Supersonic Man

November 1, 2018

the most charitable interpretation of fascism

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 10:22 am

Although in any right-wing nationalist movement you will find plenty of people who are virulent racists, sexists, xenophobes, and other deplorable types, I don’t think this kind of hate and evil explains the broad popularity that such movements often develop among ordinary people.  I don’t think they’re driven by hate as an end in itself.  Instead, they develop toward supporting hate because of more practical motives.

From what I see, the average working-class Joe who signs onto a nationalistic agenda does not hate immigrants and/or minorities, though he does resent immigrants or minorities.  The difference is that he’s not being hostile to them simply because of their ethnicity or origin, but because of what he perceives them to be doing once they come into his neighborhood or his nation — namely, acquiring wealth and resources, getting jobs, consuming goods, occupying space.  He resents them not for existing, but for getting something that he wants for himself.

The predominant scare stories told about immigrants and minorities are not about how they look different, speak oddly, or worship wrongly, but about how they get good jobs or receive benefits at taxpayer expense.  This is what upsets most anti-immigrant nationalists: not that newcomers to the country are odd and foreign, but that they are either getting governmental handouts or “taking our jobs”.  The resentment is based on a belief that if they have more, he will have less.

This is why fascism flourishes in tough times, when workers are doing poorly.  The fear that he will have less if someone else gets more seems to have already come true — he does have less, which means someone else must have gotten more.  If a faraway ruling class gets more, he feels there’s probably very little he can do about that, or that it’s only natural or inevitable… but if someone who is competing at his own level is getting more, well then, that’s a fight which he has a good chance to win.  It looks like an opportunity, whereas taking on the boss does not.

The aforementioned ruling class is very aware of this.  Like the old story says, a big boss, a blue collar worker, and a poor immigrant walk up to a plate of cookies.  There are one hundred cookies there.  The boss immediately takes ninety-eight of them, then he turns to the worker and says “Keep an eye on that immigrant — he wants to take your cookie.”

When workers had unions, they were a lot more confident that they could take on the real competition — the guys who actually were getting all the money they were not.  Without unions, there’s a much deeper sense of helplessness, so it’s only natural that many people will look downward rather than upward when seeking someone to take on in a fight for a better share.  And without unions, of course, semiskilled workers are a lot worse off financially than they used to be.  As a group, they are being systematically ground down toward poverty.  The worse things get, the less they are ready to act as a team and the more desperately some of them will turn on each other to try to grab a piece of what’s left.

The crooked narratives of fascism are never just about how those scapegoated people, whoever they happen to be in any given instance, are different or inferior.  They are about how those people, by living in your neighborhood, are taking something away from you — a job, a handout, a government service, or even just the seat you wanted to get when you go out for some entertainment.  The unstated presumption of fascist ideology is that the social and economic benefits of living in a society are a limited resource, and that getting the social support you deserve as a member of that society is a zero-sum game, in which gains for them are losses for you.  Therefore you should try to preserve as big a share as possible for your own friends and family and neighbors — the people who constitute your true community — rather than for people who are part of the same larger society but don’t quite feel like friends or neighbors yet.

Fascism is founded on convincing people that the benefits of being a member of society are scarce, to the point where there is not enough for everyone.  They can’t be shared freely, because there’s only enough for those with a strong social claim — the native majority — and the rest will have to do without, or everyone will be poor.  This claim of scarcity is believable during hard times when everyone is suffering, or during times when working people are impoverished by greed.  When scarcity is a concrete fact of life, it’s easy to believe that there isn’t enough to go around.

Hardcore racists and similar deplorables are only, as far as I can tell, somewhere between a tenth and a twentieth of the populace.  But willingness to believe in these narratives of scarcity can easily spread to a far larger portion of the citizenry.  If the deplorables want to indoctrinate people with racist hatred, they will piggyback their assertions that certain people are evil or inferior on top of these scare stories about scarcity.

