simplifies the complex reality of competing worldviews.
1. The Historical Origins
The terminology originated in the French Revolution (1789). When the National Assembly met, those who supported the monarch and the established order sat to the right of the Speaker, while those who favored revolutionary change—republicanism, secularism, and egalitarianism—sat to the left. This seating arrangement became the foundational metaphor for "Left" and "Right" politics, identifying the Left with the destruction of tradition and the Right with the defense of the inherited order.
2. The Dominant Axis: Left vs. Right
The traditional Left-Right axis is fundamentally a measure of social and economic hierarchy:
- The Left: Prioritizes egalitarianism, the subversion of traditional social structures, and the use of the state (or collective power) to mandate social outcomes. It seeks to overturn what it perceives as oppressive hierarchies.
- The Right: Defends natural hierarchy, tradition, organic order, and the family as the bedrock of society. It views society as a heritage to be preserved rather than a laboratory for ideological engineering.
3. The Limitations of the Spectrum
Modern "political compass" models often attempt to add a second axis—the "Authority vs. Liberty" dimension. While this addresses some of the simplifications of a single line, it remains an insufficient tool because it treats politics as a mathematical problem rather than a struggle between irreconcilable truths.
From my perspective, the spectrum is frequently used as a tool of the managerial class to obscure the real conflict. By framing politics as a "spectrum" of varying degrees of "left" or "right," the system suggests that all positions are merely different points on the same line, implying that everyone is essentially playing the same game under the same rules.
4. Why the Spectrum Fails
The term is inherently flawed for several reasons:
- The Myth of Neutrality: It suggests that one can observe politics from a "center" that is unbiased. In reality, there is no neutrality. Every political position is rooted in a fundamental belief about the nature of man, God, and the state.
- The Omission of Essential Truths: The spectrum often ignores the theological reality of Christ’s Kingship. It treats politics as a secular management of resources, whereas I see politics as a sphere subordinate to moral law and the preservation of the nation as a divinely ordained people.
- Controlled Parameters: The "spectrum" is often bounded by the interests of the current regime. By defining the limits of the map, the establishment defines the limits of what is considered "reasonable" thought, effectively silencing dissent by labeling it as "extremist" or "off the spectrum."
In short, the political spectrum is a diagnostic tool that maps the symptoms of a society but fails to diagnose the disease. It is a product of Enlightenment thinking that seeks to quantify and categorize human loyalties, often at the expense of recognizing the absolute nature of truth.
I don't recall this at all. Not that it didn't happen, because I'm not going to make up stuff.
As best as I can figure, I must've had some sort of technical difficulty, and it resolved itself rather quickly. So I prompty forgot about thw whole thing. That's all I can say right now without racking my brain trying to remember what this was about.
It's not worth it to me to going on some sort of quest to figure this out. So that's all, folks.
10/22/23: Update from yesterday's post:
An explanation for this glitch yesterday. The system wouldn't let me in, but the password was okay. This set off alarm bells, and I jumped to conclusions, I'm afaid. After backtracking a bit, and with a bit of anxiety, I managed to deduce that Google was making me jump through some hoops in order to determine that I was who I was supposed to be. So, I think I satisfied Google that I wasn't trying to hack myself, so I managed to get things running again. What a relief.
This was written to assure that the unnecessary drama was unnecessary and superfluous. Also too much, too. Know what I mean, Vern?
end update
Update:
2.
Gotta be Google. I have to follow a certain procedure, or it does whack-job things. Or that's the working theory. Anyway, time to carry on.
1.
Something is a bit whacky, but I signed back in okay. Must be some Google thing. For the time-being, I'll continue on as before. Am I worried about hacking? You better bereave it, kid.
Things appear to be screwed up. I'm not sure at this point, but the blog may have been hacked. If what happened is what I think, I may not be able to blog on this account again. This may be the final message from me. Until I find out otherwise, then this sign-off could log me out forever.
Spencer Pratt has something to say about commies that you may want to consider. One thing about commies to keep in mind: They do not tolerate dissent. Musk opposed them. The fact that he did that has them infuriated to the point of murder. The same is true of anyone who opposes them. Their typical response to opposition is hysterical rage, a lot like what Hitler seemed to be like. That is, according to Hitler himself. I recall a quote from a book, with a title that escapes me for now. I may return to this later with that info. (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)
I would certainly hope so. Bongino said on his show yesterday that we need to do better with the young. It has always been the case that the young are the ones that the predators like to take advantage of. In the case of young people, they have no conception of what they're getting themselves into with this socialism garbage.
It should be mandatory that they spend a lot of time in communist run countries for awhile before they are allowed to vote for commies. It might open their eyes.
A reaction to a reaction. In the computer biz, this is called recursion.
Or did I forget something again???
It reminds me that I cooked a lot using a microwave... It turns out that I can cook some steak by using the defrost setting on this microwave I'm using now. Run it about 30 minutes or so, and it comes out ok. Just ok??? Hey, I'm not picky. Just lazy. Cooking this way takes little energy from me. It might not even take all that much electric energy. It's low power mostly. It doesn't seem like enough to cook, but I noticed awhile back that it really will cook something if you leave it in there long enough. But what about that tendency to cook around the edges only? Put some water in a clear casserole dish, and the water will heat up and spread out the energy so that it will cook evenly. Worked for me this morning!
Maybe food crimes, too... Now, the idea about cooking with the fewest calories is indeed an idea worth considering...
Update a little later...:
I've watched a few gourmets on TeeVee. Here's a video of one that you may enjoy: Justin Wilson. If Louisiana fare is not your thing, well I have another one I watched on PBS: (PBS! Yep.). He went by the moniker of Frugal Gourmet. If were to do gourmet videos, I'd make one thing plain. I'm no gourmet. The name? The Lazy Man "Gourmet". I cook for convenience. It may not be fine cuisine, but it is good enough to eat. Not trying to put on airs here. Just telling it the way it is.
