Friday, May 14, 2010

Salvation Is Possible

In this Obama Economy, with Mr. Harvard Graduate No Economic Experience Obama leading the way, the liberal New York times says, *drumroll* "In Job Market Shift, Some Workers Are Left Behind. Many of the jobs lost during the recession are not coming back."  

Whaaaat? I thougt Obama was gonna fix everything! I thougt Obama was sent by God to promise and deliver that everyone will be able to have a living wage job and that the streets of the USA are gonna once again be paved with gold. What the fuck, now the New York Tiiiiimes, not the National Inquirer; but the liberal New York Times which is also reputed as a newspaper of record, comes along and says naaaaa, alot of the jobs ain't comin back. 

I have a better idea for the New York Times headline: "Obama Lied. Jobs Died. Voters fooled by rock star politician who don't understand what the buttons mean as he presses them." 

Perhaps Obama should take up motivational speaking because this whole presidency gig sure ain't workin out for him. 

Want proof that Obama is a rock star and not a real president? 

Let us play a game of Obama Said, Obama Is. 

Here we go: 

Obama said that the federal government shares responsibility for the failed oversight of the gulf coast oil spill. Pssssst Obama is the federal government. 

Obama said that the failure of the federal government to reform immingration will lead to "irresponsibility of the states" in other words, states taking matters into their own hands.  

Obama said that the national debt needs to be reduced. IT'S OBAMA'S OWN DANG DEBT!!! OBAMA HIMSELF SIGNED INTO IT!!! 

Clearly, Obama is more interested in performing on stage than he is in making the USA and the world a better place.

The unemploment rate is getting worse. The world is getting more dangerous. Russia signed a deal with Turkey to give it a nuclear reactor. So, all it will take is one disaffected nutcase working inside Turkey's upcoming nuclear reactor can be either bribed or blackmailed into giving terrorists specs, equipment/material, or both. Obama is silent.

Instead, Obama takes bullying from Russia about how Russia does not want tough sanctions (that don't even work) on Iran. Even Ahmadinejad, Iran's dictator, called Obama an amateur. To go back to the economy, one of Obama's major premises is that change is redistributional. It is not. You don't create wealth by stealing someone else's. This will make it so that there is still the same amount of wealth but held by different people. Instead of promoting redistribution, the government should promote self suficiency so that everyone can create their own wealth. If the government has to subsidize then let the government subisdize small business hiring and job training. Then people can create their own wealth.

Ulimately, despite all of the USA's problems and their propensity to get worse because of Obama, it is within the USA's power to solve its problems. The United States needs to return to its tradtional values that made it strong in the first place, namely, free market capitalism, american exceptionalism, and military supremacy.

Instead, Obama bails out banks, car companies, and Greece, without proper oversight of where American taxpayer $$$ is going.

True hope comes from being enabled to take care of yourself monetarily (having a job) while the government reverts as much as possible to its original role of defending the security of the land. If the government has a proactive role in the economy, it is to enable people instead of to hand out to people.


Salvation is within reach, in this lifetime, and we don't have to wait for the next.

5 comments:

Joshua said...

There's a lot of statements here that don't have much connection to reality. Since there are so many, I'm only going to address one of them.

Russia signed a deal with Turkey to give it a nuclear reactor. So, all it will take is one disaffected nutcase working inside Turkey's upcoming nuclear reactor can be either bribed or blackmailed into giving terrorists specs, equipment/material, or both. Obama is silent.

First, of all getting material (by which I presume you mean nuclear material) out of a reactor is incredibly difficult. Fuel rods are not at all easy to access. Moreover, fuel rods don't have as enriched a form as weaponized uranium. The U-235/U-238 ratio is much too low to be used for bombs.

Regarding equipment, there's no equipment that would both be very useful, would not be commercially available, and would be small enough for a single person to easily smuggle out.

Regarding specs, the basic specs for nuclear reactors are public. The real difficulty in building them is having people with the relevant technical skill and having the necessary infrastructure.

Moreover, all of these risks are risks that exist for any nuclear power plant anywhere, whether in Turkey, or the US or Russia or elsewhere.

(Also, I don't think that one needs to bribe or blackmail the disaffected nutcases. Bribery is for the disaffected. Blackmail works on possibly anyone. Nutcases are the ones who do it for ideology or religion. But compared to the major issues this seems like a minor one).

SJ said...

>> There's a lot of statements here that don't have much connection to reality. Since there are so many, I'm only going to address one of them.

Make your point in specifics so it can be discussed instead of diminishing the discussion into "You suck" "No you suck"


>> Regarding specs, the basic specs for nuclear reactors are public. The real difficulty in building them is having people with the relevant technical skill and having the necessary infrastructure.