In the end, the reason we are seeing a rise of enthusiasm for fascism is because we have allowed so much concentration of wealth.  It’s the reason a wannabe fascist like Trump is able to get votes, and it’s also the reason he was able to steal the party from the establishment Republicans, as their habit of transferring huge amounts of wealth from workers to owners had gone on for so long that the cover of lies they kept over it was wearing too thin to maintain.  Fresh new lies were needed, for the party to fool anyone.  Of course, by signing yet another tax cut for the rich, Trump ended up settling right back into the old lies, which means that his appeal to the working class is now tarnished.  We can only hope that this obvious sell-out helps diminish the appeal of fascism in general.

Advertisements

September 6, 2018

the last SLR holdout

Filed under: Hobbyism and Nerdry,Photo,technology,the future! — Supersonic Man @ 11:41 am

Mirrorless cameras are officially taking over; everybody wants the slim camera bodies and short lens registry distances that are made possible by electronic viewfinders.  Nikon has come out with a new Z mount and almost simultaneously, Canon has come out with a new RF mount (which looks to me like it will be a real “RF” of people who bought into their smaller and older EOS-M system, as it is not at all compatible, and it might not even be possible to make an adapter to mate them).  Meanwhile, in the medium-format world, Hasselblad also came out with a mirrorless camera sporting a new short-flange lens mount a while ago — I think they call it XCD — and Phase One put together a mirrorless bodge setup branded as Alpa, which must have something that counts as a lens mount.  This means that almost every camera company that didn’t already have a short mirrorless lens mount (Sony, Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, and formerly Samsung) has now added one to their product line.  As far as I can see, there is only one holdout which still offers only a long-flange lens mount and traditional SLR cameras: Pentax.  As it happens, I’ve got Pentax.

Does this mean that Pentax needs to do a me-too and come up with their own short mount, to keep up?  It does not.  There are lots of reasons why it might make perfect sense to offer a mirrorless camera without changing the mount.  They’ve already updated their existing mount so it can operate in a fully electronic fashion with no legacy mechanical linkages.  Lenses made for mirrorless use can still have their back end close to the sensor; they’ll just have the mounting flange further forward, with some of the glass hiding inside the body of the camera.  This will create a pancake-like appearance for lenses that are not actually thin.  Another possibility is that filters can be placed into the gap.  Or the protruding barrel can be a place to mount a control ring.  I think it’s a perfectly viable way to do mirrorless, though for some it won’t win aesthetic points.

(more…)

June 21, 2018

hydrogen economy? how about methane instead?

Filed under: Hobbyism and Nerdry,science!,technology,the future! — Supersonic Man @ 4:52 pm

Ever since the seventies, there’s been an idea floating around that someday, in order to replace fossil fuels, we’d start using hydrogen as our main chemical fuel.  We’d have hydrogen tanks instead of gasoline tanks, and hydrogen pipelines instead of natural gas pipes.  The hydrogen would be produced from water with either renewable or nuclear energy sources, and then whenever we needed a chemical fuel, we’d use hydrogen.  And wherever we needed a portable source of electric power, we’d use hydrogen fuel cells.  Our cars might be fuel cell powered, for instance.

Since then, fuel cell cars have advanced pretty well, and building a fleet of electric cars which get their power from hydrogen fuel cells looks fairly doable.  There are even some demo filling stations which allow you to fill up a fuel cell car with hydrogen, if you have one of the test vehicles.

So that part is doable, though nobody’s sure if there’ll be any need for it.  Cars might do just as well by simply using batteries, and plugging in to charge, as many people do today.  Making a new network for delivering hydrogen to cars might be an unnecessary expense.

But what about all the other things we use fossil fuel for, besides transportation?  What about heating our houses, and fueling our stoves and ovens?  Could we, for instance, substitute hydrogen for natural gas?

I think the answer is that we could, but maybe we shouldn’t, because there’s a better idea.  An approach which lets us keep using the natural gas infrastructure that we already have.  Switching to hydrogen would entail replacing most of it, because a pipe or a valve that safely contains natural gas can easily fail at containing hydrogen.  Since it is the lightest of all gases, one of its properties is that it can find its way through leaks which, to any ordinary gas, aren’t leaks at all.  Every piece of every pipe, and every valve in every appliance, would have to be either carefully tested, or replaced.  Also, the pipes would either have to be expanded for a larger volume, or operated at higher pressure.

