Do I really need to go though everything that's wrong with the GOP leadership again?
Okay, I will: the moderates are in charge of the party. The country club Republicans are essentially "Democrat lite" and we don't win elections running slightly to the right of Democrats.
The GOP should be the party of small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, American exceptionalism, and a strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution.
The GOP, right now, is the party of:
* a government which is slightly smaller than the one desired by DemocratsForget being "the party of Reagan"; we're not even the party of George H.W. Bush any more.
* taxes which will pay for all the social programs without strangling business too much
* fiscal responsibility? Four words: "No Child Left Behind" was the biggest-ever expansion of federal education spending. (Kennedy wrote it and said "it's not enough" before Bush's signature had dried.)
* a national defense which can handle a one-front war against a technologically weaker opponent
* Sarah Palin is the first Republican in a very long time who believes America is unique and good, and who isn't afraid to say it in public
* we're not willing to expend the political capital to allow the appointment of Judge S. Constructionalist, so we'll appoint Judge W. Washy instead
Nixon was a country club Republican. (CCR) Ford was a CCR. Both Bushes--CCRs. Newt Gingrich is more conservative than any of them; unfortunately he couldn't keep his thingy in his pants.
* * *
Liberals, as always, resort to lies and dirty tricks because they can't debate the facts.
* * *
Citizens on the US-Mexico border: "Arm yourselves."
I'm going to say it again:
I've just about made up my mind that the United States needs to put up a serious barrier on the US-Mexico border. I'm talking about razor wire, electrified fences, trenches, moats, and mine fields. Put up signs every 50 yards which say, in English and Spanish, "IF YOU PASS THIS FENCE YOU WILL DIE." Have guards posted in towers with night vision goggles and rifles with orders to shoot at anything human-shaped which attempts to cross. If someone tries to cross and gets blown up, shot, or electrocuted, he's left there.And again, hell yes I'm serious.
* * *
Roger Hedgecock explains how Obama is treating Israel like an enemy rather than an ally.
* * *
George Will discusses the looming pension crisis here in Illinois.
Illinois is one of those hard-left states--like California and Michigan--which has been run by Democrats (or at least had very large Democrat enclaves) for a long time, and which is now in deep crap due to the economic downturn and the comcomitant reduction in tax revenue.
* * *
Air Force may have a platform for space-based weapons. It's pretty cool, and I think we're going to need this in the coming decades.
Look: the treaty we signed, promising not to militarize space? That treaty is with a country which no longer exists--the U.S.S.R.--and China was not a party to it. China can do whatever the hell they want without violating so much as a single treaty; should the US hold to a treaty with a defunct nation?
There are two things we could do about this situation: try to come to a similar agreement with China; or for the US to plan on facing a war which involves space-based assets.
"Ultimately, weapons could be delivered from a space plane in low Earth orbit..." ...a "Rods from God" scenario. That idea is akin to a lawn-dart weapon idea that uses tungsten rods lobbed from space to hit a cross-haired target on the ground."Project Thor" was the original name of the concept, as I recall, and it involved a meter-long tungsten rod with a relatively simple guidance package. The concept has been around for decades in the SF world--much longer than the Air Force has been talking about it.
"[There was] a story about the rods concept in 1994 or 1995, based on concepts being discussed in the U.S. Air Force at the time. Fifteen years later, maybe they're ready for testing."
I had a discussion about the effectiveness of such a weapon with a friend of mine about a decade ago; he insisted there was no way it could be an effective weapon against, for example, a ship. So I had to dig down into the physics and do all the calculations, and I learned that not only would a meter-long tungsten crowbar make an effective weapon even against a moving target, but it wouldn't even need an explosive warhead.
...and in fact I just now realized that my numbers were figured using iron rather than tungsten. Tungsten is a bit less than three times the atomic weight of iron. A mole of iron weighs 55.8 grams; a mole of Tungsten weighs 183.8 grams.
So a hunk of tungsten weighs 3.3 times as much as an equivalent volume of iron. For the crowbars--being about a meter long and an inch in diameter--it would mean a higher terminal velocity and therefore more kinetic energy to dissipate.
Trust me: if you get hit by something like that, dropped from orbit, it's going to take a lot of armor to keep it from hurting you. The only way to make it hurt worse would be to give it a core of depleted uranium.
And the context of our discussion? China deciding it owned the moon.
* * *
I have a very nice IBM PS/2 keyboard--a classic tank of a keyboard--which I can't use with this computer. It draws too much power and the motherboard freaks out. And only now has it occurred to me that if I were to buy a PS/2-to-USB adaptor, I could use my nice clicky perfect keyboard with this machine after all....