Right, the basic specs. How about the not basic specs? O.O


>> Regarding equipment, there's no equipment that would both be very useful, would not be commercially available, and would be small enough for a single person to easily smuggle out.


Ok even if that's true (?) there can be other means of espionage and sabotage.



>> Moreover, all of these risks are risks that exist for any nuclear power plant anywhere, whether in Turkey, or the US or Russia or elsewhere.

Do you even believe in enforcing nuclear nonproliferation?


>> (Also, I don't think that one needs to bribe or blackmail the disaffected nutcases. Bribery is for the disaffected. Blackmail works on possibly anyone. Nutcases are the ones who do it for ideology or religion. But compared to the major issues this seems like a minor one).

My mistake. I shouda put the bribed in separate category as the nutcases.

Joshua said...

Make your point in specifics so it can be discussed instead of diminishing the discussion into "You suck" "No you suck"

I did. I don't have the time (and I suspect neither do you) to go through and argue over every single wrong point in this post. (If you insist, I'll throw in another example: You mentioned the various bailouts including the bank bailouts, while TARP was passed under Bush. I agree that the bailouts are highly problematic. I'm deeply unhappy with a lot of what Obama has done regarding them. But that doesn't mean I can't keep my eye on which screwups belong to which Presidents).

Right, the basic specs. How about the not basic specs? O.O

Some will be public others will not be. Most of the non-public ones will likely fall into either industrial secrets or things that the corps running them have no legal obligation to publicize and therefore aren't going to bother. In fact, due to the intense regulation of nuclear plants, in the US, almost everything about the plants is public. It is often easier to get info about the details of commercial nuke plants than it is commercial coal plants.

Ok even if that's true (?) there can be other means of espionage and sabotage.

Such as? Sabotage is a definite danger. But that is a local danger, to people in Turkey. That's up to them to decide what risks they'll take in that regard.


Do you even believe in enforcing nuclear nonproliferation?


Yes, but that shouldn't be a kneejerk reaction against any development of nuclear power. The technology to make practical nuclear power is not that strongly connected to make nuclear weapons. (This is one of many examples where it helps to learn a bit about an issue first). Adding a plant to Turkey doesn't make Turkey or terrorists substantially more likely to be able to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is a complicated issue. And simply reacting against stuff like this is only marginally more rational than Greenpeace fanatics protesting ITER.

SJ said...

I did. I don't have the time (and I suspect neither do you) to go through and argue over every single wrong point in this post. (If you insist, I'll throw in another example: You mentioned the various bailouts including the bank bailouts, while TARP was passed under Bush. I agree that the bailouts are highly problematic. I'm deeply unhappy with a lot of what Obama has done regarding them. But that doesn't mean I can't keep my eye on which screwups belong to which Presidents).


I don't like the Bush bailouts either. I am a conservative before I am a Republican.


Some will be public others will not be. Most of the non-public ones will likely fall into either industrial secrets or things that the corps running them have no legal obligation to publicize and therefore aren't going to bother. In fact, due to the intense regulation of nuclear plants, in the US, almost everything about the plants is public. It is often easier to get info about the details of commercial nuke plants than it is commercial coal plants.

Talk about sticking your ass out. lol



Such as? Sabotage is a definite danger. But that is a local danger, to people in Turkey. That's up to them to decide what risks they'll take in that regard.



Well yeah, sabotage is more of a local danger (i'm not 100% sure of that). The espionage is more of an international danger. There's no way to ensure that 100% of the employees won't be radicals. Turkey's military keeps Turkey secular but Turkey is not without its Islamist undercurrent.



Yes, but that shouldn't be a kneejerk reaction against any development of nuclear power. The technology to make practical nuclear power is not that strongly connected to make nuclear weapons. (This is one of many examples where it helps to learn a bit about an issue first). Adding a plant to Turkey doesn't make Turkey or terrorists substantially more likely to be able to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is a complicated issue. And simply reacting against stuff like this is only marginally more rational than Greenpeace fanatics protesting ITER.


First say please. Then knee-jerk. XD

Joshua said...

Well not really, it is important to keep these things transparent because that way there can be lots of eyes on them and see if anything is drastically bad about the design. The truth is that commercial reactor designs simply don't matter that much. The main major technologies needed to make nuclear bombs are enrichment facilities (generally either with centrifuges or diffusion cascades) and the bomb design itself. A gun design is fairly simple but has a limited size payload and must be a fairly large device (too large to generally put on a missile easily). The real dangerous type is an implosion device but that requires a lot of data that's still classified. None of that data has anything to do with what would occur in a commercial reactor.