Re: space travel or war

On Mar 20, 3:55 pm, American <samuelran...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:57 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:> In a high-technology age with nuclear weapons and worse, what would
you have the state do to protect its people from possible attack?

It is the today the federal government that wants to capitalize on the
fears of its citizens by permitting the grandstanding of our supposed
"upper hand" that would propel the fastest growth in the defense
industry, while marginalizing the freedom that promise markets WOULD
HAVE offered, if it were not for the "dumbing down" effect that war
material serves to employ.

Obviously you assume here that the United States faces no challenges
that threaten its existence and hence has nothing to fear. What is
the factual basis of this claptrap? Clearly in the 1950s the United
States faced the distinct possibility of a successful nuclear Pearl
Harbor from which it could not recover. Plainly those who worried
about the security of the United States in the coming nuclear age took
steps to secure the United States against such threats. This involved
maintaining a constant war footing, as well as shifting the costs of
doing this to our allies. The methods used worked in the short term,
and had long-term costs which are now coming due and did nothing to
remove us from the need to maintain a war footing going forward and
live in eventual peace.

Our present approach to world affairs clearly signals our profound
belief that there will be a massive die off in human numbers, and our
present geopolitical and military posture can only be rationally
resolved as the intent of our current leadership to make sure that the
citizens of the United States inherit the Earth from those who die
during the die off. The Chinese realize this as do others - and they
are taking steps without directly challenging the United States, or
using proxies - i.e. terrorists - to carry out their policies against
the United States. This is an untenable situation and poses the most
significant risk to the United States in its history.

Even so, NONE of this suggests that the United States is working at
cross-purposes to its people, rather, the United States is working to
secure long term survival to its people at great cost to others.


Everyone accepted that the United States had to give up some liberties
in order to not only survive, but to prosper in this sort of
environment.

Right, which was just the nuisance that the military industrial
complex would have liked,

You assume those who work in the military do not take seriously their
commitment to the American people. This is so far off the mark that
it can be taken as an indicator of madness on your part.

because it would keep our military strong,

The United States is the last remaining superpower. This is due
primarily to the success of the post-war planning. So, I would say we
got what we paid for. The present war on terror, the present trade in
loose nukes, and the present intransigence of allies and others to
create a more peaceful world is a failure due in part to the success
of our cold war policies.

in the sense of there being a world based military police, which
became also in line with, and not inadvertently, the NWO. Yes, it is
the NWO that Americans are sacrificing our liberties to. Americans
have to decide where the "dumbing down" takes place in this conflict,
because, after all, this conflict is not the conflict that will end
ALL conflicts, but a much-less-than-world-encompassing one, where oil-
takes-all, and not the earth-paradise-goes-orbital.


You are making huge statements that proceed from a fundamental
misapprehension. The military, and technical leadership of the United
States operate on behalf of the American people. That you think
otherwise, is obvious. The question you have failed to ask yourself
is WHY you think otherwise? Obviously its not based on facts, but
rather, on your fears, which are at root, founded in madness.

To its credit the governmenet of the United States for the most part
avoided ideological excesses and advanced the cause of freedom and
liberty in the least restrictive environment possible for its
people.   To its discredit it has failed to adopt a fair and balanced
process approach to common mode failures or install a process to
promote social innovation and evolve fundamental social advance.
This was not for lack of trying or the courage of those in charge
however, this was due primarily to the difficulty of the problem.

The key words here are "to ITS credit". To WHO's CREDIT? To the
GOVERNMENT's CREDIT? Uh, and where did the "advance the cause of
freedom REALLY come from?

You are playing word games to avoid the simple fact that you are
suffering from paranoid delusions.

Was it not the individual's to begin with,

An individual does not have the right to shout FIRE in a crowded
theater if one knows that loss of life is the probable result.
Similarly, we cannot have certain rights in the nuclear age. The
right to own nuclear weapons for example, or nuclear materials, or
nuclear knowledge, or benefit from a truly efficient nuclear
industry. Before the development of nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them in minutes anywhere on Earth, sacrificing these rights
would have been unthinkable. After the development of nuclear weapons
- retaining them is equally unthinkable.

Furthermore, before the rise of nuclear weaponry, the idea of
tortuously interfering in the affairs of our citizens, or the affairs
of other nations, in order to avoid the development of nuclear
capability, would have been unthinkable and the grounds for revolution
or war. After the development of nuclear capabilities, such
interference is demanded of any nation who is serious about keeping
the peace.

