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.
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.
Showing posts with label Basic Concepts---Solutions v Conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Basic Concepts---Solutions v Conflict. Show all posts
Friday, June 5, 2026
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.
Wednesday, April 1, 2026
The Outer Limits --- The Soldier
4/1/26:
Just watched another Outer Limits episode, called Demon with a Glass Hand. Now I am pretty sure why the law suit had to be settled. There's just too many ideas that made it into The Terminator script for it not to be a rip-off. You have to watch it to see. It's on Tubi, season 2, episode 5. The clincher is at the very end of the episode. So watch it all.
3/21/26:
The episode is about a soldier from the future. This soldier has no knowledge of anything except how to be a soldier. He comes back to Earth in the sixties, and he is out of place. He is misunderstood, and he doesn't understand this new world he finds himself in.
The striking thing is the resemblance to the Terminator movie, with the obvious differences. There was a lawsuit that was settled in order for the film to be shown in theaters.
In that future world, nothing is known but war. The question that is left is this: Is this our future?
One of the ideas of civilization is to resolve disputes without the need of violence. If no way can be found to resolve disputes, how can violence be averted? That appears to be the point... What happens when no agreement is possible?
In that case, something has to give.
If neither side of the dispute wants to give, then how can violence be averted?
When it cannot, there can be no civilization.
This video discusses the similarities/differences of this story and the movie The Terminator.
If you ax me, the Outer Limits isn't the only idea that Terminator stole. There was this movie in the sixties in which a computer system took over the world, just like in the Terminator. It didn't have cyborgs, though. At least the Terminator may have had one original idea.
I cannot find that computer takes over the world movie again. It might have been a made for TV movie. If memory serves, it may be this one.
Just watched another Outer Limits episode, called Demon with a Glass Hand. Now I am pretty sure why the law suit had to be settled. There's just too many ideas that made it into The Terminator script for it not to be a rip-off. You have to watch it to see. It's on Tubi, season 2, episode 5. The clincher is at the very end of the episode. So watch it all.
3/21/26:
The episode is about a soldier from the future. This soldier has no knowledge of anything except how to be a soldier. He comes back to Earth in the sixties, and he is out of place. He is misunderstood, and he doesn't understand this new world he finds himself in.
The striking thing is the resemblance to the Terminator movie, with the obvious differences. There was a lawsuit that was settled in order for the film to be shown in theaters.
In that future world, nothing is known but war. The question that is left is this: Is this our future?
One of the ideas of civilization is to resolve disputes without the need of violence. If no way can be found to resolve disputes, how can violence be averted? That appears to be the point... What happens when no agreement is possible?
In that case, something has to give.
If neither side of the dispute wants to give, then how can violence be averted?
When it cannot, there can be no civilization.
This video discusses the similarities/differences of this story and the movie The Terminator.
If you ax me, the Outer Limits isn't the only idea that Terminator stole. There was this movie in the sixties in which a computer system took over the world, just like in the Terminator. It didn't have cyborgs, though. At least the Terminator may have had one original idea.
I cannot find that computer takes over the world movie again. It might have been a made for TV movie. If memory serves, it may be this one.
Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Next Big Future: Various Groups that want to use Population Reducti...
11/19/12:
China is communist, but has no limits to its growth. The "West" is "free", or claims to be. But there are "limits" set by the powers-that-be in the lands that call themselves "the free world". The solution is self-evident. No calling ourselves free, until such people with such a mindset are no longer in control. Note that "growth" does NOT mean growth in government. Government is not free, but quite the opposite.
7/16/12:
Next Big Future: Various Groups that want to use Population Reducti...: Population matters used to be the Optimal Population Trust (OPT) The OPT pushed for draconian state controls on birth rates and on immigr...
China races ahead, but the West is trying to slow down and even commit suicide. Who is behind this madness?
China is communist, but has no limits to its growth. The "West" is "free", or claims to be. But there are "limits" set by the powers-that-be in the lands that call themselves "the free world". The solution is self-evident. No calling ourselves free, until such people with such a mindset are no longer in control. Note that "growth" does NOT mean growth in government. Government is not free, but quite the opposite.