We can avoid all that with one simple step: taking the hydrogen we produce and converting it into methane.  Natural gas is 95% methane, and if we make it artificially, it could be used as a direct replacement for gas.  And the way we’d do that is with a process called the Sabatier reaction.  In this process, hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide by means of a metallic catalyst.  The oxygen is stripped off of the carbon atoms and hydrogen takes its place.  The result is methane, plus leftover oxygen.

The best part is where we get the carbon dioxide: out of the atmosphere.  At first, we could take it directly from the smokestacks of industries which still burn fossil fuel.  (Steelmaking, for instance, might have a hard time using anything but coal.)  Later, as the scale increases, we could just separate it out of regular air.  This makes your home’s existing stove and furnace and water heater carbon neutral.  And even your car, because existing piston engines can be modified to run on methane, which might help ease the transition to the time when we all go electric.

With some further chemical processes we could probably convert the methane into longer chain hydrocarbons, producing oils and so on — substitutes for things like butane or kerosene or diesel or gear oil… or even gasoline for classic car enthusiasts.

Between battery cars and methane conversion, maybe there wouldn’t be all that big a market for straight pure hydrogen.  It would definitely have some uses, but I don’t think all that big a part of our energy supply would be used in hydrogen form.  We might, however, use hydrogen to store solar energy from midday for use at night.  Such hydrogen might be produced directly by vats of algae, then fed to stationary fuel cells as the sun sets.

If a big methane convertor works, we should of course encourage its use.  We’ll have tax credits for making carbon-neutral methane, and penalties for fossil fuels.  The rival approach of getting gas by fracking might even be banned outright, because of its harmful side effects.  This assumes, of course, that at some point we overcome the reactionary political forces who want to prop up the oil and coal industries, and would let all the profitable advances in renewables be done overseas.

One cool thing is that methane making machines are being developed right now, as part of the space program.  Not NASA’s space program, but SpaceX’s private program.  They’re building it for future Martian explorers and colonists, so they’ll be able to make their own rocket fuel for flights back to Earth.  Who knows, maybe at some point they’ll use the machine to fuel rockets here as well  so they can say they have carbon neutral satellite launchers.  Both of the major reusable rocket companies say methane is the fuel they want to use… and there’s no denying that a lot of older rockets are terrible polluters.

Of course, some other rockets will keep on using hydrogen, which when practical is still the cleanest option.

April 11, 2018

What do Nazis have in common with pickup artists?

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 12:11 am

When the Nazis came to Charlottesville, one thing I noticed in the news coverage was that some of them were using the jargon of the “red pill” movement — a jargon which originated in the world of pickup artists.  How did that happen?  I decided to look into the connections, and learn a bit more about the hidden history of these new reactionary movements.  I ended up learning more than I wanted to know about today’s young racists.  Here’s what I’ve managed to put together. Surprisingly, a key figure linking the two groups is professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos — not someone I ever thought would do anything consequential.

(more…)

August 25, 2017

ten percent of our brains

Filed under: Hobbyism and Nerdry,science!,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 9:40 am

If it were really true that we use only ten percent of our brains, then being granted the ability to use all one hundred percent wouldn’t really make a dramatic difference. It would be like comparing a desktop computer from 2017 with one from about 2005. Sure, the new one is better, but definitely not as much better as you’d hope it would be. They still both do basically the same things, and they’re both still probably hampered by running Windows.

I think there’s some metaphorical truth to the idea for a lot of people, though, because if they don’t get a good strong educational start, the majority of people don’t really have any chance of developing the intellectual side of their innate capabilities. I’m pretty convinced that most of the differences we see between people in “intelligence” have nothing to do with one person being born with a better brain than another. If you’re going to develop into a brainiac, you need to start very early and you need support for it, and most people around the world simply never get that opportunity. It’s only when drawing comparisons between people who have had those advantages, and are already part of a privileged minority, that you can even start looking at innate differences in talent.

August 20, 2017

“Everyone is a little bit racist.”

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 3:19 pm

You may have heard that quote. I am quoting it because I believe it’s true.  There is no dividing people into two groups, one racist and one not.  It’s a spectrum, and what matters is not what feelings or assumptions you start with, but what behavior you end with.  Let’s look at some sample points on this spectrum — some levels of racism:

Level 0: innocent.  This is where small children start out — unaware that race is a problem.  Maybe it’s possible to maintain this into adulthood in circumstances of major social isolation, but I don’t think I’ve ever personally seen an example of that.

Level 1: responsible.  We are all liable to sometimes forming snap judgments based on first impressions, and race is often a factor that plays into this.  But we can compensate for this by taking a moment for a second thought, to double-check our initial thoughtless reaction and make sure we’re being fair-minded.  This may not sound very impressive, but for most adults, this is about the best you can expect.  People in this category may be “allies” of minorities, or not.  Some may have come a long way in overcoming bad ideas from their upbringing, while others have had no need to.

Level 2: in denial.  This is probably where the majority of people fit, on most days.  This is where you land if you react to prejudicial snap judgments by rationalizing them instead of reconsidering.  Frequently accompanied by the idea that racism is largely historical, or confined to a few extremists — that it’s a distant external problem.  Racism at this level isn’t going to burn crosses, but it can produce frequent calls to the police about “suspicious” characters, or some extra strictness from the police themselves.  This mild racism can be enough to make a big difference in how difficult it is for some people to land a job or rent a place to live.  So even though the acts committed by any one individual seem minor and excusable, they can add up to a large negative impact on the lives of minority citizens.

Level 3: asshole.  This level is for people who sometimes show active racist behaviors, such as taunts and trolling and harrassment with racial epithets.  Generally these are people who are habitually unpleasant or obnoxious in other ways as well, or who have long lists of people whose lives they disapprove of.  Most often, such people are still in vigorous denial about racism, despite having numerous examples readily visible in the mirror.

Level 4: deplorable.  Finally, we come to those who have adopted racism as a guiding philosophy, and who actively evangelize it as an ideology: the Nazis, Klansmen, Neo-Confederates, and other racial separatists.  Many are fanatical True Believers, and as such, are capable of horrific violence for their cause.

Again, the point is not that people are divided into groups, who fit one label or another.  Any one person can and does slide up and down this scale, plus or minus a space over the course of a day, or larger shifts over months or years as they are exposed to different ideas.

And note that one’s position on this scale may have very little to do with the intensity or severity of their prejudices, particularly in the middle part of the scale.  Some can have major race-based fears and handle them well, and others might have minor ones but handle them badly.

The most important factor for affecting how a person moves forward or backward in their behavior is probably the social expectations of the people around them.

But don’t take this to mean that the way to make someone act better is by lecturing them.  If you really want to bring someone to see another point of view, it’s important to listen to them more than you talk to them, and let them express the feelings or anxieties or bad experiences they may be carrying on the subject.  And when you do speak, you want to be offering them an option, rather than making a demand.

Because when social pressure comes in a hostile form, it’ll probably have the opposite of the desired effect.  If you do listen to people at level 2 or 3 talk about race, one thing that often comes up is how much they dislike and resent hearing the word “racism” brought up as a belligerent finger-pointing accusation.

I don’t personally know who’s doing this kind of accusing, but some of my friends see it happen, and they affirm that yeah, it ain’t helping.  Maybe that behavior arises from having one foot in the responsible level and the other in the denial level, so you want to project and externalize the problem.  That’s just my guess, I can’t say.

As for the level 4 deplorables, I don’t think there’s much point in listening to them or engaging with them.  They’ve created a fantasy world where they believe each other’s made-up stories, so that’s all you’re likely to hear from them.  They’ve embraced evil, and there aren’t really very many of them, so socially, we can just write them off.  If you’re trying to bring back someone important to you, I wish you the best, but for the rest of them, I think the best form of communication would probably be for them to be hit in the face by Captain America’s shield.

May 18, 2017

is bribery addictive?

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 7:06 pm

When I see politicians getting caught taking bribes, I have often been struck by how much they were willing to sell out for how little cash, and by how determined they seemed to stick by their bribers even when it was hopeless to defend them. And I’m beginning to think that for some politicians, taking bribes is about more than just the value of the money.