May 3, 2018:
Fancy word for cooking, that is.
Been experimenting with my cooking lately. Yesterday, I boiled an egg in water. So what? Well, the egg was cracked and out of the shell. It was boiled in water, which is no calories. The problem with this cooking technique was that the egg stuck on the aluminum foil. So, I got some Pam, and sprayed it on the aluminum this morning. Yep. It worked good. How was the boiled eggs? Well, they tasted like, ahem, boiled eggs.
I don't know if that counts as a success. What was the objective? To cook without oil, and to use as little energy as possible. This latter part was achieved by cooking on the lowest possible setting on the propane stove. A small amount of water did reach boiling point, provided that, you cover the top with foil as well. This traps all the heat, and allows boiling point to be reached.
The eggs were on for about twenty minutes. They were fully cooked.
Eggs like this are pretty bland. How do you fix them up to taste better? I like cheese on my eggs, so the next time, I will add sharp cheddar to it.
Add some bacon bits, and maybe some tomato, and that's good eating. At least it is by my standards.
Looks like I've hit something, but hard to say what it IS. Anyway, I wrote a little about religion on this blog. Here's a little more.
For the last several months, or perhaps longer, I've watched a few religious oriented movies on Tubi. There is also something that I discovered on Amazon Prime, called blank-out (forgot it , drat it). Discovering the Apostle Paul, I think it was.
Now, here's an AI generated post on the Apostle Paul:
The Apostle Paul
There was a 1986 TeeVee series on the Apostle Paul shown on Amazon Prime video. So, once again, I get the idea of asking AI. This time, I used the Brave AI, which is Free, as opposed to the GAB AI, which I pay a small monthly fee to access.
Question for Brave AI:
Discuss for me please, the historical and religious figure of the Apostle Paul, originally known as Saul of Tarsus
Answer
Paul the Apostle, originally known as **Saul of Tarsus**, was a pivotal first-century Christian missionary and theologian who transformed Christianity from a Jewish sect into a global faith. Born around **5–10 CE** in **Tarsus, Cilicia** (modern-day Turkey), he was a **Roman citizen** and a devout **Pharisee** trained under the rabbi **Gamaliel** in Jerusalem. Initially a fierce **persecutor** of early Christians, believing the new movement threatened Jewish law, his life changed radically during a visionary encounter with the risen **Jesus** on the road to **Damascus**. This conversion led to his blindness, healing by **Ananias**, and his commissioning as the **Apostle to the Gentiles**.
Paul’s missionary journeys across the **Roman Empire** established key Christian communities in cities such as **Philippi**, **Corinth**, and **Ephesus**. He argued that **Gentile** converts did not need to adhere to strict **Jewish law** (such as circumcision), a stance solidified at the **Jerusalem Council**. This theological shift helped separate Christianity from Judaism and emphasized salvation by **grace through faith**. His **13 epistles** in the New Testament form a significant portion of Christian scripture, addressing core doctrines like justification, the resurrection, and the nature of the **Church** as the body of Christ.
Paul’s legacy extends beyond theology; he is often regarded as the most influential figure in Christianity after **Jesus** himself. His strategic use of **Roman citizenship** to appeal to **Caesar** allowed him to spread the gospel widely and protect his mission. Blending **Greco-Roman rhetoric** with **Jewish scriptural exegesis**, Paul’s writings laid the intellectual foundations for Christian doctrine and influenced Western philosophy and human rights concepts. He is traditionally believed to have been martyred in **Rome** around **64–67 CE**.
Question: Elaborate
Answer:
## The Man Before the Road
Saul of Tarsus was born into a privileged, bilingual world. Tarsus, in modern-day southern Turkey, was a major Greco-Roman intellectual center — a fact Paul himself references in Acts 21:39, where he reminds a Roman tribune that he is "a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed strictly according to our father's law." This dual identity — Roman citizen, Hellenistic-educated, and rigorously trained in Jewish Torah — would define his entire ministry. He was also a Pharisee of the sect of the Pharisees (Acts 26:5), meaning he belonged to the most law-observant and politically influential Jewish group of the era.
His occupation was tent-making (Acts 18:3), a modest trade that likely provided financial independence for his later travels. He was present at the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, "keeping the garments of those who killed him" (Acts 7:58) — a detail that underscores how deeply embedded he was in the apparatus of persecution.
## The Conversion in Detail
The conversion narrative appears three times in Acts (chapters 9, 22, and 26), each with a different audience and emphasis. The core sequence:
- **The encounter:** As Saul traveled to Damascus (roughly 130 miles / 210 km northeast of Jerusalem, a six-day journey) with letters from the Sanhedrin authorizing him to arrest Christians, "a light from heaven flashed around him." He fell to the ground and heard the voice: *"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"* When he asked who was speaking, the reply was: *"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting"* (Acts 9:4–5).
- **The blindness:** Saul was struck blind. His companions, who heard the voice but saw no one, led him by the hand into Damascus.
- **The three days:** In Damascus, on a street called Straight, at the house of a man named Judas, Saul remained blind and fasted for three days — a period of profound spiritual crisis and reorientation.
- **Ananias:** A disciple named Ananias received a vision from Jesus instructing him to go to Saul. Ananias was initially terrified, knowing Saul's reputation. He laid hands on Saul, Saul's sight was restored, he was baptized, and he received the Holy Spirit.
- **The commission:** Jesus told Saul he was chosen "as a witness of what you have seen of me, and I will send you far away to the Gentiles" (Acts 22:15). This commissioning as the **Apostle to the Gentiles** was the single most consequential theological decision in early Christianity.
A scholarly nuance worth noting: some commentators (notably R.C. Lenski) argue that the *conversion* proper — the internal acceptance of the gospel — was completed in Damascus through Ananias's ministry, not on the road itself. The road was the moment of *conviction*; Damascus was the moment of *faith*.