7/16/12:
Next Big Future: Various Groups that want to use Population Reducti...: Population matters used to be the Optimal Population Trust (OPT) The OPT pushed for draconian state controls on birth rates and on immigr...
China races ahead, but the West is trying to slow down and even commit suicide. Who is behind this madness?
Saturday, May 31, 2025
Trump is legitimizing the Judicial Coup?
It does seem that way, as this article asserts. But is there another way of looking at this? What is the alternative?
Monday, July 8, 2024
This is my escape, but I'm not going anywhere
7.7.24:
That last post was about escape from modern life, and what some people do to make their escape.
Perhaps I've got my own kind of escape. An escape meaning something that makes you feel better. The cold, cruel world can get you in a bad way. You need an escape. Some folks use drugs. Others use alcohol. There may be many other ways that I can't even think of at the moment. But mine is to study things. Particularly things that may solve problems.
Of course, I'm in no position to solve any problems this way. I don't build rockets or nuke plants. Shoot, I can't even build my desert home out west on my land.
But I can think about it. It gives me something to do. Better than soaking your brain with drugs and alcohol. Or soaking my head in a bucket of ice water.
Along those lines, I've been writing about the Angry Astronaut's post about Artemis/SpaceX issues. There may be a solution that could work. It would involve making the Booster and the Starship expendable. It would involve making a third stage (like Apollo's S-IVB) that would be carried along as cargo inside the Starship.
SpaceX's contract may call for 100 tons and 4 astronauts on the moon. The solution is to use 3, or maybe 4 launches to do the job. Two launches of a cargo only mission to deliver 50 tons to the lunar surface. A total of 100 tons of cargo can be delivered, if you count the astronauts and their life support needs. All of the launches would require expendable rockets.
If refueling is desired, this mission profile won't be demonstrating it. The third launch will be like the first two cargo missions, but it will deliver the landing bird to the Gateway. If the cargo bird can deliver 50 tons to the lunar surface, I figure it can deliver a habitat plus all the necessary fuel for a roundtrip from Gateway to the lunar surface and back. This and the two cargo missions would fulfill NASA's requirements.
The habitat must be far smaller than one envisioned at present. Therefore, I agree with Angry that the current mission profile is not likely to be accomplished in any useful timeframe, maybe never.
I've already written prior to this that I thought the idea of using Starship for a Mars mission will not work. The refueling part will have to involve offworld sources for propellant. A thousand Starships from Earth is not practical. An offworld source of propellant will make refueling practical, fewer Earth launches required. In addition a much larger vehicle must also be constructed to get his million immigrants situated on Mars. Starship cannot do this task by itself. That's too many issues for this one ship to resolve.
7.8.24:
 |
| Starship SuperJumbo Expendable Mode Calculations... |
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Quick Review of Why Things Are Falling Apart
Originally posted 2.13.13, updated on,
4.3.19:
A second re-visit of this post.
In contrast with my original optimism, I am getting a bit pessimistic. What makes me more pessimistic is persistent lack of will in those who say that there are conservative. The left doesn't seem to lack will. Indeed, it seems to define them.
It isn't an economic cause. The economic situation is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is deeper. In fact, it could be a lot like the kind of conversation about the cause of the Roman Empire collapse. Even after all this time, does anyone know for sure why Rome collapsed?
If it is an organic phenomenon, it may well be unavoidable. Civilizations may roughly follow the same life cycle of an organism. It is born, it grows and becomes mature, and then it declines and dies.
It then becomes not a matter for optimism, nor pessimism. It becomes a matter of acceptance and preparation for when it isn't around any longer.
10.16.17:
A re-visit of this post, which is almost five years old. It impresses me with how good a job I did with the review. That is to say, after studying the book a bit more closely, I cannot say that my review changes much.
An addition that I want to make with respect to what to do about it: a lot of this right v. left stuff is what is holding us back. This is what the powers-that-be use to keep us in check.