You talk about rights in isolation of the true situation that faces us
because you believe those rights somehow protect you psychically from
abuse by and un-named 'them' - without realizing or appreciating the
many freedoms you do enjoy, and without realizing the many benefits
and riches you enjoy - despite the loss of certain liberties because
the threat of nuclear warfare changes everything.

or have you somehow lost track of where the "by the people, of the
people, and for the people" really came from? (Hint: Most of the
information in Lincoln's day, PRIOR to the civil war, was either

Lincoln didn't have to deal with nuclear warfare. We do. Lincoln
didn't have to deal with over-population, environmental degradation,
and resource depletion. We do.
If we were to avoid all interference in national and international
affairs to secure the peace, we would very likely not have survived
the cold war period, and would now be but a remnant of our current
population size, enjoying our rights in a radioactive wilderness with
a very bleak future. Again, you rant against 'them' about 'rights' in
total isolation from any realistic assessment of our current
situation.

delivered by horseback mail, or in the DUMBED DOWN SCENARIO, WAS SENT
BY TELEGRAPH).  Telegraph was mostly for lazy people that couldn't
plan ahead and put pen to paper because writing reminded them too much
of their third grade education. Sure, train departures and/or arrivals

You shift from blaming 'them' in government, to blaming the very
people you say were abused by them. Do you see a pattern? You are
number one blaming - not providing solutions, number two, blaming
others - not yourself. This is a second indicator of madness. What
you need to ask yourself is what YOU can do to improve YOIUR life.
Not in some abstract sense, but in a real sense. What would give you
a real sense of accomplishment? What would make you truly happy?
What concrete real thing would need to happen in your life to make you
feel that you had it all? FIGURE THAT OUT - and then DO IT! You
will be much happier, and you will contribute to society as well by
doing it. Blaming others for your unhappiness is a fools errand and
the pathway to madness.

were wired ahead, in order to inform passengers of waiting times, but
I'm sure that the novelty of waiting at the station will forever make
the potential customers wonder where all the time went while waiting -
Most of the escape-from-greedy-city Americans were just beginning to

Greedy? You have now passed from blaming to making highly specious
judgments. Such judgments serve only one purpose. TO REMIOVE YOU
FROM ANY IMAGINED BLAME. Another indicator fo madness.

witness the marginalization of the business cycle at the expense of
wealthy industrialists on the heels of the early middle class.

Nonsensical bull***. There are 9.5 million millionaires in the world
possessing over $38 trillion in liquid assets. More money in more
hands than at any time in the history of the world. All these people
have a common communication and business infrastructure, regardless of
their nationality, race, or social position. They have huge potential
to transfrorm the world quite outside the control of any government or
government agency or collection of agencies. They have more economic
rights, and large industrial firms have fewer industrial rights. The
collective wealth of all the major oil companies pale in comparison to
this asset base - $3 trilion vs $38 trillion - and even the debts of
the greatest nation on Earth - the US owes $9 trillion - pales in
comparison to this huge reserve of liquid capital against which all
markets respond.

This accumulation of capital, this accumulation of wealth, this
accumulation of economic might was made possible only because the
United States saw to it that such accumulations of wealth and liberty
would occur in the world. While major US industries have sought
special benefit by exercising their relationship to US national
security policies, many of the military industrial variety have been
caught in that orbit which has constrained their growth and
prospects. Others have achieved certain advantage, but such advantage
is only minor compared to the vast fortunes arrayed across the world,
and their ability to participate more broadly narrowed - incurring
huge opportunity costs.

So, the facts don't hold up to your flawed, and emotionally driven
analysis.

Your rant on the other hand is not even motivated by ideology, but
rather, personal mental imbalance - a hairs breadth removed from
paranoid schizophrenia.

Hardly.

No truly. The indicators are all there, as I have shown above.

The truth is, in wholistic time,

??? wholistic time ??? What the hell is that?? Making up *** and
thinking it means anything to anyone other than you is yet another
indicator of madness.

I'm a whole lot more
successful than you,

Turning this into a personal comparison of wealth is yet another
indicator of madness. We're talking about the success and failure of
the United States policies and their impact on world and US affairs in
the future. You are seeing every statement, every comment, as a
personal threat. Again, a strong indicator of paranoid madness.

but I don't care to reveal how that success

Of couirse you don't because who knows how such information might be
used to harm you personally. haha.. you are crazy man. even if you
don't like admitting it.


permeates from the supernatural into the natural.

riiight - thinking that you and no one else have a special
relationship to the devine - is yet another indicator of madness. On
the one hand, there are those who don't believe in that supernatural
bull*** - the world is fully explained by the nature of reality as
revealed in our laboratories and there's no room for the
supernatural. To those an appeal to the supernatural - especially in
the context of our current conversation - is a clear indicator of
madness. On the other hand, there are those who respect and honor
the existence of the transcendant in the world - and admit the
possibility of the supernatural. There are those who would be
comfortable with your assertion that all that appears in our physical
world first exists in some form at the level of spirit. Anyone
espousing such beliefs rationally would note that we ALL have equal
access to Spirit. That is, God doesn't play favorites. He loves us
all, if he exists to love any of us. So, even in a context where your
statement is true, you are marked off as an insane person trying to
protect his special relationship to God because it is only through
this special relationship that you can feel safe - because if God
loves me and everyone else equally if God doesn't play favorites,
well, you might be harmed by one of us - and you can't believe that
because you couldn't rest at night - why? BECAUSE YOU'RE A PARANOID
FRUITCAKE! lol.

