Crusading against evil since ...
2219 stories
·
1 follower

The Menace from Space

1 Share

 


"The spear, the bow, the gun, and finally the guided missile had given him weapons of infinite range and all but infinite power. Without those weapons, often though he had used them against himself, Man would never have conquered his world. Into them he had put his heart and soul, and for ages they had served him well. But now, as long as they existed, he was living on borrowed time."
Arthur C. Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey


The Jewish Space Lasers Lady is back.


The Republican from Georgia (which sounds like the title of a 1950s science fiction pulp novel) Marjorie Taylor Greene, submitted an amendment to the Israel Aid funding bill that, if approved, would provide funds to "develop space laser technology for use on the Southern Border." 

Space laser technology.

For use on the Southern Border. 

Space lasers.

Again. I mean, you remember the space lasers, right? 


But what do I know? Greene asks. I just like to read a lot. 

She likes to read nutty antisemitic conspiracy theories about the Rothschild Investment Corporation and and she likes to imagine "The Jews" have some secret space program so advanced it can launch industrial grade orbital solar power stations without anyone actually noticing but some smelly beardo in a dirty bathrobe living in a run down trailer somewhere in West Virginia and posting his "findings" to Truth Social. And not just those launches, but somehow vast orbital acres of highly reflective solar panels necessary to such installations have likewise somehow gone unnoticed by not only military, government, and academic observatories but those amateur telescope wranglers who track everything from SpaceX launches to the International Space Station. 

But, yeah, what would she know, right? 


Greene says America deserves the "same type of defense for our border that Israel has and proudly uses." (emphasis mine).

Has and proudly uses. 

Space lasers. 

Apparently she thinks Israel has space lasers. Which they use to defend their borders (and if that's the case, it's hardly an advertisement given the current state of affairs). This system Which I guess was lofted by the vast Israeli space program is also used to start forest fires in California on the orders of some secret Jewish investment bank because something something gazpacho and sure it sounds crazy when you say it out loud on social media but that doesn't mean it's not actually bugfuck insane, does it?

Folks, we really have to stop electing lunatics to run our government. 

Yes, even you, Georgia. Seriously, just stop it. 


That said, imagine it. 


No, really, imagine weapons grade lasers in orbit.

Space-based laser weapons powerful enough to punch through 200km of increasingly thick atmosphere with enough energy to ... what exactly? fry people and vehicles on the ground? Start forest fires? defend Israeli borders? burn ants? I don't know and the amendment doesn't say, but, imagine that weapon. 

Imagine what you could do with it, not just on the border, but anywhere, anytime, against anyone

Now, imagine giving control of that weapon to ... who? Trump? Biden? Booger eating crazypants Ex-General Flynn? The Arizona Supreme Court? Who?

Yes, imagine that. 

But then, you don't have to imagine it. 

We already have this, you know. 

Well, not have have, but we've got fully developed engineering plans for a similar weapons system. One that would have actually worked. 

Project Thor. 

That's right: Rods from God. The finger of death, smiting the sinners from upon high. 

Orbital-based Kinetic Bombardment. 

And if the sound of that doesn't scare the shit out of you, you've never read enough military science fiction. 

Except it wasn't fiction. 

The whole thing was thought up back in the 1980s by a bunch of science fiction writers and NASA engineers led by Dr. Jerry Pournelle (who was both). Thor is a fully fleshed-out design for kinetic energy weapons. Telephone pole sized solid tungsten rods, dropped from low orbit. A satellite might hold a dozen or more of these missiles. You can drop one or all of them at once, then a solid fuel rocket engine deorbits the Thor impactor and simple basic missile electronics guide it precisely to target (you wonder why we ever developed something so expensive as the GPS system? You didn't think it was for the public good did you?). Tons of metal moving at hypersonic velocity, you don't need a warhead or explosives. Depending on a number of variables, the impact energy of these things could be measured in kilotons. They could hit nearly anywhere on earth's surface with the power of a nuclear bomb, a manmade meteor. No radiation, no fallout. You could drop one or a hundred, or thousands, globally, all at once. Scalable, flexible, the system could target a tank column or a missile silo, a single building or an entire city, a battle group at sea or even submerged submarines. 