Consider the Keating Five scandal. Thirty years ago last month, Charles H. Keating, Jr. of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was insolvent and under investigation as part of the savings and loan crisis then occurring, bribed a bunch of senators from western states. He gave a total of $1.3 million in campaign contributions to Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ — yep, the maverick himself), and Donald Riegle (D-MI). In return, they called off regulators for a while, which allowed his S&L to crash far more severely than it would have with earlier intervention, costing taxpayers $3 billion.

We could make some interesting speculations about the psychology of someone like Keating himself, whose attempts to pretend his bank was OK bought him nothing but a five year prison sentence, but I want to concentrate on the other end — the bribees. They reacted in some quite different ways.

It’s important to note that the bribes were not an immediate offer, like “Promise to do what I want and I’ll sign this check.” None of them were overtly selling their vote to the highest bidder like a Rod Blagojevich. Rather, they were spread out over several years. Keating had been making large campaign contributions to these and other politicians for some time, and also cultivating some of them as personal friends, particularly DeConcini and McCain, since he lived in Arizona. He would offer them his jet to fly their families to the Caribbean with, and things like that. And after a while, some of them started to think of Charlie Keating as a really great guy.

The key moment was when the five senators arranged a meeting with four bank regulators. Keating apparently intended the meeting as a show of force, to let the regulators know they were outgunned. But those boys were made of the right stuff, and did not back down when faced with five senators asking them to leave Charlie alone. The case the senators were making was about deregulation: they decried what a shame it was that a prosperous business could be ruined by overly strict rules and oversight. In response, the regulators told them that they were not going after Keating to manage his business for him, but to stick him with criminal charges as a predatory scumbag crook.

It was at this point that John McCain realized he’d made a mistake. He’d already felt dubious about the meeting, and when he heard this, he was chastened. He apparently decided then and there that he and Charlie Keating were through, and mostly kept his mouth shut for the rest of the meeting. The incident eventually inspired him to push the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. In short, he responded rationally, choosing a more correct course of action on the basis of new information.

But Alan Cranston reacted quite differently. He ended up getting the strongest censure of any of the senators because he kept right on trying to defend Lincoln S&L until it went bust in ’89. He continued to make public displays of personal friendship toward Keating. Regulators continued to attest that members of Congress such as him were obstructing and hampering their work. Then, when finally being grilled about it by the senate, Cranston accused them all of being just as guilty of such practices as he was, which didn’t win him any popularity points. The mess would certainly have cost him re-election if he hadn’t already announced his retirement.

Why was Cranston so persistent in defending Keating, after he was informed that the man was crooked? It was not a rational action. One cannot logically expect a slipshod and corrupt bank to keep making further bribe payments year after year. Such a business model is not sustainable, at least not once criminal investigation is seriously under way, so if he’d given it one minute’s thought, he can’t have reasonably expected that the big payments would keep coming.

Sometimes people go into denial about their past habits of behavior being no longer viable. They refuse to admit that they could have made a mistake, and therefore insist that what they did before must still be correct. And sometimes people get caught up into a sunk cost fallacy, and believe that if they’ve put a bunch of effort into something which is not working, they need to see it through until it’s resolved, rather than write off the effort as wasted. Some people tell themselves that everyone is doing exactly what they are doing, and perhaps can’t imagine trying to choose another path, because then they would (they suppose) be alone and isolated. All of these psychological factors may play a part in why someone who’s taken bribes will sometimes keep trying to continue their corrupt behavior even after it can no longer do them any good. But I think for some people, there may be a much simpler explanation.

Charlie Keating knew that the way to get influence was not just to pay money, but to make powerful friends. He patted their backs, blew smoke up their asses, did them favors, and gifted them with luxuries. And of course, he helped them get re-elected. That was the purpose of the bribe money: it was paid to their campaign organizations, to help them stay in office after the next vote. He made them feel like he really cared about them and really wanted to help them. He validated their beliefs that America needed their leadership.

I think for some politicians, receiving a bribe has more meaning than just getting free money. It feels like friendship, even when not accompanied by back-slapping and smoke-blowing. It’s like getting ten “likes” on your social media post — it makes you feel appreciated and listened to. It lets you know that in a world full of criticism for everything you do, somebody’s on your side and supporting your beliefs.

When a politician starts out, he has regular friends. But if they ever ask anything of him legislatively, he often has to disappoint them. Things may grow more distant. I think it must be pretty easy for a politician, on a semi-conscious level, to start feeling like his true friends are the new crowd rather than the old — the people who support him, rather than asking him to support them. It must be easy to start feeling like “Now I know who my real friends are.”

I think it may be quite often that politicians end up standing by those who bribed them because they are misapplying the virtue of remaining loyal to their friends. They fail to separate the quid-pro-quo relationship from true friendship, and may even become genuinely willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of another, because of that sense of loyalty.

Put all this together, and those who take bribes can, I suspect, become addicted to the experience of being paid for their influence, even when they don’t need the money. It feeds the parts of their brains that crave true friendship, even while cutting them off from the genuine experience.

Even when bribery is not exposed as such, I think this helps explain why many politicians will, when confronted with an ugly public controversy, double down on supporting the wealthy and powerful interests who are being protested. Sure, there may be gross abuses occurring, such as violent attacks on peacefully assembled environmental protesters, but the people who are building the oil pipeline or paper plant or nuclear reactor are their friends, dang it, and those smelly hippies are not. So even when the controversy reaches the point where the way to win the next election is to change sides, and the lies supporting the project have been thoroughly exposed (the Keystone XL would supposedly create 28,000 jobs, for instance), they would rather go down fighting for a crooked policy than betray those friendships.

And now to apply the theory. I think this may be why Donald John Trump so adamantly refuses to back away from Vladimir Putin. Clearly, if a rational person were in Trump’s position right now, or eight months ago for that matter, the logical course of action would be to distance himself from Putin and pretend to be very independent and skeptical of him. But Trump won’t do that, no matter how bad it looks to be seen publicly kissing Russian ass after what a stink has been raised over it.

Donald Trump probably has no true friends, and may never have had one. His personal philosophy, which he received from his dad, allows no room for genuine trust, and if he has never showed a sign of genuine caring for other human beings, it hasn’t been in public. I don’t know if you could call him a sociopath, but he is certainly a major narcissist, who views other people in terms of what he can get out of them for himself. So his definition of friendship is based on a simple criterion: if you help him and give him things and support his ego, you’re a friend, and if you thwart him or insult him, you’re an enemy. And based on this separation, he follows one simple rule: friends are to be buttered up and catered to and indulged, but enemies are to be viciously attacked, to make them regret crossing your path.

Though not a man known for any capacity to form intimate connections, many have spoken of how solicitous Trump is when relating one on one to someone he wants to be friendly toward. He’s attentive, he’s generous, he makes himself pleasant, he makes sure you get to enjoy the best of whatever is available where you are. In conversation, he may drift into bragging about himself, but he at least makes an effort at pretending to be interested in what you’re saying.

(This may help explain Trump’s success as a ladies’ man. In his youth he had quite a reputation for dating women who seemed to be out of his league. Part of it was that he didn’t care if he was shot down twenty times before finding one who’d say yes, but another part must be this habit of scrupulous attention to the other person’s wants. If he doesn’t know what it is to care about another person, he has worked out a pretty good system for faking it.)

Such an attitude is tailor-made for someone who both gives and accepts bribes, of course. He has even boasted of it, at least in cases where he’s the payer and not the recipient.

Trump, as far as I can tell, sees everything in terms of friends vs. enemies. Despite, or perhaps because of, the hollowness of his experience of what friendship should be, he allows the judgment of friend vs enemy to dominate all his decisions. If a friend does something awful or unpopular, he stands by that friend, and if an enemy does something admirable, he cuts them down for it. According to anonymous rumors, Trump was taken completely by surprise at the outrage which followed his firing of James Comey from the FBI. His logic was simple: Comey is not my friend because he refuses to tamp down the Russia investigation for me, and therefore he is also not the friend of my fellow Republicans. But he is also not the friend of Democrats, because of the way he undercut Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Therefore, since he is nobody’s friend, nobody will miss him or stand up for him. It apparently never occurred to him that people would be aghast at the firing for reasons having nothing to do with whose ass Comey did or did not kiss.

So, are the Russians his friends? Yes. In 2014 Eric Trump was talking to a golf reporter, and said “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” (He now denies saying it.) And Don Jr. said in 2008 Russian money was “pouring in” and constituting “a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets”. The Wall Street Journal recently revealed one such deal: a Trump Tower in Toronto which was financially bailed out by the Russian bank VEB, which has been described as “essentially controlled by Putin”. When a lawsuit embroiled the Trump Soho project, it came out in court that much of the funding was from Russia by way of an intermediary in Iceland. American banks haven’t been willing to lend to Trump for a long time, and Deutsche Bank, the last European holdout to treat him as an acceptable loan risk, wasn’t doing enough, so it makes sense that he would turn sharply toward Russia once the opportunity arose. (And even Deutsche Bank is now being implicated as a go-between for Putin, and accused of laundering money for Russian gangsters.) Trump and his family have now been traveling regularly to Russia for decades.

So the Russians have not just been friendly to the Trumps, they have been great friends indeed. The Trump financial empire might well have collapsed years ago if it weren’t for Putin’s cronies propping it up.

There are those who believe that the Russians have “kompromat” on Trump, and can blackmail him or threaten him with ruin, and this is why Trump is so steadfast toward them. I am not persuaded by this theory… I don’t see Trump being afraid of such a thing, or see him getting where he is now from a position of being intimidated or cowed. I don’t think he’s even scared of the idea of their banks cutting him off: he is now forging new business “friendships” every day all over the world, using the Presidency as an incentive for all sorts of wealthy interests to do him financial favors.

I think it really is just as simple as Trump viewing the Russians has his friends. He has lived by a code of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” all his life, and he can hardly change his habits now. After all, he’s seventy years old, and his brain may not be as sharp as it used to be. I doubt he can imagine any other way to go through life. What he’s done so far has brought him everything he ever wanted, so it would be impossible to believe it’s the wrong approach. I think he would view turning his back on the Russians as being untrue to himself. There’s a good chance he won’t ever be willing to do it, even if it costs him the Presidency.

After all, he doesn’t enjoy the job anyway.

May 10, 2017

no Apollo

Filed under: Hobbyism and Nerdry,technology,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 9:21 am

If NASA had not been hurried into building the Apollo mission by the “space race” against the USSR, how might we have arrived at the Moon? Space development might have proceeded a good deal more slowly and less expensively, building on the X-15 rocket plane experiments. I think that program would eventually have arrived at something fairly close to the Space Shuttle. If you solve all the problems of the X-15 one by one to make it orbit-worthy, it would have had to be much larger and blunter, because any adequate heat shield is going to be around four inches thick, and that doesn’t scale down for something skinny or pointy. That sounds a lot like the shuttle to me.

So let’s say we were trying to send a mission to the moon using space shuttles. The shuttle itself can’t go there even in you fill the cargo bay with fuel, and that would be wasteful anyway, as you don’t need most of its bulk. So I think the bits that actually go to the moon would be much as they historically were in Apollo: a lunar module, command module, and service module. Why not just stick those into a shuttle bay?

The shuttle’s cargo bay is 60 feet long and 15 feet across, though for a cylindrical cargo the cross section needs to be a bit smaller, as the space isn’t fully round. The mass limit for a flight to low orbit is a hair over 30 English tons, or 27.5 metric tons. (I don’t think any real flight ever exceeded 83% of that capacity.) What can we work out based on these limits?

You can’t fit all three modules into one shuttle-load, but they’ll go in two loads, if you make the lander a bit less broad and gangly. One would be the command module and lunar module, and the service module would be the other. And we might have to trim a bit of weight from the service module, like maybe take out the heavy batteries and put them in the other load. This means the service module would have to be mounted to the command module by shuttle astronauts in space suits, which would be inconvenient, but doable. Alternately, you might cram the three modules into one flight all preassembled, if their fuel were in another. This would mean at least six operations of astronauts pumping dangerous fluids into various tanks spread throughout the modules. It might also mean assembling the lander’s legs from some inconveniently compact from.

