atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#5745: Know what I like about summer?

Gas bill: $21.

What I don't like so much? Electric bill. Yeesh. It hasn't arrived yet, but I'm dreading it.

* * *

So, details abound in the not-happening Obamacare repeal story.

The most infuriating thing about all this is that the GOP itself is standing in the way of repealing that craptastic extrusion. Exactly the same way the Democrats stood in the way of passing that Obamanation (heh) Republicans now stand in the way of repealing it.

Because Republicans who voted for repeal when Obama was in the White House are now voting against it.

It makes me want to reach out and strangle the bitches. I can't--my arms aren't that long and I'm not going to D.C. in the summer, or ever if I can avoid it--but I really want to.

The thing to do, however, is for Republicans to primary the bitches who are voting against repeal, and put in people who will actually vote to repeal that horseshit.

At issue here is the fact that the GOP doesn't want to be the majority party. Or, rather, they do, but they don't want to have to govern. Making choices and supporting things only gets people angry at you--regardless of which side they fall on any issue--and it all just makes you wish for the salad days of the 1960s and 1970s when everything was run by Democrats and you could run against them and win and enjoy your plush D.C. lifestyle without all that pesky responsibility getting in the way. Sure, the press and the guys on the other side would lambaste you in public, but after hours everyone went to the same parties and passed around the same interns and squeezed the same lobbyists for campaign donations.

See, all this is only coming up because the hicks out in flyover country are getting uppity, thinking that they elect people to do things. That's why so many elite GOP clowns wanted anyone other than Trump, even Hillary, to be President: they knew that Trump would try to do things, and doing things is anathema to career politicians. Why, if you fix Obamacare, what will they run against next time?

* * *

And from the get-go it was obvious that Trump wasn't going to play by the rules. The rules handicap the GOP, who have based their entire existence on being principled and nice, and losing with dignity while the Democrats pound and holler and riot and destroy. Trump's not playing that game. He won the election because he wasn't playing that game and a lot of the Republican rank-and-file were thrilled to pieces to see a Republican actually hitting back for once.
With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America's first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like "dignity" and "collegiality" simply aren't the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, "I cannot spare this man. He fights."

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum, then Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what's particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel's, he’s shouting, "You magnificent bastards, I read your book!" That is just the icing on the cake, but it's wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he's defeating the Left using their own tactics.
Yes, it is, and it's a breath of fresh air.

* * *

Kim du Toit advises us to ignore the constant drumbeat from the media. I'm already doing this; when I hear "Trump" and "Russia" together I immediately and automatically stop listening, because it's nothing but fake news.
Ignore this nonsense, therefore. In fact, ignore what Trump's doing, too. Let's focus instead on the Republican Congress, and ask them why the fuck they haven't been able to come close to fulfilling a single one of their party leader's campaign promises? Tax reform? Not a word. Repealing ObamaCare? Nothing.
His prescription is to primary the bitches who won't support their President.

* * *

The war on (some) drugs is an abject failure, and it's time to legalize them.

We have already experimented with this, and it was an abject failure; we repealed it because the failure was absolute.

Eh? Oh, a little thing called "Prohibition", wherein people continued to drink a lot of liquor; they just had to get it from people who were willing to break the laws against selling it, and those people did not exactly play nicely. Al Capone, for example.

Prohibition made a lot of criminals very, very rich, but alcohol consumption continued and none of the results promised by the temperance movement came to pass. It's the same, now, with the narcotics prohibition: we have a criminal class that is getting very rich selling illicit narcotics. We have users who must break the law to get their stuff, and there are no controls on purity or strength or anything, so someone used (for example) to heroin that's been cut overdoses when he somehow gets a dose of purer stuff. We have lots of crime surrounding the drug trade because it's illegal, exactly as there was lots of crime surrounding the alcohol trade during Prohibition, because it was illegal.

To say nothing of the fact that because the substance is illegal, people end up paying more for it than they would if it were legal. I don't know what cocaine costs; Googe says about $60-$80 a gram. It's so easily manufactured that 90% of the processing takes place in the jungle; if it were legal do you think it would cost that much? Particularly if suppliers had to compete and couldn't just rub each other out?