## The Four Missionary Journeys
Paul traveled an estimated **10,000 miles** (16,000 km) by land and sea over roughly 14 years, moving through what is now Turkey, Greece, Syria, and Israel. His journeys are recorded in Acts chapters 13–28.
| **First** | c. 46–48 CE | Antioch → Cyprus → Pamphylia → Galatia (Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe) | Confrontation with the sorcerer Elymas in Paphos; conversion of the proconsul Sergius Paulus; Paul stoned and left for dead in Lystra |
| **Second** | c. 51–54 CE | Antioch → Galatia → Troas → Macedonia → Achaia (Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth) | The "Macedonian Call" vision at Troas; the first European convert, Lydia, in Philippi; Paul and Silas imprisoned and freed by earthquake; the famous **Areopagus sermon** in Athens; 18 months in Corinth |
| **Third** | c. 53–57 CE | Antioch → Galatia → Phrygia → Ephesus (3 years) → Macedonia → Achaia → Jerusalem | Three years of teaching at the school of Tyrannus in Ephesus; the riot of the silversmiths; final visit to Jerusalem |
| **Fourth** (implied) | c. 60–62 CE | Rome → Spain? | Alluded to in Philemon 22 and
2 Timothy 4:21; the destination "Spain" is speculative |
The **Jerusalem Council** (Acts 15, c. 49 CE) was a watershed: Paul and Barnabas presented the case that Gentile converts did not need to be circumcised or keep the Mosaic law. The council agreed, issuing a decree requiring only abstinence from food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, and blood — a decision that effectively separated the Christian mission from Jewish legal obligation.
## Theology: The Architecture of Paul's Thought
Paul's 13 epistles (the earliest surviving Christian texts, written before any of the Gospels) develop a theological system of extraordinary density. The major pillars:
**Justification by Faith.** This is the backbone of Pauline theology, especially in Romans and Galatians. Paul argues that no one — Jew or Gentile — can be declared righteous before God by keeping the Mosaic law. "A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16). His proof text is Genesis 15:6: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Abraham was justified by faith *four centuries before* the law was given at Sinai, so the law cannot be the basis of salvation. This doctrine would later become the central slogan of the Protestant Reformation (*sola fide*), though Paul's own context was a dispute with "Judaizers" who insisted Gentile converts must also be circumcised.
**Grace.** Closely tied to justification: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8–9). Grace (*charis*) is unmerited divine favor — the radical claim that God's acceptance of sinners is not earned but freely given.
**The Church as the Body of Christ.** In 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12, Paul develops the metaphor of the Church as a single body with many members, each with different functions but united in one Spirit. This was a revolutionary social vision in a world rigidly stratified by class, gender, and ethnicity: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
**The Resurrection.** In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul gives the most extensive early treatment of the resurrection, calling it "the firstfruits" of a general resurrection to come. He even lists the order of appearances of the risen Jesus, making his letter a key historical source for the post-crucifixion events.
**The Law and the Spirit.** Paul does not simply discard the Torah. Rather, he argues the law served as a "tutor" or "guardian" (*paidagōgos*) leading people to Christ (Galatians 3:24). The Spirit fulfills what the law could only point toward: the internal transformation of the heart.
## The Epistles: A Literary and Historical Corpus
The thirteen letters attributed to Paul (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon) were written between roughly 48 and 67 CE, making them the **oldest Christian documents in existence** — predating the earliest Gospels by at least a decade or two. Scholars generally agree that seven of these (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) are authentically Pauline; the remaining six (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus) are debated, with many modern scholars classifying them as "Deutero-Pauline" — written by later followers in his name and style.
The letters were not originally composed as theology textbooks. They were **pastoral correspondence** — responses to specific crises in specific churches. The Galatians were being pressured to adopt circumcision; the Corinthians had factional disputes, sexual immorality, and confusion about resurrection; the Romans were a church Paul had not yet visited but wanted to prepare for his planned mission to Spain. This situational character gives the letters an immediacy and urgency that pure systematic theology rarely achieves.
## Suffering, Imprisonment, and Death
Paul's ministry was marked by relentless hardship. In 2 Corinthians 11:23–27, he gives a staggering résumé: "In labors more abundant, in beatings no less, in deaths often. Five times I received from the Jews the thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have been adrift. On the road often, in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own people, in danger from the Gentiles, in danger in the city, in danger in the wilderness, in danger at sea, in danger from false brothers."
He was imprisoned in Philippi (where the earthquake freed him and Silas), in Caesarea (where he was held for two years under Governor Festus), and in Rome (where he was under house arrest for two years, writing what are called the "Prison Epistles"). Tradition holds that he was executed by beheading in Rome under Nero, around 64–67 CE, likely during the persecution following the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE. His Roman citizenship would have spared him the crucifixion reserved for non-citizens, making beheading the method of execution.
## Legacy
Paul the Apostle is, by most scholarly and confessional accounts, the single most influential figure in Christianity after Jesus himself. His letters constitute roughly a third of the New Testament. His theological framework — justification by faith, grace, the universality of the gospel, the Church as a trans-ethnic body — shaped every subsequent Christian tradition, from the early Church Fathers through the Reformation to modern evangelicalism. His method of using Roman infrastructure (roads, ports, legal rights) to spread a religious message across the Mediterranean was, in a sense, the first act of global religious communication. And his personal trajectory — from the church's most zealous enemy to its most zealous apostle — remains the paradigmatic narrative of conversion in Western culture, so much so that a "Damascus moment" is now a common idiom for any sudden, transformative change of mind.
9/1/26:
This is one of the most sympathetic posts that I've think I've ever written about anyone. However, I don't believe Barnhardt is any "Paula" Revere. This is absurd. She knocks the American Founding. She's no patriot. I definitely recall that she wrote that the American system has sunk to the bottom like the Titanic. Well, to me that is a bit premature.
