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.
Thursday, June 20, 2024
New American Daily | Why is Congress Suddenly Unleashing Nuclear Energy? (video)
This is live as I write this... Update a short time later: after 20 minutes or so, the topic changes.
"Gender affirming" care scandal at Texas Children's Hospital
Comment:
I used to make deliveries there all the time. Woo boy. This one could have legs.
Texas Children’s Hospital whistleblower just NUKED the ‘gender-affirming care’ program with one incredible claim… https://t.co/skQnuWiWNa
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 20, 2024
Water and carbon dioxide from Venus? ( series)
Previous (First in series)
6/20/24:
A question arises as to what the feasibility is of these "high" orbits? It seems that for the Earth, that the moon would pose a problem. The gravitational pull of the moon may perturb a high orbit around the Earth, and thus sling it out of orbit. That would not be good. Consequently, a high Earth orbit may have to be restricted to a neighborhood closer to Earth than the moon, or in a LaGrangian point.
But Venus and Mars could be different. These two planets do not have such a large moon, as Earth does. Therefore, a high orbit around these planets may be workable. I did a Quora question about these types of orbits, and here are some good answers.
Why Venus and Mars? Each could be possible colonization sites. You could start with gathering carbon dioxide and water in order to make rocket fuel, as mentioned in this post.
end update of 6/11/24 post:
6.11.24: Update:
end update of 6/10.24 post:
6.10/24:
This could be a new series of posts, beginning with this one. The first in the series is getting a bit busy, with too many updates. This one will begin with a discussion of mining Venus. Venus? The Delta-V for Venus is lower than for Mars, plus there ought to be more frequent launch windows. Getting there and back should be less of a problem than for Mars.
 |
| Delta-V Map for Venus from High Earth Orbit |
The problem will be in getting resources off of it. As everyone who follows this stuff knows, Venus has a horribly thick atmosphere, and a very high surface temperature. However, in the upper atmosphere, it is fairly mild in temperature and in pressure. Getting there may be a problem, though.
If you cannot get there easily enough, perhaps you wouldn't need to. What if you could do a LOXLEO approach? That is to say, you'd skim resources off the top of the Venusian atmosphere. You could get plenty of carbon dioxide, and perhaps plenty of sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid will contain plenty of hydrogen, which could be mined for water.
Therefore, Venus could be a treasure trove of carbon dioxide and water. There is also some nitrogen in the atmosphere as well. What's not to like?
As usual, you'd have to get there with the necessary equipment. Even with a lower delta-v, getting to Venus with the necessary equipment could be an issue.
There would be an abundance of solar energy. Being that Venus is so much closer to the sun, the rays should be much stronger. The energy necessary for running the equipment could from there.
More here! Venus flyby for shorter roundtrips to Mars. NASA study on colonizing Venus. (pdf)
Next
Pre posted royal nonesuch
This will be a covert post meant to hide nothing, but you can never be too careful these days.
Comment
byu/NGSensibleSolutions from discussion
inspace
Wednesday, June 19, 2024
Marxist dialectics--why sincere conservatives ought not to use it
6/19/24:
This is a re-post of an idea that I've expounded upon many a time on this blog. It goes well with corporatism is not capitalism post updated a bit earlier.
That is all to this update of the last update to this here post: (I hope that's clear)
Update, 10/17/23:
Jordan's first vote falls through. It looks like there will be more votes. I'm including the development on this post, as opposed to the McCarthy updates because the link is acquired from Ground News. Ground News links to Voice of America, which is state-owned. If it is state-owned, that means it is socialist. Yet Ground News calls VOA "factual".
I don't know how a state-owned enterprise can be considered "center". Once again, I have to take exception to the use of this terminology because it distorts the true situation.
The article uses a lot of "persuader words", which are intended to show some disapproval of Jordan. Sorry, I'm having none of that. It is not truly even-handed. As for it being center of the road, what the hell does that even mean? This government is middle of the road, centered, and factual? Nope, not a chance. Jordan is called "hard-charging", his supporters are "hard-right"; and McCarthy was removed by "angry hard-liners".
Asking for accurate and honest reportage is too "extreme", I suppose. We have to allow dishonesty in order to be reasonable? There's nothing honest about VOA's characterizations. There's nothing reasonable about people who are determined to hide the truth.
end update:
10/15/23, Update of post of 8/22/23:
There's a website called Ground News, which rates articles upon the Marxist model heretofore mentioned on this iddy biddy blog.
Even though I reject the usage of the model, the site is proving to be useful. For example, the DOJ has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Google. I found it through Ground News. Most so-called "right-wing" websites don't bother covering it. The left (the term is used here because that's what they call themselves) is all over it, with it being standard fare on their sites.
A reading of those articles is pretty thin in terms of significance. Even if the DOJ wins the suit, it isn't likely to be impactful. The remedy to the alleged wrongdoing of Google is already being applied in Europe. People there use Google anyway. It is a whole lot of nothing. So if you ignore that, does it make you a right-wing site? Hence, the terminology doesn't really apply, at least in this case.
There are complaints that could be filed against Google, but not against their search engine. Google is a lot more than that. Hence, the significance isn't really there.
end update:
8/22/23, Update of post of 2/18/22:
Yep, saw it again. You can argue all day long about who is the "true conservative" and who isn't. But in MY book, the dead giveaway is the use of the Marxist dialectic of the "right" v the left. The left loves it and so the label fits them. But using the word "right" in reference to yourself is a loser every time.That's why the left loves it so much.
Therefore, a true conservative would never use that paradigm in a description of himself...
the original post follows below:
Real life example of the Marxist dialectic, ie left-center-right
Comment:
So Ace cuts Ed Morrisey a new one here and that's good. But I'd like to use that as an opportunity to demonstrate why using this model of political analysis is a bad idea, unless you are like Ed Morrisey, and aren't sincere about your conservatism.
The reason should be obvious. It makes it much easier to attack anybody who IS sincere about their conservatism. Just call them "extremists". They can hide behind their "moderation", and say that it is equally bad for "right-wing" extremists than for "left-wing" extremists. In practice, the commies will just call anybody who disagrees with them a "right-wing" extremist or fascist. Note that all of a sudden, nobody gets to disagree with the commies. Commies are hysterical about any opposition. Of course you are. In the commie world, everybody who isn't on their side is the next Adolf Hitler.
It is not wrong to call them commies because it is their paradigm, and they use it so well. For conservatives to fall into this by calling themselves as being "on the right" is just plain dumb. Or they are like Morrisey, and they aren't sincere.
It's the kind of maneuver that makes "failure theater" work. The "moderates" can pretend to be on the side of conservatism, but when it comes time to prove that with something meaningful, they are nowhere to be found.
Commies are liars, and so are those who practice this tactic. They are enabling the commies even if they are sincere when they use it. All that is necessary is for guys like this to use that label to smear conservatives as fascists, and what can you say if you play their game? The answer is not to play their game. Don't use a Marxist model that only works for Marxists. That is, unless you are a Marxist yourself.
This is a re-post of an idea that I've expounded upon many a time on this blog. It goes well with corporatism is not capitalism post updated a bit earlier.
That is all to this update of the last update to this here post: (I hope that's clear)
Update, 10/17/23:
Jordan's first vote falls through. It looks like there will be more votes. I'm including the development on this post, as opposed to the McCarthy updates because the link is acquired from Ground News. Ground News links to Voice of America, which is state-owned. If it is state-owned, that means it is socialist. Yet Ground News calls VOA "factual".
I don't know how a state-owned enterprise can be considered "center". Once again, I have to take exception to the use of this terminology because it distorts the true situation.
The article uses a lot of "persuader words", which are intended to show some disapproval of Jordan. Sorry, I'm having none of that. It is not truly even-handed. As for it being center of the road, what the hell does that even mean? This government is middle of the road, centered, and factual? Nope, not a chance. Jordan is called "hard-charging", his supporters are "hard-right"; and McCarthy was removed by "angry hard-liners".
Asking for accurate and honest reportage is too "extreme", I suppose. We have to allow dishonesty in order to be reasonable? There's nothing honest about VOA's characterizations. There's nothing reasonable about people who are determined to hide the truth.
end update:
10/15/23, Update of post of 8/22/23:
There's a website called Ground News, which rates articles upon the Marxist model heretofore mentioned on this iddy biddy blog.
Even though I reject the usage of the model, the site is proving to be useful. For example, the DOJ has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Google. I found it through Ground News. Most so-called "right-wing" websites don't bother covering it. The left (the term is used here because that's what they call themselves) is all over it, with it being standard fare on their sites.
A reading of those articles is pretty thin in terms of significance. Even if the DOJ wins the suit, it isn't likely to be impactful. The remedy to the alleged wrongdoing of Google is already being applied in Europe. People there use Google anyway. It is a whole lot of nothing. So if you ignore that, does it make you a right-wing site? Hence, the terminology doesn't really apply, at least in this case.
There are complaints that could be filed against Google, but not against their search engine. Google is a lot more than that. Hence, the significance isn't really there.
end update:
8/22/23, Update of post of 2/18/22:
Yep, saw it again. You can argue all day long about who is the "true conservative" and who isn't. But in MY book, the dead giveaway is the use of the Marxist dialectic of the "right" v the left. The left loves it and so the label fits them. But using the word "right" in reference to yourself is a loser every time.That's why the left loves it so much.
Therefore, a true conservative would never use that paradigm in a description of himself...
the original post follows below:
Real life example of the Marxist dialectic, ie left-center-right
Comment:
So Ace cuts Ed Morrisey a new one here and that's good. But I'd like to use that as an opportunity to demonstrate why using this model of political analysis is a bad idea, unless you are like Ed Morrisey, and aren't sincere about your conservatism.
The reason should be obvious. It makes it much easier to attack anybody who IS sincere about their conservatism. Just call them "extremists". They can hide behind their "moderation", and say that it is equally bad for "right-wing" extremists than for "left-wing" extremists. In practice, the commies will just call anybody who disagrees with them a "right-wing" extremist or fascist. Note that all of a sudden, nobody gets to disagree with the commies. Commies are hysterical about any opposition. Of course you are. In the commie world, everybody who isn't on their side is the next Adolf Hitler.
It is not wrong to call them commies because it is their paradigm, and they use it so well. For conservatives to fall into this by calling themselves as being "on the right" is just plain dumb. Or they are like Morrisey, and they aren't sincere.
It's the kind of maneuver that makes "failure theater" work. The "moderates" can pretend to be on the side of conservatism, but when it comes time to prove that with something meaningful, they are nowhere to be found.
Commies are liars, and so are those who practice this tactic. They are enabling the commies even if they are sincere when they use it. All that is necessary is for guys like this to use that label to smear conservatives as fascists, and what can you say if you play their game? The answer is not to play their game. Don't use a Marxist model that only works for Marxists. That is, unless you are a Marxist yourself.
Going after corporations is not socialism
6/19/24:
Here's a tweet that expresses a point of view that I've had for awhile now. That is to say, corporations are out of control, and are not a conservative group. This is regardless of whether or not they support one party or the other. Currently, I'd say they support Democrats more than the Republicans, but the GOP doesn't seem to mind.
end update of 8/9/17 post:
In my opinion, which is based upon how the US Constitution was written, that in keeping with originalism, which is supposed to be a conservative idea, that to go after corporations is consistent with conservative thought.
It has become something of a given that the GOP favors corporations, more than the Democrats, who are okay with corporations, and these same corporations favor Dems and their agenda more than the GOP does. This is hard to understand how the GOP lets themselves be the "party of the rich", when it is the Democrats who tend to favor the rich far more. Fake news and fake culture of all kinds may be at work here.
So, this comment was in keeping with a discussion about Sanders of Vermont, who may be the Democrat nominee in 2020. The Dems kept him off the ballot, as you may recall. The WikiLeaks business showed that, and now the Deep State is going after Trump, another populist type of candidate. Corporations prefer the fake, in my opinion, because they care nothing for the people.
Corporations need to be controlled. Instead, they are controlling us. In my opinion, they are the ones driving this impeachment nonsense. If they aren't doing it, then who? Why would the Sanders type voters be interested in knocking off Trump, when Trump resembles Sanders more than Hillary did?
There are those who say people vote according to their tribe. If that is so, then Trump should not be POTUS. There is no always in any of this stuff. That provides the opportunity for someone to come along and fix things when things are not right. Polls say consistently that we have been on the wrong track for most of the past two decades.
I trust Trump more than Sanders, but either one could betray. They all do. One of these types of politicians have to come through for the people in the country to survive. The corporate state does not care about the people. You can take that to the bank.
On the other hand, if the Tiberius Syndrome has its way, America will fade into history just like the Romans did. Corporate power is the Tiberius of the age.
Here's a tweet that expresses a point of view that I've had for awhile now. That is to say, corporations are out of control, and are not a conservative group. This is regardless of whether or not they support one party or the other. Currently, I'd say they support Democrats more than the Republicans, but the GOP doesn't seem to mind.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 19, 2024
end update of 8/9/17 post:
In my opinion, which is based upon how the US Constitution was written, that in keeping with originalism, which is supposed to be a conservative idea, that to go after corporations is consistent with conservative thought.
It has become something of a given that the GOP favors corporations, more than the Democrats, who are okay with corporations, and these same corporations favor Dems and their agenda more than the GOP does. This is hard to understand how the GOP lets themselves be the "party of the rich", when it is the Democrats who tend to favor the rich far more. Fake news and fake culture of all kinds may be at work here.
So, this comment was in keeping with a discussion about Sanders of Vermont, who may be the Democrat nominee in 2020. The Dems kept him off the ballot, as you may recall. The WikiLeaks business showed that, and now the Deep State is going after Trump, another populist type of candidate. Corporations prefer the fake, in my opinion, because they care nothing for the people.
Corporations need to be controlled. Instead, they are controlling us. In my opinion, they are the ones driving this impeachment nonsense. If they aren't doing it, then who? Why would the Sanders type voters be interested in knocking off Trump, when Trump resembles Sanders more than Hillary did?
There are those who say people vote according to their tribe. If that is so, then Trump should not be POTUS. There is no always in any of this stuff. That provides the opportunity for someone to come along and fix things when things are not right. Polls say consistently that we have been on the wrong track for most of the past two decades.
I trust Trump more than Sanders, but either one could betray. They all do. One of these types of politicians have to come through for the people in the country to survive. The corporate state does not care about the people. You can take that to the bank.
On the other hand, if the Tiberius Syndrome has its way, America will fade into history just like the Romans did. Corporate power is the Tiberius of the age.
Save da View
Couldn't have said it better meself. /hic
Until now, I was planning to vote for Donald Trump for a third time
— Reaganite 🫡❄️🥃 (@emperoreaganite) June 18, 2024
But I cannot in good conscience support a man who will cancel The View, long known for its total impartiality and the towering intellect of venerated panelists such as Whoopi Goldberg & Joy Behar pic.twitter.com/dum9YJOBZa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)