Simple and elegant in design -- if elegant is a word you associate with mass death from the sky. 

You don't need any new technology. The materials and engineering have existed for decades. We could have built a basic system as far back as the 1970s. 

There could be no defense against it.

It was developed as part of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program. It was expensive and it would get more expensive the more satellites you put into orbit (it got cheaper if you had a reusable launch system, hey, and now you know some of the impetus behind the Shuttle's development and why Reagan was willing to keep funding it) but not nearly as expensive as maintaining a massive nuclear arsenal and the associated delivery systems (except the Shuttle vastly exceeded its design and operating budgets and never even came close to lowering the cost of launching material into orbit, and it turned out the nuke ICBMs were cheaper after all). 

But it wasn't the expense that ultimately canceled the program, so much as the idea of the sheer power of such a weapon.

You see, Thor, once implemented, could be used to impose an ironclad dictatorship over friend and foe alike.

You could use it against targets in the Middle East and the Soviet Union (remember, it was still the Cold War), but you could also use it against uppity Americans. Or your allies, if they forgot who their friends were. 

Now, there were certainly those who salivated at the idea of such power, but eventually it was cancelled before any serious hardware was constructed. They never got a working platform into space (probably).

But...

If we had built it, can you imagine handing over control of such a thing to Donald Trump in 2016? The power of surgical strike tactical and/or strategic nuclear weapons without the associated downside of radiation, EMP, and long term contamination? Can you imagine handing control of that system over to the guy who wanted to know why we couldn't just nuke a hurricane? The guy who gleefully bragged on worldwide TV about dropping the "Mother of all Bombs" on Afghanistan?

That guy? 

Can you? 

Can you imagine that?

Who would he have used such weapons on? Think about that. Think about that power in any president's hands. 

I know Marjorie Taylor Greene is thinking about such power right now. 

I know she is. I don't have to guess. She told us. She keeps telling us.

That's all she and her ilk think about.

The power of God. And using it on us, those she considers undesirable and where have we heard this sort of thing before?

Yes, of course, Greene's amendment is idiotic. 

We're not going to build space lasers. Not yet. Not now. For the same reasons we didn't build Thor. We won't build Space Lasers for a lot of reasons. 

But this isn't really about that, is it?

It's about how these vile people think. 

It's about how they dream of having the absolute power of gods, being able to send down lightning from the heavens and fry the people they hate. Us.

The state of the art -- and the limitations of the budget -- won't let them do that. Yet.

But that doesn't make us safe from our leaders who dream about killing us. 

If you let them have power, they'll find a way to eliminate those they despise and they won't need science fiction weapons to do it. Whether it's cattle cars, camps, cyanide showers, and gas chambers or something more modern, they'll find a way just as those of their evil ilk always have. 

Because that's all they dream about. 

It's all they dream about. They tell you this in speeches, in their social media posts, in every amendment they write. They can not go a single minute without fantasizing about mass murder. 

Those like Marjorie Taylor Greene, like Trump, like the modern Republican Party, they don't build better futures. Not even for themselves. 

The only things they build are walls. 

The only things they create are new ways to to commit mass murder.

Their gods are hate and fear and profit. 

If you give them power, they'll use it to kill. To burn. To destroy. To tear down civilization and bury history in mass graves next to all those they despise. They told us so. 

It's all they dream about.

It's right there in their words, they don't even try to hide it. 

It's aways fascinating to me, the irony when someone whose entire identity is vested in some charismatic wannabe dictator calls me a communist.

A communist. 

Fuck. 

I'm not a communist. Never have been. And in fact I spent a not insignificant fraction of my adult life in the uniform of my country standing against communism. I despise communism. 

I'm not even a socialist -- not that these drooling halfwits can tell the difference between socialism and communism, or care to find out.

Hell, I barely qualify as a liberal most of the time. 

And you wouldn't have to read very far back in the annuals of this blog to figure that out. But the truly ironic part is where most of these people proudly wear their Christianity on their sleeve. A religion whose own founding prophet allegedly told his adherents in no uncertain terms: feed the hungry, clothe the poor, heal the sick, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven, judge not least ye by judged... 