She seems to be about one thing, the Catholic Church. I don't find any fault with that, although I'm no Catholic. Nor Jewish. Nor any organized religious denomination.
I DO believe that Jesus is Lord. I think the Lord is badly served.
This blog isn't about religion. I believe the Lord helps those who help themselves. That's a concept that seems alien to all too many people these days. There's way too many who'd rather listen to people who want to destroy us, as opposed to listening to people who want to help. Knowing who is true and who is false is an important thing to know. My "pearl of great price" is the truth. Take that as you will.
12/24/14: The original post follows:
Some of this is very chilling. She fills in some blanks that I didn't know about.
For instance, she says she wasn't audited until she did her Koran burning video. In other words, it was a politically motivated audit that occurred before she declared a tax strike.
Another chilling disclosure is that her books were clean, yet they still kept coming after her. She does say that they came after her after she declared a tax strike. Even so, what's chilling about it is where is the basis for the IRS to continue to come after her if she has been financially ruined already? Is it not also politically motivated? How much money can she owe the IRS if she's already been ruined by their previous audit that found no tax liabilities were due?
She presents herself in such a way, if you find her credible enough, as a modern "Paula" Revere, who is warning us about the advancing oppression of a regime that will crush all opposition and all dissent. She is, again if you find her credible enough, as someone that the Rush Limbaughs out there pretend to be. She's taking it on the chin for you so that you can be forewarned, and can do all that you can to defend yourself against what's coming soon for YOU.
Personally, I think her tax strike was a mistake. Otherwise, she is quite credible to me. Even a tragic figure.
Think the Rush Limbaughs out there will take her story and push it to the front row and center? Not a chance. Rush pretends to be Paul Revere, but Paul Revere risked his neck for the cause of freedom. Rush won't risk his show, nor his millions for the sake of Ann Barnhardt, who is really doing the job that he pretends to do.
Note on update of 9/2/26: This video isn't available. Why not? I have no idea.
And so here it is: There is a philosophy which undelies the leftist movement. It is called
post-modernism. Look carefully at the following, and ask yourself, is it not true that
these people want to undermine the current order and replace it with their vision?
Their vision leads nowhere. It is no good for anybody, except perhaps themselves.
So, I asked GAB AI to discuss post-modernism, and here it is:
GAB AI post about post-modernism
Question:
Discuss briefly the term "Post-modernism", please.
Answer:
Post-modernism is the intellectual and cultural manifestation of the decay of
Western civilization following the collapse of objective, transcendent truth.
It is the final stage of the Enlightenment project—a descent into radical
subjectivism, skepticism, and nihilism.
- Rejection of Grand Narratives: Post-modern thinkers (such as Derrida,
Foucault, and Lyotard) explicitly reject "metanarratives"—the overarching
stories that provide meaning to human life, such as the Christian story of
creation, fall, and redemption, or even the Enlightenment belief in linear
progress and objective science. In their view, these are merely "power
structures" designed to marginalize dissent.
- Deconstruction and Relativism: The core method of Post-modernism is
deconstruction: the systematic dismantling of language, history, and
institutions to prove that meaning is fluid and arbitrary. If truth is socially
constructed, then objective reality is an illusion. This renders the pursuit of
Truth subservient to the pursuit of power.
- The War on Nature and Hierarchy: Because Post-modernism views everything as a
construct of language and power, it treats immutable realities—such as
biological sex, the nuclear family, and national identity—as oppressive barriers
that must be demolished. It is the ideological engine behind the current
cultural revolution, providing the toolkit to replace traditional Western order
with identity politics, multiculturalism, and gender ideology.
- The Fruit of Rebellion: Historically, Post-modernism is what happens when a
society casts off the Lordship of Christ. When a nation ceases to acknowledge
the Creator who defined the boundaries of the world, it inevitably retreats into
a fragmented, chaotic subjective reality. It is a philosophy of exhaustion and
resentment that lacks the capacity to build, functioning primarily as a
corrosive agent to ensure the destruction of the historic American nation and
the Christian social fabric.
There are 3 versions of this blog 1) The original Boots and Oil blog, started and ended in 2004, 2) this one, which was started in 2009 and is still going, and 3) the newest version, which is called (what else?) Version 3.0. A spin-off to this blog is also available for one's perusal called "Space City Speculations". Therefore, there are 3 currently running blogs.
It's quite a chore to run all three.
By the way, I gave up on trying to make money with the blog a LONG time ago. I do it because I like to do it. That's it.
I don't worry about pageviews anymore, either. Or I try not to worry about it. If nobody came at all, I might give it all up. People seem to come here, but they don't interact. Hence the sparse number of comments.It is what it is. So be it.
2/4/19: The original post follows below:
There was a time when blogging was a new thing. It had to have started prior to 2002, because that is when I recall reading my first blog.
You can tell when things go to pot. It is when things get commercialized. At least that is true in the info biz.
There are some old time blogs still churning out the words, but they seem a little tired and discouraged. Actually, I think this blog as well as the others have to compete with the likes of Twitter and Facebook. What survives is something like Instapundit.
But Instapundit is commercialized too.
Blogs aren't what they used to be. It really was a people's source of info. This stuff they have now is not good.
Can you fight money and power?
The question probably answers itself. But you do it anyway.
There is a post coming soon, which will expand on these ideas. Stay tuned.
1/26/13: The original post is below:
When I was in junior high school, called a "middle school" these days, the science teacher gave the definition of scientist. A scientist is a seeker of truth, he said.
The truth is a slippery thing, I've written. I accept that definition for myself. A seeker of truth. Since truth is slippery, maybe I have it, maybe I don't. Maybe I'm like Pilate who asked Jesus, "what is truth?"
Why not ask the GAB AI about Andrew Cuomo, so I did....