You, on the other
hand, NEED the eyes of others to tell you the definition of what
success "is".

huh? You're the one who started out saying you were much more
successful than me in response to a dicussion about national policy.
lol. Idiot.

That, IMO, is not enough of a transferable skill set of
knowledge, skills, and abilities, that becomes destined to improve the
world in which we live. THAT is only what others in their ivory
towers, whether they be in government service, or in the educational
institutions, have given you in their definition of your supposed
"credit" to their system of government. I'm from the old school of
thought - the 2000 year old school called Christianity - so I've got
literally CENTURIES of faithful inheritance in the promises of YHWH on
my side. Who might be backing you up? Another group of humanists?

This makes no sense whatever. I realize that it seems to make sense
to you. But realize these are 'ideas of reference' that you have
created to assuage some deep seated fears that can be addressed in no
other way. Realize that everything you think you know about the
government and rights and all of that - is tainted by these ideas
which have at their core - madness.

That is, you promote political views neatly explaining your abject
lack of achievement in life by putting the blame on the the powers
that be and removing them from you.   Your personal explanations of
your failure or success is not the proper function of political
science however.

Let's make a correction here with your statement. The "powers that
be", IMO, have separated themselves from the world of what some
intelligent and faithful others in this lost world believe to be most
helpful to the right people at the right time, and this information is
only for those who are able to interpret the mystery of the Gospel
being fulfilled in the time-frame that it was intended to be fulfilled
in.


I know you believe all these things - but there is absolutely no
evidence to suggest that what you believe is true. The DOD and others
who are charged with the task of maintaining our national security in
the modern world know more about what's going on than you or me and
are doing all they can to maximize the prosperity, freedom and future
potential of the American people. Sometimes they fail. Sometimes
they make mistakes. But, for the most part they have gotten right.
The Soviets collapsed, the Chinese Japanese ad Germans are working for
us, and we get raw materials for the most part at very good prices.
These are short term gains, we are facing longer term losses unless
and until we can correct some of the common mode failures that have
been ignored.

The failure of humanity generally is however.  While these two
processes may be connected in some way, the material you provided is
clearly the result of a deranged mind seeking explanations for his
personal failures, and seeking comfort from others seeking similar
explanations for themeselves rather than doing the hard work of
building a wonderful life for yourself with whatever opportunities
life gives you.

I refuse to accept the world view of what you think is successful,

Why? 4% of the world's population controls 30% of the world's
resources. What other measure would you use and why?


but
I will tell you that the definition of "success" is by no means
universal, especially for those that seek comfort in the things of
this world that are advertised, marketed, and delivered to people,

Like most madmen you like to define things to support your weird view
of the world. Most everyone everyplace and every time would say that
the 4% that consume 30% of everything by managing the production and
distribution of 80% of all there is, are pretty much in charge.


with the expectation that they will somehow "escape" the especially
visceral environment of the marketplace, that gets perpetrated on
taxpayers

Taxes are a burden on a free economy. Reducing taxes and public
expenditure is a proper role of government that seeks to create the
least restrictive environment for a free and open society.

as a whole, when the Federal government writes their own
"blank check" (in Caesar's name), and at the same time is able to
provide a service to no one.

The US exported factories and farms overseas and turned the US into a
nation of shopkeeps - our allies into tinkers - and the larger world
into raw materials suppliers. The US did this for one reason - in the
19th century, for every dollar of product produced on the farm, 3 to 5
dollars was created in a tinker's shop. And for every dollar created
in a tinker's shop - 3 to 5 dollars was created in marketing
distribution and retail. The farming function was permanently
inferior to the manufacturing function, and the manufacturing function
was permanently inferior to the retail function.

The retail function creates real value. The commies never got that.
If you make baseballs and I make bats, me having two bats and you
having two baseballs doesn't really help us - since neither of us can
play ball. But by trading a ball for a bat, we both can now play
ball. This is worth a lot. The right products in the right hands at
the right time.