And we could have done that. 

Even if you don't believe in that god, even if you don't adhere to that religion, those are good ideas. Feed the hungry. Clothe the poor. Heal the sick. The Golden Rule. We could have done all of that. We could have fed everyone by now. We could have clothed and sheltered everyone on the planet. We could have healed almost everyone, or at least made sure everyone had effective quality medical care. We could all be wealthy. We could all be entitled to liberty and justice. We could have made this world a paradise for all, instead of embracing an ideology that promises salvation to only a select few and eternal misery to all the rest. 

We could have done that.

Mad?

You damn right, I'm mad. 

Scared?

Yes, that too. 

I'm fucking furious at all the things we could have dared, and did not. 

I'm terrified of what these dirty rotten selfish greedy miserable fanatical sons of bitches will do next, should we let them have power again. 

We better show up. 

We better do our duty. 

We'd better stand fast, shoulder to shoulder, against the fall of night, or one day real soon they'll find a way to burn us all down and civilization along with us. 

You want a better nation? 

Hell, you want a future where our leaders don't dream about murdering us? 

Then you have to be a better citizen. That's where it starts. 

 

"Pffaww, They're a pair! They don't like anything. They don't even like the dachshund. Who doesn't like dachshunds? They're little parcels of dog-shaped goodness. I've known Jalabite Hegemon ships that give up conquest and start little farmsteads just so they can have happy dachshunds. Everyone likes dachshunds, everywhere in the universe. Well, except on Bithomorency. People there got into a war with a refugee column of evolutionarily advanced dachshund super soldiers fleeing the destruction of their home world. The wire-haired marines took out an entire town. Two hundred thousand dead. And it was a tragic misunderstanding. The dachshunds only stopped to ask for some biscuits, automated defense systems fired on them. There's a lesson: never give control of your space weapons to an unsupervised machine. Schoolboy error.”
― Nick Harkaway, Doctor Who: Keeping Up with the Joneses


Read the whole story
DGA51
3 hours ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

TEMPEST: What’s the OUTRAGE over the Barron Trump high school graduation?

1 Comment

Across MAGAland, there is a new villain threatening Donald Trump, and there’s no rule that says the things they’re accusing him of have to be real.

Jack Posobiec, self-appointed internet provocateur and Trump fan, headed to Twitter on Monday to complain, declaring that Judge Juan Merchan was threatening to arrest Trump for missing a day of court to attend his son Barron Trump’s graduation.

Now, others are chiming in, calling Merchan “evil” and “disgusting” for not allowing a man to see his youngest child graduate.

The only problem is that Judge Merchan has issued no such order.

In fact, Merchan is giving a lot of leeway in scheduling, skipping days for Passover, asking jurors for days that they need to be away for religious holidays, and skipping Wednesdays altogether. As for May 17, when Trump says he needs the day off to attend a graduation, he said he won’t rule yet, but will wait to see if the proceedings are on schedule, accordingto Inner City Press.

That means that the defense could help accommodate the requested absence by simply not drawing things out as long as possible, but delay is a standard tactic in the Trump bag of tricks.

Trump’s fans are irate, however, over the order that they mistakenly think was handed down, though. Jason Miller, a senior advisor to Trump, turned to social media to moan, too. He tweeted, spreading the misleading propaganda:

“This is how disgusting the Biden Trial has become. Not even letting the President attend his son’s high school graduation. Nothing but a political attack.”

His post clearly reached a lot of angry fans, because he received a lot of responses musing about the optics of Trump being arrested at his son’s graduation, or about Trump skipping court and daring the judge to order his arrest.

While it is true that Trump was warned that his absence could lead to a warrant being issued, that caveat was part of the standard warnings that criminal defendants are given, and was not in direct connection to the graduation request.

Other Trump fans tweeted further musings, such as whether Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would protect his former presidential rival by preventing his arrest.

Another claimed that Trump had already been forced to miss being by Melania Trump’s side when her mother died, and that having to miss Barron’s graduation as well is just more evidence that accused felon is being prosecuted by “evil.”