The people need to wise up to the political class, and start demanding answers. But isn't that what this original post said? Isn't that what the book says ( if you read it)?
the original post follows
For one thing, it is a long title. I've been referring to this a "the book" in a series of blog posts thus far on this topic. Just suffice it to say that the book is mostly about why things are falling apart. The "what to do about it" is but one section out of six.
Most of the book is a hard read for me because I tend to want to remain optimistic about things as they are. The book's main message flies right into the face of that. According to this book, things are not going to stay as they are for much longer.
I began with the notion that I agreed that things are falling apart. The book confirms that and much more- which to my chagrin, is not necessarily what I really wanted to believe. What I wanted to believe, and still do, despite this book, is that we can work out our problems. The thing that is missing is the will to do so.
The book isn't really political, but there is some political stuff in it. Does it tend towards the right or towards the left? Actually, neither. However, those on the left may think the book is aimed directly at them. In a way, it is. That's because the dominant paradigm today is big government liberalism initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his New Deal. But it may be noted that a lot of so-called conservative Republicans tend to like their big government too, and are therefore wedded to this paradigm as well. The book also goes after capitalism, but does not extol socialism nor communism. To the contrary, it is critical of these systems as well.
The book's solutions tend in the Club of Rome, Limits to Growth genre. That won't work with the modern day real conservatives who believe in limited government and economic growth. I count myself as one of these, but not whole-heartedly so. I would tend to agree that growth for growth's sake isn't the way to go. But to eschew all growth and accept sharp limits is not my cup of tea either.
Yet, some of his ideas are plain old common sense, which I've heard is not held in high esteem amongst some on the left or the elite in general. I agree, they don't seem to have much common sense. The difference is that they are actually proud of that, which shows all the more how cock-eyed they are. This book hits them squarely in the groin, but it also hits everybody else squarely in the groin.
He gives short shrift to technological solutions. He seems to deny that these will prove to be helpful in the long run. I disagree. I think there are technologies that could help but are being blocked by the same self-interested elite that he is so often critical of in this book.
On the whole, it is an excellent read. It will challenge you to the maximum. If you are one of those people who sneer at common sense or believe in your ideology like it is a religion or something, you will not like this book. You may even hate it. But that may be the crux of the problem. People have to realize that there's a problem here, and denying it won't help us solve it.
4.3.19:
A second re-visit of this post.
In contrast with my original optimism, I am getting a bit pessimistic. What makes me more pessimistic is persistent lack of will in those who say that there are conservative. The left doesn't seem to lack will. Indeed, it seems to define them.
It isn't an economic cause. The economic situation is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is deeper. In fact, it could be a lot like the kind of conversation about the cause of the Roman Empire collapse. Even after all this time, does anyone know for sure why Rome collapsed?
If it is an organic phenomenon, it may well be unavoidable. Civilizations may roughly follow the same life cycle of an organism. It is born, it grows and becomes mature, and then it declines and dies.
It then becomes not a matter for optimism, nor pessimism. It becomes a matter of acceptance and preparation for when it isn't around any longer.
10.16.17:
A re-visit of this post, which is almost five years old. It impresses me with how good a job I did with the review. That is to say, after studying the book a bit more closely, I cannot say that my review changes much.
An addition that I want to make with respect to what to do about it: a lot of this right v. left stuff is what is holding us back. This is what the powers-that-be use to keep us in check.
The people need to wise up to the political class, and start demanding answers. But isn't that what this original post said? Isn't that what the book says ( if you read it)?
the original post follows
For one thing, it is a long title. I've been referring to this a "the book" in a series of blog posts thus far on this topic. Just suffice it to say that the book is mostly about why things are falling apart. The "what to do about it" is but one section out of six.
Most of the book is a hard read for me because I tend to want to remain optimistic about things as they are. The book's main message flies right into the face of that. According to this book, things are not going to stay as they are for much longer.
I began with the notion that I agreed that things are falling apart. The book confirms that and much more- which to my chagrin, is not necessarily what I really wanted to believe. What I wanted to believe, and still do, despite this book, is that we can work out our problems. The thing that is missing is the will to do so.
The book isn't really political, but there is some political stuff in it. Does it tend towards the right or towards the left? Actually, neither. However, those on the left may think the book is aimed directly at them. In a way, it is. That's because the dominant paradigm today is big government liberalism initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his New Deal. But it may be noted that a lot of so-called conservative Republicans tend to like their big government too, and are therefore wedded to this paradigm as well. The book also goes after capitalism, but does not extol socialism nor communism. To the contrary, it is critical of these systems as well.
The book's solutions tend in the Club of Rome, Limits to Growth genre. That won't work with the modern day real conservatives who believe in limited government and economic growth. I count myself as one of these, but not whole-heartedly so. I would tend to agree that growth for growth's sake isn't the way to go. But to eschew all growth and accept sharp limits is not my cup of tea either.
Yet, some of his ideas are plain old common sense, which I've heard is not held in high esteem amongst some on the left or the elite in general. I agree, they don't seem to have much common sense. The difference is that they are actually proud of that, which shows all the more how cock-eyed they are. This book hits them squarely in the groin, but it also hits everybody else squarely in the groin.
He gives short shrift to technological solutions. He seems to deny that these will prove to be helpful in the long run. I disagree. I think there are technologies that could help but are being blocked by the same self-interested elite that he is so often critical of in this book.
On the whole, it is an excellent read. It will challenge you to the maximum. If you are one of those people who sneer at common sense or believe in your ideology like it is a religion or something, you will not like this book. You may even hate it. But that may be the crux of the problem. People have to realize that there's a problem here, and denying it won't help us solve it.
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Last Refuge:Occam's Razor: Michael Flynn
That there is a game here, there can be no doubt. How many times have I read it stated as a question as to Mueller's "end-game"?
It may not be possible to end all games, but it may be possible to step back from them, and try to detach one's ego from them.
One's ego gets attached when it goes tribal. You probably have heard that term bandied about. How our politics have gone tribal. It's "my" tribe versus "their" tribe.
If one can detach from the tribe for the moment, and ask what is the truth behind what is going on here? That may be hard to do.
The article is a part of a long running series of articles about the "soft-coup" against Trump.
Does anyone doubt that there is an effort to remove Trump from office? Why? Was there ever any real "collusion" with Russia, or is the accusation a part of the dishonesty of this game? What do the participants seek?
Update:
Mueller has asked for a postponement of Flynn's sentencing for quite some time. Now that the election is over, maybe he got what he wanted! That is, the control of the House going to the Democrats. This means that the soft-coup can be covered up.
It may not be possible to end all games, but it may be possible to step back from them, and try to detach one's ego from them.
One's ego gets attached when it goes tribal. You probably have heard that term bandied about. How our politics have gone tribal. It's "my" tribe versus "their" tribe.
If one can detach from the tribe for the moment, and ask what is the truth behind what is going on here? That may be hard to do.
The article is a part of a long running series of articles about the "soft-coup" against Trump.
Does anyone doubt that there is an effort to remove Trump from office? Why? Was there ever any real "collusion" with Russia, or is the accusation a part of the dishonesty of this game? What do the participants seek?
Update:
Mueller has asked for a postponement of Flynn's sentencing for quite some time. Now that the election is over, maybe he got what he wanted! That is, the control of the House going to the Democrats. This means that the soft-coup can be covered up.
Occam's Razor: Michael Flynn... https://t.co/ttSGnOUJYw via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 6, 2018
Mind strike
No doubt that you have heard of a labor strike before. This concept is a lot like the strike that was written about in Atlas Shrugged.
The thing that is happening these days seems to be that the commentariat likes to push a person's emotional buttons. So, to combat this, I propose to not participate. I am on strike. I refuse to play along with the games and circuses that are constantly pushed before us all.
It is very seductive, these games. Therefore, it won't be easy to refuse to partake in the fun and games.
Many years ago, I read this book about games. It seems that people play these games with each other. The common thing about games is their dishonesty.
If we could just get some honesty back into our discussions, it may be helpful in solving our problems. It just doesn't seem to help to get into these games. The games just makes things worse.
It's probably a lost cause, but what the heck. There's nothing to lose. If everybody keeps playing these games, we all lose anyway.
The thing that is happening these days seems to be that the commentariat likes to push a person's emotional buttons. So, to combat this, I propose to not participate. I am on strike. I refuse to play along with the games and circuses that are constantly pushed before us all.
It is very seductive, these games. Therefore, it won't be easy to refuse to partake in the fun and games.
Many years ago, I read this book about games. It seems that people play these games with each other. The common thing about games is their dishonesty.
If we could just get some honesty back into our discussions, it may be helpful in solving our problems. It just doesn't seem to help to get into these games. The games just makes things worse.
It's probably a lost cause, but what the heck. There's nothing to lose. If everybody keeps playing these games, we all lose anyway.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
An open question
I was shown a video of this guy named Jordan Peterson, and someone asked him about uniting around "climate change"...
He says it cannot be done. My reaction? He may be right as far as the politics is concerned, but saying it cannot be done technically is not accurate.
The problem with "climate change" is the same as with everything else. Solutions aren't wanted. The politicians want the problem so that they can agitate the public with it. If they actually solved problems, they wouldn't be politicians, they would be engineers.
We're letting the politicians wrap us around their little fingers.
He says it cannot be done. My reaction? He may be right as far as the politics is concerned, but saying it cannot be done technically is not accurate.
The problem with "climate change" is the same as with everything else. Solutions aren't wanted. The politicians want the problem so that they can agitate the public with it. If they actually solved problems, they wouldn't be politicians, they would be engineers.
We're letting the politicians wrap us around their little fingers.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
When you would rather be in another line of business
Updated:
10.30.18:
Same feeling this morning. Actually, I think it is a reason why I cannot find anything to write about. The stuff that is worth writing about gathers little attention. Everything that gathers the attention of the public is this stupid stuff that the media fastens onto every day.
It is almost like try to live on cotton candy as your only food. If you feed your mind with this cotton candy, you will get sick and die. Such is the case with our culture. This garbage is not good for us.
There are a few "nuggets of gold" out there. The gold metaphor is apt, because this other stuff is junk. The junk is what you have to "pan out" in order to get the nuggets. You know what I mean, Vern?
10.29.18:
Good thing I don't get paid for this. The reason is that you have to put up content every single day, and there's some days that it is really hard to do that.
What do you say about a mass murder? It follows the same pattern that has been followed again and again. The response is the same old thing, too.
We don't focus on the solutions. Nope. It is always the conflict that brings people to the fore. If you solved this kind of problem, you would get a lot of bored people.
Yes, I have written about conflict versus solutions before. Not that this gets any attention and serious consideration. It isn't entertaining enough. People would rather suffer and die than to actually roll up their sleeves and solve a problem.
Bread and circuses. That's the ticket. You cannot argue against the reality of things. The reality is that people simply will not focus on how to solve problems like this, or any other problem for that matter.
10.30.18:
Same feeling this morning. Actually, I think it is a reason why I cannot find anything to write about. The stuff that is worth writing about gathers little attention. Everything that gathers the attention of the public is this stupid stuff that the media fastens onto every day.
It is almost like try to live on cotton candy as your only food. If you feed your mind with this cotton candy, you will get sick and die. Such is the case with our culture. This garbage is not good for us.
There are a few "nuggets of gold" out there. The gold metaphor is apt, because this other stuff is junk. The junk is what you have to "pan out" in order to get the nuggets. You know what I mean, Vern?
10.29.18:
Good thing I don't get paid for this. The reason is that you have to put up content every single day, and there's some days that it is really hard to do that.
What do you say about a mass murder? It follows the same pattern that has been followed again and again. The response is the same old thing, too.
We don't focus on the solutions. Nope. It is always the conflict that brings people to the fore. If you solved this kind of problem, you would get a lot of bored people.
Yes, I have written about conflict versus solutions before. Not that this gets any attention and serious consideration. It isn't entertaining enough. People would rather suffer and die than to actually roll up their sleeves and solve a problem.
Bread and circuses. That's the ticket. You cannot argue against the reality of things. The reality is that people simply will not focus on how to solve problems like this, or any other problem for that matter.
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Toward a Debate-Free Life - by Robert Ringer
Toward a Debate-Free Life - by Robert Ringer: Watching the obnoxious but relentless Dirty Dems arguing the inarguable day in and day out is a constant reminder to me that the most time-wasting and exhausting activity in the world is debating someone who thrives on heated exchanges. An argumentative person is not only unpleasant to be around, he also can consume large chunks …
comment:
"Discretion is the better part of valor."
Meanwhile, the following song comes to mind.
comment:
"Discretion is the better part of valor."
Meanwhile, the following song comes to mind.
Thursday, February 22, 2018
M-DSPD Cover Up – The Curious Case Of Trayvon Martin’s Backpack With Stolen Jewelry and Burglary Tool…
Update:
2.22.18:
Yes, it is true that the website was on to Trayvon Martin a long time ago. But even more important, they were on to this scam of not reporting crimes as they happen.
That is how a guy who shouldn't have been able to legally buy a gun was able to buy a friggin' gun.
The CTH said they warned these guys about this. But now that something else has happened, they want gun control.
Riiigght.
7.14.13:
theconservativetreehouse.
quote:
I heard something about this, but here's the full story. Some people have been following this rather closely, but not me. It looks rather amazing to me how much stuff got suppressed in the media as well as in the trial.
Nevertheless, even though Martin was no angel, nobody has the right to shoot him. Even if he was a serial murderer, there is no right to shoot him.
All the more reason to believe that the case was converted into an black-white thing and people got drawn into the politics of the thing. The truth is the first casualty of war and make no mistake, this was a war. The war will go on.
2.22.18:
Yes, it is true that the website was on to Trayvon Martin a long time ago. But even more important, they were on to this scam of not reporting crimes as they happen.
That is how a guy who shouldn't have been able to legally buy a gun was able to buy a friggin' gun.
The CTH said they warned these guys about this. But now that something else has happened, they want gun control.
Riiigght.
7.14.13:
theconservativetreehouse.
quote:
It was that Robles article, and the outlining of the Miami-Dade School Police Department’s report on a Trayvon Martin incident from October 2011, that kicked off an internal investigation by M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley against his own officers to find out who leaked the police report.comment:
I heard something about this, but here's the full story. Some people have been following this rather closely, but not me. It looks rather amazing to me how much stuff got suppressed in the media as well as in the trial.
Nevertheless, even though Martin was no angel, nobody has the right to shoot him. Even if he was a serial murderer, there is no right to shoot him.
All the more reason to believe that the case was converted into an black-white thing and people got drawn into the politics of the thing. The truth is the first casualty of war and make no mistake, this was a war. The war will go on.
Monday, June 12, 2017
Updated on 6.12.17: Review--The Liberty Amendments: Amend the Constitution--to Save It
Note: The system in DC is broken. Perhaps it is time to consider changing the system to something else. This does not have to be a partisan effort. It seems that the Dems have a motive to get behind it too.
original post ( 8.13.13 )follows below:
Breitbart via Instapundit
quote:
Levin's The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, released Aug. 12, is an ambitious plan to save the American political experiment from the encroachments of big government in Washington, D.C.
comment:
Levin calls for a constitutional convention. I agree. In fact, I did this myself on this here blog. Glad that he agrees. Maybe Limbaugh will start pushing it.
Update:
A discussion of the possible downside of a "con-con"---- a runaway convention.
Update 5.5.17:
Texas become 11th state to call for an Article V convention of states. Only 11?
Update 6.12.17 :
News. The number is now 12.
Is it possible that a lot of what we all talk about is driven by the news? What I mean is that what may be preferable is to do something to control the media. Some may cite first amendment concerns, but this largely seems overblown to me. The media is way the hell out of control, and tries to drive everything in a certain direction. If they are going to do this, then the media should not be owned by a publicly traded corporation, either directly held, or indirectly held.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Solutions can be found if the desire to find them exists
At the place where I am being treated for cancer, there is some information displayed which says that the odds are 50-50 that a man will get cancer during his lifetime. For women, it is a 1 in 3 chance.
Thinking upon that a bit, a universal requirement to have some type of health "insurance" would seem to make sense. Even though the odds are high that you will eventually get cancer, the odds are lower if you are younger, I would think. Also, if you are younger, the odds are not zero. Therefore, you can make a risk pool that can include an entire population and be able to make a catastrophic policy possible, I would think. Premiums may necessarily be higher for older adults, of course.
So, where does this leave us now?
I don't know enough about the general case for the entire population, but I do know my own case.
As for pre-existing conditions, I caught a lucky break. I had a pre-existing condition, and under such a rule that would not require these to be covered, I would have been out of luck.
Should I now say that others would just have to be out of luck then, should they find themselves in a similar position as I was? I don't think I will just say "tough luck" in the answer to that question. For, in my own case, my last option would have been to move back to Houston and throw myself on the mercies of the public health care system there. This would have been a nightmare scenario that I would not have accepted. It would have meant certain death or permanent disability with a very uncertain and painful recovery, if that was even possible.
How can that be justified when a solution exists that would be affordable for the entire population? Once again, I cannot say for the entire population, but I can say for myself. The current system worked for me pretty well. I won't say that it is a good system for all, but it might have some good points that could be applicable for a good solution that everybody could live with.
You have to have the honesty, courage, and will to seek solutions to problems. It seems to me in our country today that we have a problem there.
Thinking upon that a bit, a universal requirement to have some type of health "insurance" would seem to make sense. Even though the odds are high that you will eventually get cancer, the odds are lower if you are younger, I would think. Also, if you are younger, the odds are not zero. Therefore, you can make a risk pool that can include an entire population and be able to make a catastrophic policy possible, I would think. Premiums may necessarily be higher for older adults, of course.
So, where does this leave us now?
I don't know enough about the general case for the entire population, but I do know my own case.
As for pre-existing conditions, I caught a lucky break. I had a pre-existing condition, and under such a rule that would not require these to be covered, I would have been out of luck.
Should I now say that others would just have to be out of luck then, should they find themselves in a similar position as I was? I don't think I will just say "tough luck" in the answer to that question. For, in my own case, my last option would have been to move back to Houston and throw myself on the mercies of the public health care system there. This would have been a nightmare scenario that I would not have accepted. It would have meant certain death or permanent disability with a very uncertain and painful recovery, if that was even possible.
How can that be justified when a solution exists that would be affordable for the entire population? Once again, I cannot say for the entire population, but I can say for myself. The current system worked for me pretty well. I won't say that it is a good system for all, but it might have some good points that could be applicable for a good solution that everybody could live with.
You have to have the honesty, courage, and will to seek solutions to problems. It seems to me in our country today that we have a problem there.
Friday, March 17, 2017
Institutionalized Groupthink: Aka: Ideology can make you stupid
This is one of the themes of this blog. If there is anything really
wrong in this here country right now, it is political correctness
gone bugf&%k. ( I have to censor my speech, cuz Google is now
going to have "flagging" of inappropriate material.)
Flagging of inappropriate material is the "shut uppery" that was
blogged here a few times. The politics of shut up occurs when the
snowflakes say that they are offended, and that is an excuse to tell
you to STFU.
Don't be surprised then, if this blog gets flagged. Nobody reads it
anyway, but Google is afraid that somebody MIGHT. Well, we just
cannot have THAT, now can we?
Frickin' groupthink, Mr. Bigglesworth.
Shut uppery doesn't bridge the political divide, it widens it.
You have to listen to what those who disagree with you have to say. You
have to seriously consider it.
Then if you don't agree, THEN kick their asses. Just kidding.
The toleration squad is into Doublethink here. Toleration is censorship.
Yeah, right.
When tempers ride high, it may be time for a time out.
Know what I mean, Vern?
Probably not. Trouble is on the way. May not be long now.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Whither Obamacare
It might seem the depth of ingratitude for me to want to see the demise of Obamacare, when I am about to benefit from it greatly.
Yet I wonder if it is good policy overall. Even if it benefits me personally, I do not see that as a good enough reason to support it.
But now I see that there could be some value in it, after all. Again, let's not be ungrateful.
The GOP seems to be considering a bill that would give refundable tax credits as opposed to subsidies. If one policy really is superior to the other, then let them compete. Give people the option of the GOP plan or Obamacare. If Obamacare is going to collapse, this may well help collapse it.
It sure would be better than cutting off the knees of people who are in the middle of difficult and expensive treatments, and may have no options.
Know what I mean, Vern?
Yet I wonder if it is good policy overall. Even if it benefits me personally, I do not see that as a good enough reason to support it.
But now I see that there could be some value in it, after all. Again, let's not be ungrateful.
The GOP seems to be considering a bill that would give refundable tax credits as opposed to subsidies. If one policy really is superior to the other, then let them compete. Give people the option of the GOP plan or Obamacare. If Obamacare is going to collapse, this may well help collapse it.
It sure would be better than cutting off the knees of people who are in the middle of difficult and expensive treatments, and may have no options.
Know what I mean, Vern?
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Obligatory, 10.16.16
A few more thoughts while I rest up for another day at the salt mine...
- All of the media, including Fox, is the problem. If you think Fox helps Trump, you are wrong. Fox is as bad as the rest. It's only my opinion, of course. The problem is that the media has a different agenda. Their agenda is to make money, since it is a business. They are not as interested in the future of the country as they are interested in their own respective futures. NOBODY SEEMS TO GIVE A HOOT THAT THIS COUNTRY IS EFFED UP. If they did, they'd stop focusing in on this other junk, and start talking about what is important.
- Therefore, turn off your TeeVees and talk to each other. Maybe that will improve things, and maybe not. I hear that people get into arguments with each other over these bozos. If there is something over which you would want to risk your good relations with people close to you, it should not be about these bozos. These bozos aren't worth fighting over. Come to an understanding as to which of these bozos will speak to what is important to you personally. It cannot be because Trump talks nasty sometimes. Come off it. You are letting THEM decide what is important. Come on people, you ought to know what is important to you. Decide on THAT, and then choose accordingly.
- One of my Basic Concepts is conflict over problem solving. The media is about conflict, not about problem solving. Conflict is entertainment, which drives ratings. Ratings drive ad revenues, and therefore what you are watching is only devoted toward maximizing conflict--- not in solving our problems. We need to focus in on solving our problems. Making money is a media problem that we should not concern ourselves over.
- Having said that, nobody will pay attention. Of course. Sensible things are boring, and nobody wants to be bored. God help us.
That is all...
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Good link
Found this website via Instapundit link to titanium alloy. There needs to be more of this and less of the commercialism, please. It is getting hard to view some sites because of all the junk they put on it.
As for something that may be useful for yours truly, here's an interesting video that uses solar energy to condense water out of thin air.
Update:
Another interesting video:
As for something that may be useful for yours truly, here's an interesting video that uses solar energy to condense water out of thin air.
Update:
Another interesting video:
Friday, July 1, 2016
Ban No Fly List From Buying Guns – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
Ban No Fly List From Buying Guns – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
comment:
The right to keep and bear arms is connected to militia. Let a militia man get the list and vet it for anybody on it who cannot be a militia man should not be able to purchase a gun.
In other words, don't let it be a government appartachick who decides who can get guns. A militia man is not regular army nor a government employee. However, the government does have the power to regulate militias. Naming the officers is one power. If that officer, in the militia, gets the list; he can decide if the no-fly no-gun rule goes into effect.
comment:
The right to keep and bear arms is connected to militia. Let a militia man get the list and vet it for anybody on it who cannot be a militia man should not be able to purchase a gun.
In other words, don't let it be a government appartachick who decides who can get guns. A militia man is not regular army nor a government employee. However, the government does have the power to regulate militias. Naming the officers is one power. If that officer, in the militia, gets the list; he can decide if the no-fly no-gun rule goes into effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)