So, the US arranged the postwar world so that the US controlled the
retail function, our allies controlled manufacturing function, and the
third world farmed and mined products for our allies to make into
stuff we then sold to everyone.

This is what has caused the free-fall in the value of our currency
since Eisenhower. We buy stuff and pay for it with dollars that
cannot be redeemed for anything those who have the dollars want to
buy. We went from the world's largest exporter to the world's largest
importer in the 1960s. We went off the gold standard in the 1970s.
Currency deflation meant that low interest loans cannot be supported
since the value of the dollar is less when the loan is repaid than
when it was created, so savings and loans which had low interest rates
mandated by law, went out of business in the 1980s. This meant that
large capital improvement projuects could not be undertaken cheaply,
and caused the US to seek debts outside its borders on a massive scale
in the 1990s. We went from being the world's largest creditor nation
to the world's largest debtor nation. The economic weight the US
exerts on the economic community becomes more and more apparent to
those overseas, so we find it harder and harder to find allies, and
attract increasingly negative attention from extremists. Meanwhile,
those who challenge us directly for the use of the world's resources,
challenge us indirectly by supporting those extremists indirectly and
supporting disruptive elements within the United States. China for
example does nothing to control radical muslims on their borders,
provides automatic weapons and drugs to gangs, and builds upon the
training many gang members received in the US military. Should the US
-God forbid- suffer a nuclear terror attack, look for highly effective
military style gangs to emerge with strong emotional financial and
drug ties to China to emerge giving China defacto control of the
majority of our population.

What would you have the government do?   realistically?   Spouting
some unattainable ideal of liberty doesn't cut it.  Whining about
supposed privileges isn't a solution - its a sop to your emotional
state - nothing more.

Government SHOULD BE the guardian of free market enterprise,

it is

NOT the
limiter of revolutionary technology

Including nuclear weapons technology? Obviously it is the proper
role of government to control the spread of nuclear and missile
technologies, and to take whatever action is needed to avoid its use
directed against the United States. This explains ALL the statecraft,
intelligence craft, and technical craft by the DOD and associated
agencies since the 1950s. Nothing more than this is going on.


that, in their supposed police
state of affairs,

If this were a police state we would not be having this discussion and
9.5 million millionaires - half of them non-Americans - would not
control $38 trillion of liquid wealth. The free market is alive and
well and from these people will emerge the solutions we need in the
post-nuclear age - when nation states and warfare will have been
abandoned forever.

would "undercut" the very foundation of our energy
industry with another greedy, divisive, republican PAC oriented
"promise market".

More meaningless ideas of reference that are meaningful to you but to
no one else.

The Republicans, as well as the Democrats, are no
longer to be trusted.

Trusted with what? As a practical matter do these names have any
realistic impact on your life? no. They're just SYMBOLS of your
dissatistfaction with your life and are scapegoats that allow you to
avoid all blame in your own mind for your dissastisfaction with
life.

The problem is now the national debt,

The problem is that those who set up the current Grand Strategy didn't
take into account at the time because it wasn't clear - was the
ability of farming and manufacturing to control markets. While it is
true that the bar owner in a mining town makes far more money than the
average miner working in the town, the mining town must exist in the
first place for the barkeep to ply his trade. In the same way, Detoit
must exist for it to be the motor city. Shift manufacturing to Tokyo
or Stutgart, and marketing and branding will follow eventually. This
was not appreciated or thought to be too far removed in time to worry
the planners of the 1950s. We are facing this today. Nixon opened
relations with China to undercut the rise of Germany and Japan, but
within the next five to ten years, we'll see Beijing become the new
marketing centers.


expense of the Federal government,

Our inability to provide something of fundamental worth, our inability
to take advantage of changes in the retail function due to the rise of
the internet, and our inability to offer something worth the dollars
we print - is the problem. This is more than a problem of Federal
spending - its a structural problem that derives from our cold war
stance that we have to dig ourselves out from under.


that warrants their behavior to be
somewhat questionable,

The Federal government has done what it could to provide a permanent
disparity of income favorable to the United States so that it could
use market forces to spread the cost of its permanent war footing in
the nuclear age to our allies and suppliers. This has had an adverse
effect on our banking system, which is now spreading to our markets.
The Chinese gleefully accepted a subervient role to place themselves
at long term advantage and will likely exploit this advantage when it
best suits their interests, lacking the ability to challenge US
dominance successfully.

if not outright damnable.  

The Feds are motivated by the highest of purposes - avoid
thermonuclear war and build prosperity thorughout the world
commensurate with the first goal. They have done the best job they
could given where they started. We must look at how to change things
in order to build on this success and continue peace prosperity and
growth in the current situation.