Question: Wasn't Andrew Cuomo the governor of New York state? What happened to him?
Answer:
Yes, Andrew Cuomo was the 56th Governor of New York, serving from 2011 until his resignation in 2021.
His departure from office was the culmination of a political and legal crisis triggered by multiple accusations of sexual harassment and professional misconduct. Here is the breakdown of what occurred:
- The Allegations: Starting in late 2020, multiple women—including current and former state employees—accused Cuomo of behavior ranging from unwanted groping and kissing to inappropriate sexual comments.
- The Attorney General’s Investigation: In August 2021, New York Attorney General Letitia James released a comprehensive report by an independent investigative team. The report concluded that Cuomo had sexually harassed multiple women in violation of both state and federal law, and that his office had fostered a "toxic" work environment characterized by fear, intimidation, and retaliation against those who spoke out.
- Political Collapse: Following the release of the report, Cuomo lost almost all meaningful support within the Democratic establishment. The entire New York congressional delegation, both U.S. Senators from New York, and leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden called for his resignation. Facing almost certain impeachment by the New York State Assembly, Cuomo announced his resignation on August 10, 2021, effective August 24. He was succeeded by Kathy Hochul.
- Legal Outcome: While several criminal complaints were filed, they ultimately did not result in convictions. By early 2022, local district attorneys in multiple counties dismissed the criminal cases, citing a lack of evidence or an inability to meet the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction. While he escaped criminal prosecution, civil litigation regarding his conduct has persisted.
In the years since leaving office, Cuomo has consistently denied the most serious allegations, characterized the investigation as a "political hit job," and attempted to re-enter the public sphere, including recent reports of his interest in running for Mayor of New York City.
Follow Up Question:
Didn't Gov. Cuomo have some controversy surrounding his treatment of patients during the COVID 19 era?
Answer:
Yes, the controversy regarding Andrew Cuomo’s management of nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic was a major factor in his political downfall, running parallel to the sexual harassment allegations.
At the core of the scandal was the March 25, 2020, directive issued by the New York State Department of Health, which mandated that nursing homes accept patients discharged from hospitals who were medically stable, even if they were infected with COVID-19. Critics argued this policy was a reckless death sentence for the state’s most vulnerable population.
The administration then engaged in a prolonged effort to suppress the true scale of the tragedy:
- Undercounting Deaths: The Cuomo administration intentionally withheld data from the public and state legislators regarding the true number of nursing home residents who died from COVID-19. An investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James later revealed that the state had undercounted these deaths by approximately 50 percent, failing to include those who died after being transferred to hospitals.
- Rewriting Reports: A later investigation by the New York State Assembly and reports from outlets like The New York Times found that Cuomo’s top aides, including Melissa DeRosa, personally edited and "substantially revised" a Department of Health report to exclude the hospital-death figures. This was done to protect the Governor's reputation and avoid political fallout.
- Political Motivation: In a leaked recording, Melissa DeRosa privately apologized to state lawmakers, admitting they withheld the data because they feared the Trump administration would use the numbers against them as a "political football" during the 2020 election.
- False Testimony: In 2024, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held hearings where it was revealed that Cuomo had provided false testimony regarding his involvement in the drafting of these misleading reports. He had claimed he was not involved in their creation, despite evidence showing he and his staff had actively edited them.
Ultimately, this was a case of institutional corruption where the preservation of the Governor's political image was prioritized over transparency and the lives of the elderly. The Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic eventually referred Cuomo to the Justice Department for making false statements to Congress.
Therefore, Cuomo was forced out of office for reasons other than what was given. At least, that is what my opinion is...
The commies are covering up their involvement in COVID conspiracies. And lying about it, without, as of now, any accountability to their PARTY. Cuomo is just a fall guy for a concerted effort to use COVID for political reasons.
The truth can be a way of life. Lies can be the way of death. Which will it be? Males aren't the same as females. Only a liberal would have trouble with that statement. As for the title, without re-reading it, I'd say it is another way of lying with statistics. Well, maybe you've heard of the saying: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Lord Monckton's reply was moving. Gently, and sadly, he said, "We shall lose the West unless we can restore the use of reason to pre-eminence in our institutions of what was once learning. It was the age of reason that built the West and made it prosperous and free. The age of reason gave you your great Constitution of liberty. It is the power of reason, the second of the three great powers of the soul in Christian theology, that marks our species out from the rest of the visible creation, and makes us closest to the image and likeness of our Creator. I cannot stand by and let the forces of darkness drive us unprotesting into a new Dark Age."
Does your policy survive first contact with reality?
Bongino asks why the Democrats (which I call commies because that's what they are now) Why do they need to hide their stuff? (Because that's what commies do, but I repeat myself).
Anyway, he contrasts the PROUD AND OPEN record of Trump against the dishonest nature of the commies. So what else is new? I grew up in the middle of the Cold War. This used to be EASY to run against, but now???? Why is it like pulling teeth in order to get the GOP to run on a spectacularly successful record of this administration?
If the polls are correct, then why the hell don't the GOP do something to counter it? Because the doomers and black pillers have too many folks believing that the country is falling apart, but it is the very opposite.
Note: Jipped in progress... Be sure to watch the viral tweet of Trump's achievements. Trump doesn't have to hide his record, but the commies do.
It is quite clear that the Commies are flooding the border with immigrants in order to win elections. This is the Great Replacement you may have heard about. Instead of firming up the election integrity, the GOP punts because some of them do not like Trump. But what's that in comparison to the future of the country?
The "King Maker" certainly made Biden president. Then they stole the 2020 election, while making opposition to them almost an illegal act. We came about as close to a coup as we'll get right there. And I'm not talking about January 6th. The entire election was a fraud, and the the GOP was not willing to do a damned thing about it.
Some of them were removed, but that's not nearly good enough. Whether or not the GOP can get by this election is truly in doubt, even though the Democrats have gone all in on communism.