The people who want to do the drugs are going to do them, one way or another. You can't stop it. The best you can hope for is to regulate and tax it. And every time legalization is tried, the whole tangled mess just ends. Overdoses drop precipitously. The drugs get cheaper, so people don't have to rob liquor stores to get money for their next fix.

Of course, legalization will never happen. Do you know why it won't?

Because there is so much money tied up in the drug trade with them being illegal, that's why. Right now, if you want a gram of cocaine, you have to go to a certain person. That certain person has risen to the top of the heap, and has beaten (literally, or killed) the competition. He maintains his market through violence and coercion. He's gotten very, very rich, and desires to continue getting richer. And he's smart enough to hire lobbyists to campaign ceaselessly for keeping drugs illegal, because he knows that if Joe Doper can go to Walgreen's and buy a gram of Bayer Cocaine for $25, he's going to do that rather than buy his stuff--of dubious pedigree--at twice the price.

Let's face it: how many people go to bootleggers and moonshiners for liquor, when they can buy better stuff, guaranteed not to contain anything poisonous, for less at the local store?

* * *

If you see an abandoned bag, leave it alone. Four Canadian teenagers grabbed a knapsack sitting outside a 7-11, and as they were pulling out of the parking lot, it exploded.

It was an IED, an improvised explosive device.

Tell me, who leaves a bomb sitting in front of a retail establishment? Police "cannot say at this time" but I'll speak the words everyone is thinking: islamic terrorists.

* * *

Interesting: CO2 and sunlight, with this catalyst, makes methane. About 18% of the output of the reaction is methane, which is not too shabby considering that the inputs are CO2 and sunlight.

* * *

California aims to make electricity as expensive as possible by 2030. Good luck. No one should sell electricity generated with fossil fuels to California.

* * *

Why SpaceX does what NASA cannot. SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 for under $500 million; NASA can't even look into starting a program without spending that much.

At the core of it is the way government does contracts: "cost plus", where the government pays whatever it costs the contractor to do something, plus a reasonable profit. This gives the contractor absolutely no incentive to control costs. "Cost plus" is why each Space Shuttle Orbiter and B-2 bomber cost a billion dollars apiece. "Cost plus" is also why it cost a billion dollars per Shuttle flight.

Developing Falcon 9, had it been done "cost plus", would easily have run $4 billion. SpaceX did it for eleven percent of that cost.

I'm a big fan of doing away with "cost plus" and letting companies compete for contracts. Of course, now that there is one aerospace company in the US (Boeing) it's kind of difficult to do that when it comes to rockets and aircraft. Even so--set up a price you're willing to pay for something, and let companies figure out how to supply that something as specified and make a profit on it. That is the way to do it.

* * *

A great expansion on the story about that coastal elite liberal douchebag looking down his nose at people.

* * *

So, that Minnesota cop who shot an Australian woman dead may have been hired solely so the city government could show how pro-immigrant they were.

So, looking at one of the links in the article, this one, (autoplay warning), we find this:
[The shooter, Mohammed] Noor is currently on paid administrative leave, along with the other officer that was on scene. The second officer has been identified as Matthew Harrity, according to his attorney Fred Bruno.

Bruno said Harrity was driving the squad car and Noor was in the passenger seat. Police sources tell KARE 11 Noor reached across Harrity and fired several shots out the window, striking Damond.

When Noor opened fire, his partner was "stunned," according to the source.
To me, that indicates that Harrity was not expecting it. He was having a conversation with the victim, and apparently it was a normal conversation. No one has said the woman was agitated or yelling or anything, and if she had been I'd expect that to be reported immediately. It would provide some cover for her being shot.

This lends credence to my theory: the guy panicked and unloaded his firearm in the victim's general direction. What remains to be seen is why he panicked.

So let's look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say it wasn't the person who called 911; let's say that a woman had actually been raped in that alleyway, and when she saw the police car, she ran up to it, a chaotic mess because of what's just happened to her. Would the result have been the same? Would this guy have pulled out his gun and shot her to death? Wouldn't that be a stellar moment for the Minneapolis police department?

Regardless of anything else, this Mohammed Noor needs to not be a police officer any longer. Period.

* * *

Hoverbird! No, it's just that the bird's wings are flapping in sync to the camera's frame rate. That's pretty cool.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.