The whole problem
is, why isn't Rome burning at the top, instead of the bottom? (It's
THEIR economy, afterall)

Idiotic question that means more to you than anyone reading it - fixed
ideas of reference again.

Wake up and smell the coffee guy.

You're the one that's sleeping here, not me.

You're the one who fantasizes about things that aren't happening and
ignoring reality! lol.

My commentary is directed at something else.  I accept the situation
post-war America found itself in.  I merely point out that management
of the Grand Arena - as Kennan called it - provided short term gains
and long term liabilities.  Those gains have been paid out, and the
liabilities are coming due.  What should we do now?

That's what should "WE", meaning the Federal government, who is the
great borrower of all time,

The American people are borrowing too. The Chinese own our mortgages,
this due to the collapse of the S&Ls in the 80s.

do now, not the non-Federal government.

The Feds owe about $9 trillion. The US people owe about $12
trillion. the 9.5 millionaires OWN $38 trillion in liquid assets.
Half of these are outside the United States. The market is alive and
well, the US dollar needs to be strenthened by rebuilding some of the
structural weaknesses it now suffers from and creating a path toward
universal growth - and playing the end game by eliminating nuclear
weapons as a means of national policy.

There happens to be only ONE college (that I know of) in the United
States that DOES NOT ACCEPT any Federal loan or grant money from its
prospective students.

So? Do you think that has anything to do with the collapse of Bear
Stearns? lol.

If that college were to accept grant money, then
the course material in that college WOULD BECOME SUBJECT to the STATE
ACCREDITATION BOARD.

What colleges have not taught what they wanted because of this? I
don't know of any instance where colleges have been denied teaching
what they wanted.

Since there are no students attending the school
that accept government grants, then the school is outside of the
jurisdicting body of the Federal government, and all intellectual
works are in the realm of public property. In the same regard, any
intellectual work, whether it be in the realm of engineering or
quantum physics, if it is created within Private Property, is able to
claim Sovereignity in the State in which it was created. There are
literally hundreds, if not thousands of these "idea factories"
percolating all over the area of the United States, and the U.S.
military has absolutely no jurisdiction over them. Like I said, the
problem is yours, not mine.

You are reading way too much into things. Look at the history of
Giant Magnetoresistance. The French and German researchers who
created this technology were far more restricted than any US
researcher - yet they became millionaires, the univerisities earned
tens of millions, and billions of dollars were created by the market
with new disk drive technology - this well before they received the
Nobel Prize. You are making a lot of bold assertions - that have no
basis in reality. Based rather on your paranoid fantasies about the
abuse of the power of contracts.

I do admt I spoke to some extent what America might have done, merely
to point out where we failed, and point out what we might do today to
set things aright.  I do not question the loyalty or veracity of those
it fell to to do the difficult job of charting our course through the
cold war.

Again you use the word "WE" in the expression "where WE FAILED".

Yes we did as a nation. We succeeded in our short term goals and have
yet to address the long term costs involved in attaining those
successes. The weakness of our currency, the negative attention of
terrorists, the lackluster response of other nations to our concerns
needs and threats.

Sorry
to say that your "WE" is not "US" if it was a completely different
establishment that was framing the intent of "WHO" the debtor was
supposed to be.

More paranoid bull*** based on ideas of reference.

Even so, had we maintained our manufacturing and farming base, and
addressed the wage disparity as technology advanced and permitted
that, rather than using wage disparity among those economic sectors to
structure the Grand Arena in the first place,

Again, "WE"

So? When the US stops manufacturing mining or growing things and
relies solely on marketing branding and so forth - unless there is a
global currency - we shouldn't be surprised that our currency grows
ever weaker as we have nothing to offer in return for the dollars that
we're printing to buy stuff. Its just that simple.

In the 1950s we exported US capital to build up our former enemies
into allies that built stuff for the US. This created a disparity of
income, and caused a decline in the value of the US dollar. We went
from exporter to importer in the 1960s. We then had to go off the
gold standard in the 1970s as the value of the currency deflated.
Inflation killed low interest loans and the S&Ls in the 1980s. In the
1990s we went from the greatest creditor to the greatest debtor as we
sought low interest loans. 2000s saw a huge increase in commodity
prices as we begin losing control of branding and marketing - and
attracted negative attention from extremists who view our position in
the world as a reason to attack us.

had we advanced into the interplanetary frontier and used our advanced
technology to gain special access to vast new regions of raw
materials, energy, and information -

Again, "WE"

So? Your fixation on this word points to your madness. Fact is, had
we maintained our productive capacity, expanded our resource base off
world, we would have maintained a disparity of income as well, one
soundly based on growth rather than transfer of wealth from overseas.
This would have attracted positive attention and paid huge dividends
geopolitically for the United States.