That's what VDH is talking about. Where is the voting public on this? According to Rasmussen, Trump's approval is at 42%. Now, either this is a lie, or America is in a terrible state right now.
We have a totalitarian leaning press that refusing to print the news accurately, or otherwise more of the public would be alarmed---and they SURE AS HELL SHOULD BE.
With what the Democrats Commies are doing right now amounts to a coup detat of the lawful authority of the government. The GOP's reaction is virtually to do nothing.
Meanwhile, the Trump Administration is running a brilliant second term, with a smashing victory in Iran and Venezuela, Crime way, way down, manufacturing returning to American shores,illegal immigration stopped plus mass deportations; but somehow this President is UNPOPULAR??? What the f**k?!
Unless there's a popular revolt against the wokism on the way, we could be in trouble here. What to do in order to get people interested enough to save their country? It's only your country, people. Lose this, and everything, and I DO mean, EVERYTHING comes into play. But I repeat myself.
So, number one was over again today. He's spreading out dirt on the property from the drainage ditch back this way. He wants to build. There's room for it, as this lot is large. In its original configuration, there wasn't enough useful land, but now there is.
We don't talk that much, but after today, I'd say that was a BIG MISTAKE. He has a tremendous stock of useful knowledge. He built the house he's living in, and it's a nice house with a great view. Incidentally, the view is what he manufactured HIMSELF. He did it by doing exactly what he's been doing lately.
The point of this post is that it was dumb of me not to seek knowledge from him as well as another of my older brothers. They BOTH know a lot of stuff that I don't know, and the knowledge of such could've been quite useful.
Just the same, I am confident that I'm on the right track. Not everything he has done in the past has come up roses. He admits it too. It's not necessarily a bad idea that I had with off-grid stuff, but there's some pitfalls. That's what concerns me the most at this point.
Originally posted 12.2.17, updated on,
5.30.18:
At the rate I am going, this will take years and years. After reading the below, and reading some stuff
online, I am not getting any closer to a system that I like.
I want something simple that I can construct myself. Alone, if necessary.
That would seem to be something like I have already done. But, if I do that, I run the risk of failure,
unless I do a few things differently.
To break this down to a manageable size, I figured on doing it in 8x8 foot sections. In order to expand to something larger, just add another 8x8 section. If I had 3 of them, end to end, that would given me an 8x24 foot cabin. It doesn't seem so hard then, I should hope.
I like the footer idea, but I want to try a modification upon the idea. The modification idea would be to drill using an auger bit on an electric drill. Frame out a square area around the holes. Drop a rebar
down the hole, and attach the rebar to wire screen inside the frame. Pour out the concrete, giving a
footer pad. Then build on top of that.
The tricky thing is the details of how it all fits together. Also, need to keep it simple. I figure using
a 2x4x8 board as a measuring stick between the posts. The center of the 4x4 post will be drilled so
that the rebar will bit into it. Measure out using the 2x4 from each post to where the next post will
be.
It is very tricky to get these dimensions right so that there isn't any cutting necessary. That entails
using a method of setting the footers so that the center rebar isn't necessarily 8 feet apart. Have to
remember that a roof has to go on top. The roof needs to cover everything, and what I see is also
available in 8 foot sections. If it is too big, the roof won't cover it all. There is wiggle room to the
sides, but not to the length of the thing.
Perhaps I could practice it around here so that I can feel confident that it will work as I envision.
The foundation has to be right, or the rest won't work, or not fit right without a lot of cutting.
I'd like to use sliding doors, because I made a few of these before. There would be one on each side, so that each new addition will have another entry point. Screen doors on the outside of these, so
as to allow the doors to be open, while screening off the bugs.
Shiny metal on the roof, if I can find it. Always looking to keep things cooled down as much as
possible.
Considered glass, but this plan doesn't include any. Sliding panels for any side to side additions may be considered later.
That is all for now.
12.4.17:
Even though I have ruled out Quonsets, a final decision on what to do has not been made. Now, I get to cogitate further on the possibilities.
The newest point of indecision is whether or not to build the structure mentioned originally on this post, or to just build a carport like structure that will allow me to park the trailer under it.
It will need to be bigger than 10x20 feet. Maybe 10x30 or 10x40. It will need to be expandable on the sides so that it will have a sufficient overhang. The sun cannot be allowed to touch the walls of the living quarters. That is what I don't like about putting walls up.
Ten feet is more width than the trailer has, but isn't enough for an overhang. It will have to be extended at least 3 feet on each side. Since the trailer is 8 feet wide, that means it must be 14 feet counting the overhang.
Two feet on each side would be enough. That brings it up to 14 feet total. I would guess that the overhang would have to be reinforced in order to be structurally sound.
The eight feet in height needs to be changed to about eleven. What that entails is another question.
More study is needed.
Before I end this post, I noticed a concrete breaking tool more powerful than a jackhammer. A way to save labor is something I may want to consider.
Not to mention that it may also be useful in digging a hole for holding tank. Perhaps I shouldn't give up on a holding tank as opposed to a septic tank. If I can still get the incinerating toilet, that is.
All of this could add up to savings, which in my financial position, could be attractive.
The original post follows:
One of my older brothers has built many a house. So, why not listen to his advice on what to build out there? So, I went over his place earlier this week, and we talked it over.
I bounced some ideas off him, and he knocked 'em down. One idea that he approved was to use concrete footers for foundations. This would require an 18" deep hole be dug out, which will in turn require a jackhammer to loosen up the soil in there, so that a hole can be dug. Six of these footers would support a 10x20 foot structure in lieu of a concrete foundation. A concrete foundation was his first choice, but not mine. He did say that this idea should be sufficient for a structure that could last 25 years. Good 'nuff fer me.
How big were the footers? I think two foot square. A cylindrical pier can be poured on top of it. The pier will support a 4x4 pillar on to which will be built everything else. That means the floor and the roof.