(Trump elected to be in court after his mother-in-law died, and traveled to rallies both before and after his appearance; he was not even required to be present in that case. This time, it’s a criminal charge rather than civil proceedings, and criminal defendants are typically expected to show up.)

Trump himself has not made any direct response to the lack of ruling yet, nor to the false claims that a ruling was issued. Let’s see what he posts on TruthSocial tonight, however.

For clarifications, comments, & typos, email: editor@occupydemocrats.com.

The post TEMPEST: What’s the OUTRAGE over the Barron Trump high school graduation? appeared first on Occupy Democrats.

Read the whole story
DGA51
16 hours ago
reply
Another outright lie riles the MAGA crowd.
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

HELL MATCH: Did Trump really offer Robert Kennedy Jr. a VP slot?

1 Comment

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., running as an independent candidate for president, says that he was invited to be the  running mate for Donald Trump, as he slams the former president in a new statement.

Trump’s team has denied that this ever happened.

The truth could be anywhere between the two claims, but Kennedy is currently making the claim as part of an attack on both Trump and President Joe Biden, as he implies that he’s the candidate Trump is really worried about.

Kennedy has been defensive of Trump at times, but he’s also attacked Trump, claiming that the former and current president are actually a lot alike on issues such as the national debt. (In reality, while almost every president has increased the national debt, Trump did so by more than almost 4 times the percentage Biden has, according to Investopedia.)

On Monday morning, as Trump sat in court unable to respond, Kennedy lashed out. He tweeted:

“President Trump calls me an ultra-left radical. I’m soooo liberal that his emissaries asked me to be his VP. I respectfully declined the offer.”

Kennedy further declared that Biden “can’t win,” and said that Trump’s website shows who he’s afraid of.

Currently, Trump’s campaign site redirects to pleas for cash and complaints about being in court, and even after dodging around that, none of the main tabs shows any focus on Kennedy, so it’s not clear what the Independent candidate means, unless he meant to refer to TruthSocial, Trump’s media site.

If so, it’s true that Trump has mentioned him a few times lately, including the claim that he’s “far-left,” but he’s devoted a fraction of the attention to Kennedy that he has to the current president, who he accuses of masterminding all his legal troubles.

Back in January, Trump’s senior campaign advisor denied that the team had approached Kennedy, according to NewsNation.

Kennedy is not responding to questions about who, exactly, the “emissaries” were that approached him.

It was recently exposed that at least some of his own campaign staff hopes to employ him as a ‘spoiler’ who can pull votes away from Biden so that Trump has a better chance of success in 2024.

Kennedy’s full statement can be seen below.

For clarifications, comments, & typos, email: editor@occupydemocrats.com.

The post HELL MATCH: Did Trump really offer Robert Kennedy Jr. a VP slot? appeared first on Occupy Democrats.

Read the whole story
DGA51
1 day ago
reply
As if Trump would ask someone who could siphon off votes for Biden to be on his ticket where that couldn't happen. He'd have to be REALLY stupid to do that.
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Just listen, just slow down

1 Comment
I am not an expert in finance and investment, but I don't recommend buying stock in Trump Media.
Read the whole story
DGA51
1 day ago
reply
I knew people who bought Enron at nine because they figured it had to go back up. I still have a certificate for my shares.
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Is It Ok To Dislike Children?

1 Comment

If you are, like me, terminally online, you may have seen that the social media Discourse of the past 48 hours has been “is it ok to dislike children?” As far as I can tell, this stems from a tweet wherein a man posted his approval of a pub sign reading “Dog friendly / child free” and everyone lost their collective minds. Child-free pubs were characterized as examples of colonization and social decay, were accused of banning parents and women in particular, and were said to be discriminating against the most vulnerable class of humans. Many, many people were clear that, unlike the colonizing yuppies, they prefer children to dogs. And many other people were clear that they had no problem with children, but they definitely had a problem with entitled parents (many others did, in fact, just have a problem with children).

Subscribe now

And then: A whole second day of Discourse when someone else tweeted that “it’s fine and normal to dislike children.” Many, many people tweeted in response that it is neither fine nor normal to dislike children, especially given that children are the world’s most vulnerable group (that argument was repeated many, many times).