had we used this unique resource to maintain peace and prosperity in
the nuclear age,

Again, "WE"

So? Being a creative source of new wealth for others through
frontier development rather than shifting existing wealth from others
through manipulation of the retail function is more sustainable in the
long run, and avoids the sorts of situations we find ourselves in
economically, politically and militarily.

had we accepted and promoted the religious insights of our explorers
to organize the world politics and religion for a post-nuclear space
age, rather than sweep it under the rug and try to forget it -

Again, "WE"

So? Adopting and accepting new exciting and meaningful perspectives
from the frontier provides a powerful answer to antedated 11th century
dogma that is now organizing the thinking of those whose negative
attention we now have.

we would be in a far better position today as a nation, and as a
world.

Again, "WE"

So? You have yet to explain the importance of that word in a rational
way. I recognize that with your universe of fixed ideas of reference
it may seem obvious to you. You fail to recognize however your
madness. The choice of 'we' has no bearing whatever on the points I
am making. Again, developing resources in the frontier puts us in a
far different position geopolitically than shifting resources from
others through exploitation of the marketing function.

We didn't do these visionary things in part BECAUSE they were
visionary - expected the men and women of the 20th century to freely
embrace 21st century ideals and solutions does not require they be
evil or motivated by bad intent - they didn't do these things because
they were hard to see and understand in the context of the 20th
century.

Again, "WE"

So? Do you understand that you are typing the same two words over
and over and over again - and that they have no meaning to anyone but
you? You are typing them not because they mean anything particularly,
but rather, that by typing them - YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF - a
clear pointer to madness. Be honest with yourself, you see me use the
word WE and you type these words because you FEEL GOOD DOING IT.
haha... it means nothing. Likely my response So? irritates or
angers you. THAT ALSO is an indicator that illustrates you are quite
mad on this topic.

Please understand, all I am saying is that policy mistakes are
sometimes made not through lack of good will or lack of knowledge, but
merely because reality is more complex and variable than anyone can
predict. That's why it is important to assess issues and put in place
a method of reviewing decisions and developing better ones.

Yet today, we can see that the war on terror is easily and decisively
won - we first acknowledge as a nation that 4% of the world's
population cannot continually consume 30% or more of the world's
resources and commit ourselves to using our position to increasing the
availability of resources, and using our national capabilities to
maintain an environment of peace prosperity and growth for all. .

Again, "WE"

So? We - the United States - must adopt policies to develop new
resources for the world, develop new manufacturing for the world, and
do so in a way that maintains our position of strength and control -
in order to maintain peaceful prosperity into the future - while
building our economic strength. This is attained by the development
of solar energy, the development of global communications, the
development of telerobotics, the development of US based factories
that employ people from throughout the world, the development of off-
world resources, and ocean floor resources, and the development of
solar power satellites, the development of personal aerial ballistic
transports using propulsive skin technology - powered by space laser,
and the development of space factories mines and farms and ocean floor
factories and mines and farms

We also acknowledge that there are world's beyond our world, and
commit ourselves to developing the resources off-world and under our
oceans to meet our needs and the needs of everyone, and in this way,
maintain and increase our living standard while rapidly raising all
living standards of all using these new resources.

Again, "WE"

So? You are quite mad repeating these words over and over and over
again - thining they mean anything to anyone at all. You are only
typing them because you feel better doing so - no logical reason -
though you think there is logic behind your behavior - which again
illustrates your madness.

Finally, we point out that God made all of us, and the universe -
including the universe beyond Earth - and commit ourselves to honor
all things God made - by creating an environment that is least
restrictive to all men and women, and least destructive to the natural
environment wherever it is found, and provides the greatest
opportunity for all without denying anyone life liberty or the pursuit
of happiness.

Again, "WE"

So? You feel good typing this I realize, but you fail to realize you
avoid any challenge at all to the ideas of reference you are
protecting with this course of action.

Then we go about doing the practical things needed to make good on
these visionary statements.

Again, "WE"

So?

1) devleop low-cost terrestrial solar power to generate 3.34 billion
tons of hyrogen from 30 billion tons of water each year to replace the
28.3 billion barrels of oil, 5.5 billion tons of coal, and 1.1 billion
tons of natural gas we burn each year, avoiding the generation of 40
billion tons of carbon.   We become an exporter of hydrogen fuels

Not without YOUR government,

This is nonsense. The United States government is your government
too.

of course. However, I can see how the
thread has worked its way into the mindset that would seem to work

The mindset that believes United States citizens are represented by
the government of the United States is mundane. The mindset that
believes that United States citizens are not represented by the
government of the United States is mad.

best for those who would be interested in the infrastructure for a non-
polluting market of infinitely renewable resource of energy, which
would not only create a healthy job market, but release the U.S. from
its dependence on foreign oil, which IMO sounds quite promising.

Low cost solar power widely applied is beneficial.

2) develop a global wireless internet to provide 50 billion wireless
broadband channels throughout the world available at pricing all can
afford.  We become an exporter of information services

I am in agreement here.

3) develop high-end low-cost tele-robotic systems using these two
assets and build manufacturing centers in the United States, employing
low-wage labor throughout the world telerobotically.  We become an
exporter of jobs, while simultaneously exporting the products those
jobs make.

I hope that by "telerobotics" you don't mean the "skin of electrodes"
that I was referring to in the mining of precious metals on asteroids.
(They're not, IMO, "low wage" jobs). You are probably referring to the
construction of orbital facilities tele-robotically, if I'm reading it
right. - That would be quite a massive operation that would require
some real strategic maneuvering of pre-packaged orbital assemblies.

Building factories in the United States and hiring workers from around
the world to work there who would then be paid and buy stuff they make
- would re-establish the value of the US currency. Expanding this to
subocean and off world would be straightforward way to expand the
resource base from today's terrestrial limits.

4) develop low-cost very large reusable launch vehicles and launch a
network of solar power satellites that use free electron lasers to
beam energy to terrestrial solar panels (1) to expand their utility
and increase their value - increasing the amount of energy available
to humanity - rapidly increasing income levels (and exports from the
US based manufacturing - employing foreign labor telerobotically)

Is this supposed to work through cloud cover?

It doesn't have to.

What would the gear
ratios have to be for a group of laser(s)  that are set to focus on
such a small area as, say, a football field? (I'm guessing that the
pointers in this type of laser are accurate down to some fraction of a
second in a GPS type locating device, so it might also offer a "Star
Wars" type technology at the fraction of the cost.

Look up 'four wave mixing' its a holographic technique that uses
pilot laser beams from the 'targets' Those 'targets' cooperate with
the orbiting lasers to make sure they remain on 'target'.



5) develop pilotless, personal VTOL ballistic aircraft using
propulsive skin technology energized by space lasers - these aircraft
range in size from letter carriers to winnebagos.  They seamlessly and
easily transport products and people ballistically from point A to
point B at very low cost, with zero pollution anywhere on the Earth

Would this be along the design of a resonance pulsed ionic "skin"

no

drive designed by the infamous Tesla? (With the exception, of course,

no

that the power supply becomes external, rather than internal). Yeah,

no - imagine an inkjet print head that handles rocket fuel rather than
ink. imagine a rocket engine the size of a human hair follicle. now
imagine millions of them coordinated the way high def plasma screens
are coordinated to produce thrust effects - now imagine all of them
being powered by external laser beams.

They're quite simple rockets - just lots of them. Power to weight
thrust to weight is tremendous given the scaling laws involved.


you're real good on who would have to be "licensed" in order to assume
"control" over a market like this. Do you really think that your
"Moses", whoever that might be, would want to follow the lead of this
very impersonal "space machine" into orbit? I really don't think that
any future earth-to-orbit propulsion system will end up being THAT

missile and laser weapons are a legitimate concern.

Even so, you are not making any sense here.

To answer the legitimate question you may be asking, lasers in space
can be proven to have no weapons potential given the energy densities
involved, given the rayleigh criterion. ballistic transports -
controlled through a global wireless internet, using GPS signals - can
be proven to not be weapons as well - since their lift off times and
places and landing times and places are known before the mission
departs - and the controls can be proven to be in place during
manufacture of the device.

controlled, given the reverse-engineered FTL vehicles that are now in
existence (See A.51)

insane bull*** designed to marginalize reasonable advances.

6) develop low-cost manufactured housing powered from space,
communicating with space based assets,providing work at US factories
telerobotically, and receiving food and products and information
generated in America.

I'm impressed with the potential that this idea offers. It sounds like
an energy-programmed environment headquartered in orbit, and out-of-
reach of things like terrorists and hazardous environmental
conditions.

This provides the US continuing control while increasing living
standards. Controlling important resources of raw material
manufacturing and communication allows the US to safely conduct
affairs as its own 4% of the population manages the rising living
standards where we control only 4% of the world's wealth - that is we
can still have power - even while we strengthen our currency and make
everyone else richer.

China and India are growing at 9% to 10% per year. We are growing at
3% per year. That's a 6% to 7% difference. If the United States
became a SOURCE of this difference, rather than an opponent of this
difference - we'd gain a lot - and our currency would get stronger
along with a number of other things.

The United States has 0.3 billion people and consumes $18 trillion.
The world has 6.8 billion people and consumes $66 trillion. So
that's a difference of 6.5 billion and $48 trillion. $7,384 per
person worldwide versus $60,000 per person in the USA. In 36 years
this difference will disappear - if worldwide growth of 9% is
maintained while the US grows at 3% in real terms per year when
everyone is making on average $173,896 per year in real terms.

If the US provides the raw materials and manufacturing for this $1.41
quadrillion per year economy, we'll easily have substantial power in
the world by touching ALL of every product made, even while we command
only 4% of the world's economy.


With organizations like HAARP, sounds like we've got the
perfect opportunity to turn those barren desert wastelands of places
like Death Valley and Saudi Arabia into the lush gardens that we've
wanted them to be for so long.

I don't know what you're talking about. Why waste resources growing
food where it doesn't want to grow when you can grow food and fiber in
places where it likes to grow.

Perhaps by changing the climate in
these areas,

modifying climate can be dangerous and unstable and is untried. why
do it if there are simpler less costly less risky ways to achieve
improved outputs.

and providing the wireless infrastructure and space-based
energy grid to the most remote places on earth, we will have
discovered a newer version humanity living within ourselves.

you got it backwards. We'd be tapping resources off-world to improve
living conditions in the center. Its been happening since the
beginning.

7) use advanced solar laser space propulsion to capture rich asteroids
and bring them to Earth orbit.  Use telerobotic systems to build solar
powered telerobotic mines farms and factories to provide food, fiber,
clothes, housing, at very high standards for all the Earth.

Yes, I've been interested in this kind of science for quite a long
time now, and continue to wonder why there isn't a more open mindset
for those things that would help to stimulate a greater promise market
potential for keeping whatever precious metal resources that became
"discovered" as an investment opportunity. Orbital or extraterrestrial-
wise, in creating the next new gold rush, this new breed of "miner"
would make orbital technology look like the days of Tomorrowland have
come home to roost.

the miner or farmer makes $1
the factory worker, baker, food processor, works that $1 into $3 to $5
worth of product
the store owner buys $3 to $5 worth of product, takes it market at the
right time and right way and makes $9 to $25

The market is dominated by the store owner

Yet, the store owner has nothing to sell if he doesn't have good
relations with the factory owner or farmer or miner.

We have exploited this disparity in the market place to maintain our
position in the cold war - without war reparations or explicit taxes.
This has given us short term benefits and allowed us to achieve our
goals of maintaining world peace in the nuclear age, yet, we have
ignored longer term costs - which are now challenges facing us.

This is how we successfully manage the post-nuclear age for growth and
general prosperity.

I'm in almost total agreement, but take exception to the Federal
government getting involved,

nothing will be done without the Feds addressing the policies that are
creating the problems.

since they've got a bad enough reputation

only in your mind.

"forcing their agenda" with the energy markets worldwide, and thereby
inhibiting the populace at large, as if WE weren't smart enough to
think out solutions for ourselves, albeit Brown & Root and Halliburton
assume that they've already done it for us.

innovation in the energy sector is a complex issue. You are wrongly
assigning reasons that appeal to your madness, but have no basis in
fact.

There's a technological
crossroads here that needs to be explored. Either engineers start
designing transportational alternatives to the over-priced highway-and-
gasoline-powered-automobile syndrome, that somehow ALWAYS seem to
include earmarks that become attached to some important piece of
legislation, ending up in the glut of pork-barrel projects that have
become the lobbyist's bribe instead of the scientific citizen's most
intelligent representation.

it is not up to the government to pick solutions. it is up to the
government to establish conditions where innovation is possible. yet,
when it comes to nuclear energy and missile development, innovation is
prohibited due to legitimate third party effects (nuclear warfare) ..
yet the time is at hand we need to address these issues, and this is
what I propose. Blaming the federal government as if they were the
source of a problem - removes them from the solution - and their
involvement is a requirement. So, you are proposing a course of
action that is unworkable. Get rid of the need to blame others - and
look at the problem without the emotional filter you are used to.

The repercussions of these negative-law makers are accepted as "normal
business protocol" rather than criminal activity. This is the Mandarin
bureaucrat's "big tax pie" that gets stolen from the civilian, at the
expense of more "dumbed down" projects, instead of using the capital
for revolutionizing the technology that gets us to and from the
workplace. If personal transportation can't stop using ground-driven
vehicles by the next thirty years, humans will not only injure our
biosphere irreparably, but will waste away their potential as a space-
faring nation, and be unable to escape, given some global,
catastrophic event.


madness

American

.