Now you need a rocket to send the set toward the moon — one rather like the S-IVB third stage of Apollo, which used the majority of its fuel to lift the three modules out of low orbit and fling them toward the moon. This rocket was a bit too large to fit into a shuttle bay, but we can reduce its size by at least 25%. Its weight is no problem, if it’s empty. But the fuel would take three additional shuttle loads. Historically this rocket weighed 10 metric tons empty, and pushed a 45 ton payload. The required delta-V is 3.1 km/s. It burned around 75 tons of hydrogen and oxygen to accomplish this. It used about 30 tons more to finish lifting Apollo into low orbit around Earth during launch, which would not be needed in this case.

So the mission would require six shuttle launches, starting with one to put up the booster with maybe the first splash of fuel in it, and three more to fill it up. Then the service module would be brought up, and attached to the booster. The command and lunar modules would come up last, along with the astronauts who will ride in them. That last shuttle could stay in orbit for a couple of weeks to await their return.

It might be better to bring the fuel up in the tanks that will be used instead of needing to pump it from one tank to another, so maybe the booster would just be a framework that fuel tanks would be bolted into. Such a framework might be folded smaller for transport. This would require additional assembly in space, possibly employing double digit numbers of shuttle astronauts over several flights.  But if everything were prepared well on the ground, the task should not be difficult or dangerous. And if the orbits were well planned, the booster stage could be recovered into Earth orbit, and either refueled for another mission, or if necessary flown back down for refurbishment. As SpaceX has demonstrated with their Falcon landings, once a booster is detached from its payload and has mostly empty tanks, a small amount of remaining fuel can accomplish quite a lot of maneuvering, so I don’t think it’s implausible that its engine could return it to low orbit with the last of its fuel, especially if it discards some dead weight such as empty tanks.

The command module might not need to splash down into the ocean. But it might still need a heat shield, just to brake in Earth’s atmosphere enough to slow down into an Earth orbit, so a shuttle can pick it up. Or, this somewhat risky air-braking might be avoidable by making the service module larger and giving it more fuel. (Perhaps it also could use bolt-in tanks. Add at least one more fuel-hauling flight to the schedule in this case.) An ocean splashdown might be the emergency backup option if the rendezvous fails.

I’m sure this sounds a lot more awkward and inconvenient than the Apollo’s comparatively simple process of just launching one big rocket, but it would have been vastly less expensive. Most of the parts would be reusable instead of disposable. The only part that absolutely could not be reused is the bottom stage of the lunar module. Apollo cost us at least $20 billion per landing, in today’s money; this would cost perhaps a quarter of that — and I’m sure if we made this a continuing operation, we would have found ways to lower the costs further. Instead of just six trips to the moon, we might have continued doing dozens. We might never have stopped.

However, I do worry that this process might have exposed astronauts to greater risks. Lots of opportunities for something to go wrong up in orbit, and lots more shuttle flights. As we have seen, those shuttles were not the safest things to fly in.

March 1, 2017

faith

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 10:56 am

If what God actually wanted from us was to be worshipped, believed in, and obeyed in one particular way, think how easy it would be for Him to inform everyone on Earth of what He wanted.

Even if He only spoke to a few prophets, why not just have a bunch of them say the same thing at the same time in different languages?

Instead, what we’ve got now is a God who apparently expects to be believed in on a basis of occasional hearsay and conflicting testimony… which means that to arrive at correct faith depends on the exact same faculties that other people use to arrive at a wrong belief in a false deity.

December 19, 2016

red country vs blue city

Filed under: Rantation and Politicizing,thoughtful handwaving — Supersonic Man @ 10:11 am

Anyone who’s studied election maps has seen that when you look at which areas voted conservative and which voted liberal, it isn’t a matter of “red states” vs “blue states”, it’s a matter of urban areas vs rural areas.  The cities in red states are blue, and the countryside in blue states is red.  The balance of the state as a whole largely comes down to how urbanized it is (though the racial composition of rural areas can also be a factor).

countymappurple512

So what is it about city and country that correlates with liberal and conservative views?  I think there is one factor which explains most of the difference.  It comes down to investment.

(more…)

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.