I personally like children quite a bit, even if I have spent most of my adult life actively trying not to have them. I do not always love parental decision making, such as playing any child’s device out loud in public, and I can very much understand why someone would not want to have children or even spend time around them. Kids: I think they are great, but they not for everybody! But I also think it’s generally unhelpful and petulant to complain about the simple presence of children either in public spaces or in places like airplanes where there’s really not a better option when you have to get from A to B. As for kids in bars, I will be honest, I think it depends on the bar and the kid. I generally don’t really care as long as I don’t have to listen to Miss Rachel out loud on the tablet, but I also don’t think it’s so entirely unreasonable for adults to desire some adults-only spaces. If your bar is child-free, that is fine, many people will enjoy that and others will decide it’s not for them. And if other adults are annoyed at children or go out of their way to avoid them, well, that’s ok too as long as they aren’t jerks about it.

Subscribe now

But as we go in for the one-thousandth round of “is it ok to dislike kids” or “should kids be in public spaces,” it seems worth pointing out that the surface discourse on loving or hating children actually has very little to do with the very real vulnerability children experience in the world — vulnerability that is innate, being that children are small humans who generally cannot fend for themselves, but also exaggerated by laws, customs, cultures, and acts of individual and social neglect that leave children far worse off than they should be.

In the US, it’s overwhelmingly the same people who style themselves as pro-child and pro-family who are the most politically hostile to the actual well-being of children. Conservatives have for decades emphasized their love of children and babies, while cutting funding for public education and children’s healthcare, doing nothing to stop the gun murders of children in schools, opposing paid leave for the people who birth and raise those children, stripping school lunches of any nutritional value, and sometimes putting deadly weapons in their own children’s hands and then taking family Christmas photos. These are not generally people who identify as “child-free.” They are overwhelmingly people who say they love kids. But they are people who are really, really bad for children.

On an individual level, it’s also generally not the “I don’t like to be around kids” people who are neglecting and abusing children — they’re just ignoring them, or perhaps complaining about them on the internet. Child abuse and neglect are nonpartisan behaviors, but it is notable that many conservative, religious parenting philosophies overtly promote and condone child abuse, including hitting your children to get them to submit. They often encourage and romanticize large families, pushing parents to have more children than they can actually care for financially and emotionally — a recipe for neglect. And many abusive parents have managed to cover up their crimes by pulling their children out of public school, a tactic the Republican Party has enabled by encouraging and then overwhelmingly refusing to regulate homeschooling (conservative states are also those where you generally still find corporal punishment in schools).

We also know that child abuse and neglect are tied to poverty and other stressors that American conservatives do very little to eliminate, and much to exacerbate.

Subscribe now

Most child-free people, as far as I can tell, do not hate children. Many adore children, they just don’t want to raise them; others don’t adore children and generally avoid them but don’t hate them either. And no doubt many people who really dislike children or are hostile to children in public spaces are also parents. But regardless of the reality, the childfree are generally the ones presumed to be hostile to children. So it’s interesting to look at the demographics of the child-free in America, where not having children is disproportionately common among highly-educated city-dwelling liberal women and gay men, and realize that the same people being tarred as child-haters are also the ones overwhelmingly voting and advocating for the policies which most benefit children and mothers. If that goes along with preferring a dog-friendly child-free local pub and allowing a look of annoyance to cross one’s face when one hears a screaming baby in a fancy restaurant, honestly, I’ll take it.

None of this is to say that “I dislike children” is a good way to move through the world. It can be incredibly socially septic for parents and mothers especially to feel as though their public presence with children is consistently met with hostility or resentment. And I do think this hits mothers harder than fathers, given all of the messages women get about being quiet and not inconveniencing other people, not to mention all of the messages about how insufferable and uncool mothers are. I have personally seen so many mothers I know twist themselves into pretzels to keep themselves in the world and socialize their children, but try to do it in some perfect and impossible way that annoys no one. Children are people in the world, and they are sometimes going to act like children, and that is not a parental failure. We’d all be a lot better off if we generally met each other with more grace and patience, and if we realized that living in a society alongside other people means living alongside other people’s foibles and annoying behaviors and inadequacies and developmental differences.