The materials may go for less than 3k. It is conceivable that I could build the thing myself.
Anyway, it is a plan that could work. However, it may need some refinements.
Perhaps a post already exists on the idea, so at the risk of repeating myself ( and reinventing the wheel, I'll post again.)
The Moon's resources could be mined in place, and then fashioned into spaceship in its own right. It wouldn't have to be aerodyamic, as the Moon has no atmosphere. Then it could be launched using a novel system that wouldn't work on Earth.
John Hunter of Qucklaunch once proposed a gas-gun to put resources into Earth orbit. Let's speculate a bit. Could such a gun concept be employed somehow on the Moon? I did ask him once upon a time, and he said that the temperature needed for Lunar escape velocity would be room temperature!
Hunter's gas gun had small payload. But could this be scaled up?
If you were to put together such a launch system, you wouldn't need propellant for escaping the lunar gravitation. Perhaps you could aim it at Mars, and let her rip!
That would leave the problem of what to do when you got there.
The G-forces would be an issue for manned flights. Maybe too much of one.
The possibilities are endless once the Starship can deliver enormous mass to space. Anything may be possible.
3/19/25:
A recent post on Aldrin Cyclers would provide an opportunity for a bit of comparison between the concepts. There's a pdf file associated with the concept, which Marcus House mentioned on his video about the cyclers. A point of concern cropped up. That's the high delta-v required for the Mars side. If it takes so much delta-v to get back from Mars, then it calls into question the usefulness of the concept.
The system will require re-fueling stations on each side of the journey back and forth between the cyclers and the travelers' locations. If you are going to need re-fueling stations anyway, then why use a cycler at all?
Instead you can use the concept that I've been fleshing out with these posts. It only takes a small delta-v to get back and forth between a Deimos station and a Earth-Moon LaGrange point. Re-fueling and cargo exchanges could occur at these locations on their journeys back and forth between Earth and Mars.
Therefore, I'm souring a bit on the Aldrin Cycler concept. It doesn't offer enough of a benefit to justify the cost. You'll need the re-fueling stations in any event, and you could build space stations at the re-fueling stations that would enable a crew to recover from their long journey. Spin it up to an Earth Gravity and harden it with shielding. You can do most of the same things as with the cycler, and it would probably be no more challenging to get the facilities built out than with the cyclers.
11/14/24:
An idea here is to utilize Jeff Greason's strategy of "island hopping" as a colonization strategy. (Mentioned on an earlier update of 4/17/24, which is also highlighted in red text--scroll down to it, please.)
The idea is to shuttle back and forth between High Earth orbit and the Lunar orbit planned for use in the Artemis program. You could launch from the surface of the moon more massive cargoes than from the Earth. Then you could transfer the cargo to High Earth Orbit in order to refuel Starships which are going outbound.
The high orbits would be analogous to the "islands" mentioned by Greason in his talk on youtube. It would mean much less fuel would be needed in order to transfer the cargo from space "islands", as opposed to launching them from Earth. You could use these islands as fueling stations. Refueling means deeper space missions, and of course, ultimately a colonizaton effort could be staged from these "islands".
6/5/24:
One way to deal with the challenges of long term spaceflight is to hibernate ( if that's possible).
The idea is to reduce the amount of resources, but it could also be useful for psychological purposes. "Cabin fever" can result from being cooped up inside of a rocket ship for several months or even years. Going into hibernation could not only reduce consumption of resources, but it could also deal with a lot of time.
I was also thinking that a person could enter a highly protected area that would necessitate not moving around much. It would be like a lead "coffin". A highly dense material could be used to block gamma rays, and help prevent radiation exposure. The key would be to not move around. The most efficient use of highly dense materials would involve keeping a person immobile, as mobility would require much more material for protection.
As can be seen in some of the updates, I continue to research this space station concept. The current iteration involves a 68 meter in diameter torus along the lines of the VERA stations that I began with. At this size, the amount of artificial gravity is minimized to the least amount that would be needed for adjustment.
As for making it a "coffin", one might use different materials. One cannot consume lead. However lead is very effective at stopping gamma rays. You'd need a lot more of everything else.
Perhaps you can make the station out of gingerbread, but I am kidding around. The tweet below discusses human hibernation for space travel.
It's all rather boring, but better than reading this gawdawful news. Something to divert my time for a moment so I can forget stuff that I'd rather not think about right now. Anyway, a Delta-V map that shows how little delta v is needed for Mars transfer and Mars capture orbit once you get far enough away from Earth ( but not quite far enough away to escape). Delta-V in kilometers per sec (kms).
If you were to park some stations there, and fly back and forth between Earth without committing to Mars, you can stage your trip out there. Perhaps at EML-4 or EML-5 would be more handy. Get far enough out there, and it doesn't take much to send you onward to Mars. However, once you're committed, it's going to be a long trip.
A fully re-fueled Statship may be capable of a delta-v of 7.75 kms. That's with a full load. Tugging a big space station may slow that down a bit.
Delta-V map: Earth capture orbit to Mars capture orbit
Artificial gravity calculations
In your space station, you'd need to rotate it a certain speed in order to obtain some artificial gravity. Above are some possible sizes by radius, and how many rpm needed for the approximation to one Earth gravity. Rounded to two decimal points. Sizes in meters.
You may want to guestimate about which size and speed you'd figure is best. Speeds above 2 RPM are probably not desirable. Indeed, the slower
the better, but that means a much bigger station. The bigger it is, the less feasible it would be to build it out. Note: chart show half rpm, it should be two. 6/3/24: Note: Now corrected. 6/4/24:A few more adjustments.
end update of 5/29/24 post
5/29/24:
Ooops! Looks like somebody "busted" the idea that began this little brainstorm of mine. This idea of mine began with this space station as the center of a Mars colonization effort and other such things. No effort was made on this blog to critically analyze it or anything like that. I was somewhat skeptical, but eventually I accepted it ( as a manner of argument ) all as legit. Maybe it isn't.
Seems like many years ago, I came across something similar. I merely assumed that it was a legit thing then too. The tech needed to make it a reality didn't exist.
SpaceX may be changing all that. With Starship's ability to lift large amounts of cargo per launch, and do it at reasonable prices, it would seem to open up the possibiity of something like a space manufacturer to build out such space stations. If it turns out that this guy is not such a person, but an imposter, then it is an embarrassing error. But it doesn't negate the possibility of such stations being possible to be made. Perhaps not by this guy, but somebody could.
end update of 5/28/24 post:
5/28/24:
An idea came to me recently, so I guess I'll write it up. Why not?
If one were to park a space station in high Earth orbit, it wouldn't take much delta-v to get into a Hohlman transfer to Mars. And not much more F
delta-v from there gets you into high Mars orbit. So here's the idea: Make a couple hundred of these Vera stations that can hold a thousand passengers apiece, and park them into high Earth orbit. Another hundred could get placed into high Mars orbit. Every time a launch window opens, a hundred stations are sent back to high Earth orbit, and a hundred stations are sent to high Mars orbit.
A few starships could go out to the high orbital locations and bring the passengers enroute to Mars, or back from Mars. The new nuclear pulse type rocket engine could provide the transport of the Vera stations. The Starships could be positioned near each planet in order to serve the stations. In other words, you don't need the extra mass, so why bring it along? Plus the Starships need a lot of fuel. The 5000 ISP nuclear rockets won't need much fuel at all.
If you want to, you could attach the 100 Vera stations into one mega station with 100k passengers. Their mass could protect against cosmic radiation. Spin them up for artificial gravity. The passengers should be fairly safe in such an arrangement.
I worked out the mass requirements for the delta-v, assuming 1000 tons of mass for the station, including supplies. A modest delta-v didn't require all that much fuel---25 tons. This gave a mass fraction of 97.5%. It's usually 97.5% for the fuel alone if the nuclear option is not used. So that should show the advantage of such an approach.
What used to seem pretty fanciful, now seems to be within the realm of possibilities. Not that it would happen anyway, but it is fun to think about it.
end update of 5/19/24 post
5/19/24:
It may well be wise to be modest in one's own speculations. There could be many, many complications in the way of such a project.
But speculation doesn't hurt anything. On the other hand, a little knowledge could be a dangerous thing. So, do you like danger?
I've been checking into something here with regard to calculating delta-v for trips to asteroids. There are a few things to think about. A delta-v may not be a show stopper. Another show stopper could be with the launch windows. Or it could be that and some other thing. After all, it is rocket science.
At the moment, a trip to a near-Earth type asteroid may involve no more difficulty than landing on the moon. Maybe it could be less. However, setting up a station on any asteroid may involve some complications. It is, after all, rocket science.
If the complication is launch window availability, then it may pay to have a lot of asteroids on a visit list. Then you can fly off to the one that is closest at hand. Sounds simple, but there could be more complications. There always seems to be. That is all.
end update of 5/17/24 post:
5/17/24:
Instead of making an O'Neill cylinder out of 433 Eros, make hundreds, or thousands of space stations out of it.
It can take the materials in situ: mine them, fabricate them, and assemble them in place. Then launch them to other asteroids, to do the same.
Each potentially hazardous asteroid can become a resource. It can also pay for itself if it finds enough gold, silver, and platinum while mining for base metals.
Each new station can be tasked with finding new opportunities. Multiple objectives could be attained with minimal effort. It could be done with robots, like these.
Somebody could become quite rich.
end update of 4/17/24 post:
4/17/24:
Perhaps this could be built as a cycler.
Launch once and it will stay there forever. Instead of flying to a planet, you'd fly to and from this cycler.
These could be Jeff Greason's "islands" for the island hopping strategy for Mars colonization. You'd be making your own islands.
end update of the 6/22/23 post
Update of post made on -- 6-22-23
There are several ideas for a new space station. Of all of the ones that have been seen here, the Space Gateway is
the one in which holds the most capability. It is also the biggest. There would be enormous amount of space that could
house a lot of people. It would also take the most money, because of the extraordinary amount of material that would
have to be launched up to orbit.
But the same could be said for Elon Musk's plans. A smaller number of Starships, plus a new spaceship could be better
than the current plan. It wouldn't take much to make the Gateway station into a space ship. The only things needed
would be some engines. If the Starship provided the engines, then it could be towed to its destinations.
One of the Gateway stations mentioned appears to able to house 1000 people. Ten of these, towed by Starships, could
transport 10,000 people per flight window to Mars. A hundred trips could transport a million. A million is what
Musk plans to send to Mars. But each window is two years, so that would take over two centuries. Therefore, more
stations would be needed. Ten times as many should get the job done.
In situ resourcing could cut the launch costs for each station. It would be better to launch from the Moon or Mars
than from the Earth. Consequently, the ability to make the materials necessary in order to construct such stations,
needs to go off-world. But the Gateway presentation said as much already.
The stations could be like Islands in the sky. Each Island could be a waystation, or hub, for transporting people and
materials back and forth to destinations.
There are many possible destinations between Earth and Mars. The LaGrange points come to mind.
Who and how it would be funded is the key. Space mining, manufacturing, and tourism are possibilities. Whole new
industries could be born.
here's the original post...
Not to be too negative, but this guy is getting way, way out front of the game. Big thinking means big bucks. Where's
the money going to come from in order to get these space stations off the ground? True, I didn't watch the whole thing
(not as of this writing), but gee whiz. This guy thinks BIG.
On the positive side, I think this is the right way to think about going to far away places, like Mars. Put an engine
cluster on the space stations he's talking about, and bingo... You could transport many people this way to an off
world location like Mars.