Subscribe now

But let’s also maintain a sense of proportion, and an understanding that what one says about children does not necessarily correlate with how one actually treats children — especially children as a group, not just your own personal adorable child. In fact, political and social identities premised on loving children have often been used to push incredibly damaging anti-child laws, policies, and norms. Insisting that childbearing is (or should be) a choice, and that people (women especially) are valuable for our humanity and not our reproductive capacity have been great victories for women and society, but also for children, who are today better treated, supported, and esteemed than at just about any other point in human history. It turns out that when having children is not required to be considered an adult of decent character and social standing, and when the social consensus moves toward an ideal of children being wanted rather than religiously, socially, or legally mandated, children wind up much better off. A whole society that hates kids is obviously not going to be a very good one. But some members of a diverse and free society concluding that they don’t want to have children, some because they legitimately do not like being around them? It turns out that by making parenthood less socially compulsory, those ostensible child-haters also made parenthood, and by extension childhood, better.

So be mad on the internet, it’s very satisfying. But reserve some of your ire for the people who are actually making children’s lives worse — and that’s overwhelmingly not the child-free, but the very vocally “pro-family.”

xx Jill

Share



Read the whole story
DGA51
1 day ago
reply
Check with WC Fields?
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Why So Many Shareholders of US Firms are Untaxed

1 Share

Over the last half-century or so, the share of corporate stock that is owned by investors with taxable mutual funds or brokerage accounts has fallen dramatically. Steven M. Rosenthal and Livia Mucciolo tell the story in “Who’s Left to Tax? Grappling With a Dwindling Shareholder Tax Base” (Tax Notes, April 1, 2024).

Here’s their figure showing a breakdown of who owns stock in US publicly traded corporations. Back in the 1980s, 80% of this ownership was in the form of taxable accounts. But the share of US corporate stock held by foreign investors and retirement accounts has risen substantially, and nonprofits own a chunk of US corporate stocks as well. So in the last two decades, only 20-30% of US corporate stock is in taxable accounts.

Rosenthal and Mucciolo offer some additional discussion of how these groups are taxed. For example, dividends paid by US firms are taxable, even when paid to foreign investors, but these payments are governed by international treaties. They explain: “However, the rate is often reduced by tax treaties between the United States and the home country of the foreign investor: from 30 percent to 15 percent on portfolio investment dividends, for example, and 5 percent or even 0 percent on dividends from direct investments.” Foreign investors do not pay capital gains on stocks to the US government–instead, such gains are taxable in their home country. If US firms use the increasingly common practice of distributing funds to their investors by repurchasing their shares, then such payments are treated as capital gains, not dividends.

For retirement accounts, the common practice is that the money is not taxed when it goes into the account, and the returns are not taxed as they occur over time. Instead, retirement money is taxed as income to the taxpayer when it is received after retirement. Nonprofit, of course, are not subject to income taxes.

With these patterns in mind, proposals for taxing owners of corporate stock as a group–not just the minority who hold their investments in taxable brokerage and mutual fund accounts–are going to run into complexities. Dramatic changes in retirement accounts or international tax treaties are not a simple matter, in politics or economics. Jacking up taxes on the 20-30% of shareholders who are taxable would created incentives to push their share even lower. One can make an argument that a reason for an explicit tax on corporate income is that it has become so difficult to tax the gains to shareholders of those firms.

The authors describe the challenges without trying to spell out policy recommendations. They note: “The transformation over the past 60 years in the nature of U.S. stock ownership from overwhelmingly domestic taxable accounts to overwhelmingly foreign and tax-exempt investors has many important policy implications, including how we can most effectively tax corporate profits; who is affected by changes in corporate taxation; and the form of corporate payouts to shareholders. Policymakers must continue the process, only now beginning, of grappling with the dwindling shareholder tax base.”

The post Why So Many Shareholders of US Firms are Untaxed first appeared on Conversable Economist.

Read the whole story
DGA51
3 days ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories